GBurns

jpod Are you saying that the payment of retiree health insurance is excludible under 106 ?

Aside from the controlled group and ASG issues, I wonder how you will transfer/rollover/distribute the accounts. The LLC is not acquiring ABC Company so it is not a successor plan. The employees apparently will be doing the same work at the same place and supervised by the same people. The only thing different is the name of the entity. Doesn't "same desk" apply ? Is there really temination of employment ? What is the distribution or other triggering event ?

As far as I know, section 106 addresses only "employee" and does not include "former employees" like section 125 does.

I have not looked at 101(k) but I would want to see: Management and Trustee make up and tenure. Investment policy and performance. Assets and history. Participation statistics. Other employer's info.

He is not the non-profit. He is not the employer. He is not the plan sponsor. He is not the plan. He, the individual has nothing to do, per se, with what might be required of the plan, the employer, the plan sponsor or any service provider. I doubt that it matters for most things whether it is for one man or ten.

As I read the rules, substantiation/claims adjudication must take place BEFORE reimbursement. Relying on the service provider's signature and acceptance of the payment terms in the manner proposed does not seem to meet that requirement. It also leaves too much room for misuse and abuse.

Considering the housing values climate, an appraisal and capital gains considerations could be futile. What purpose would they serve if or when the value of the house with addition of the hot tub soon falls to a lower value during the same tax year ? House value 1/01/2009 $300,000 Mortgage 260,000 Hot tub 10,000 House value 6/01/2009 $260,000

Why do you not regard Form 990 as being a tax return ?

jkolsen You seem to have too much emotion involved to be able to understand the responses. Step back and take a deep breath. Illegal alien status is irrelevant. That you think the person should be deported is irrelevant. When telling us what a Plan Document states, it is usually best to cite the actual wording used rather than use your interpretation or paraphrasing. As other posters have tried to point out, it is very unlikely that your plan mentions illegal aliens. Your definition of "illegal aliens" is irrelevant. As also pointed out, if the Plan has the wording that you say that it has, your plan has bigger problems that should be of greater concern than this "illegal alien". Focusing on this alleged "illegal alien" to the possible detrement of the entire plan does not seem rational. Neither you nor the Plan are the determiners of what constitutes an "illegal alien". The Plan is concerned about eligible participants.

But what happens " if he/she accepts the buy-out but selects the lesser valued benefit option. Thoughts? " ?

Maybe they are using a different definition of "Partner" ? A partner in a partnership gets a K-1 not a W-2. "Draws" could also mean advances. Draws or advances against what ?

Shouldn''t this info have been obtained during the asset search ? If not, what about just asking the participant ? I would think that telling you would be easier than responding to a request from your lawyer via a sub poena, depositon or otherwise.

I did not see any provision for mortgage repayment in your numbers. That should reduce your $4,065 profit per year.

I have learned, over many years, to be very sceptical regarding what people advise when they have a vested interest or gain in the outcome. What this group proposes to do might be being done in the manner that expedites or facilitates their sale, and not in the best interests of the client. I suggest using competent legal advice to evaluate all aspects of their proposal. I also suggest that you make contact with a few of the companies (not their clients) who have implemented such programs and solicit their advice etc.

Didn't Microsoft, FedEx and such others fail in attempting to exclude allegedly leased employees and consultants ? Most Sales Consultants should fail the test for being ICs. Weren't there other employers who also failed in trying to exclude employees who "signed away"' rights to employee benefits ? I do not recall the cases but it seems familiar.

Since "You would have to do whatever might be necessary to pass minimum coverage, correct.", How would "The language about excluding them " protect an employer when they do come knocking ?

I have no idea how to fix it but that seems to be only part of the problem. Since this "is a client who will need things airtight and in writing (and in excruciating detail)", I would think that the biggest problem is showing her that some thing is wrong. How can you fix without first establishing exactly what was wrong and getting her to understand and accept ? My first actions would be to get her to explain "airtight and in writing (and in excruciating detail)" why she did what she did. If she thinks there was nothing wrong, I do not see her accepting that correction is needed. And where would that leave you ?

Maybe I am missing something. A "premium only plan document" relates to a section 125 cafeteria plan, What does a cafeteria plan have to do with the situation in the OP ? As I read the OP the employer simply wants to pay the COBRA premium for the employee in the samme way that the employer pays the other health insurance premiums for the other employees and wondering if the premium payments qualify for income exclusion under 106. The only difference is the insurance carrier. I also see no mention in the OP of the employer reimbursing the employee. BetweenTheHedge, Did I misunderstand your scenario ?

The SPD is distributed in lieu of a copy of the entire Plan Document. The newsletter cannot and should not be part of, related to or an explanation of the SPD. J Simmons and GMK give good rationale.

Your option (ii) includes a lump sum, albeit "smaller lump sum" so there is entitlement to a payment under both options.

MSN What is it that makes OFAC screening a concern when dealing with a 401(k) rollover ? I assume that the rollover is from a known or easily verified entity to a previously known entity with whom you have an existing relationship.

I did not think that there would be a school that did not differentiate day care, pre K and K from the other grades at which actual subject teaching is taught. So I guess that the best thing to do would be to corelate with the age/grade system in use by the public school system.

I think you might have confused "letter of the law" with "spirit of the law ". A dangerous thing to do. While it is possible to be creative in complying with IRS compliance requirements, in my experience, it seems to usually fail. It seems that most of the proponents of such creativity do not have much experience in being audited. Yes, IRS agents are people too, but in doing their jobs, they are, first and foremost, IRS agents.

The difference that I see, between the OP and the DBS1 scenario is that in DBS1 is that " the participant asked us to withdraw the overpayment ", whereas in the OP, it is between the plan administrator and the IRA institution.

Unless the successive succesor plans all never ever sent out any sort of notice or communication in the over 20 years since Continental Can, I do not see how the OP does not know who is now responsible. As a result I have the questions. If I assume that the successor plans had no reason to send out any sort of communication to this QDRO beneficiary, I would then have to wonder why there was no monitoring of plan participation,, retirement date etc. which would have kept the OP up to date and informed over the years. I would have thought that it would be in a beneficiary's best interest to keep in touch with the plan since you could say that it is their money. If I were a QDRO beneficiary I would certainly want to know retirement eligibility, retirement date, expected benefit, how payments will be made by whom etc. Since the OP has apparently not kept in touch or up to date, I think that it is quite logical to wonder what the OP really knows.