GBurns

Then What is the position in 57-419 that is being restated in 81-114? Is 57-419 not in opposition to 76-28 and therefore 81-114?

I will not bother to quote the many sections of the albeit Proposed Treas Regs that explain why this is NOT employer money although it is being treated as such for a certain very limited purpose and solely to meet the requirements of a specific section of the Code for a specific purpose. I also will not address your asset versus liability or your "contingent liability" issues. Nor will I address why 1.125-2 Q7(b)(7) refutes your employer asset contention. I will just go ahead under cases such as Grande v Allison Engine where the Judge, aside from questioning the relevance and validity (as have other Courts) of the merely Proposed Treas Regs, regarded the payment of FSA funds as being the return of the participant's own money. If it is "His own money" it cannot be the employer's money.

Who is it from? Invariably these are schemes created in an effort to try and sell more product. Many do not stand scrutiny. Those that do are usually those that are an old standard wrapped in some meaningless packaging so as to give some claim to a Trade Name or some other proprietary item.

But that conclusion is in 76-28 which is nulled by 81-114 which states "The purpose of this revenue ruling is to restate the position in Rev. Rul. 57-419" Or are you saying that 76-28 is not nulled?

I do not see where 81-114 makes that clear. The purpose of 81-114 was to restate 57-419 which was superceded by 76-28. This seems to mean that 76-28 is null and void. Since it was 76-28 that relied on and quoted Dejay stores which allows for the "delayed" funding, and 76-28 is now null and void, then it seems to follow that "delayed" funding is no longer allowed and we are back to 57-419 which is now 81-114 which does not provide for "delayed" funding. Under 81-114, What happens when state law requires the contribution in order to be "a valid trust which is recognized under local law" as is stated in Rev Rul 81-114? It seems that any contribution made to a trust not recognized under local law would be not "be an allowable deduction under section 404(a) of the Code" again as per 81-114. So what would be the purpose, if no deduction?

One thing about being a lawyer ( aside from claiming to be an attorney instead) is that you do not have to worry about going into the ocean. It is quite safe for lawyers. Distribution Diva, To help you make your decision, look around and see who gets the easy jobs and the big money in the industries in which you might work. You might notice a lot of Consultants. Many, if not most will be CPAs. Many if not most will be doing jobs that have nothing to do with the course of study of a CPA. In fact many have very little knowledge about that which they are consulting on, BUT they got the assignment because they have a CPA designation. CPA will open more doors than anything else.

I am assuming that you are referring to the Sungard 401(k) recordkeeping system. A 401(k) is not an insurance product even though most plans are sold by persons who are licensed insurance agents. A 401(k) recordkeeping system is not used in the insurance industry, it is used in the Plan Administration Industry. The best source should be either Sungard, an integrator or a company that uses that system. However, this is not something that any agent should be conversant with or even know that it exists, so I have to wonder Why do you think that you should know and What would you be doing with that knowledge? If you are not selling 401(k) but will be administering the plans then you should already have the software and the manuals and be making use of the training available from the supplier or integrator. If you are neither selling nor administering, then there is no reason that I can think of why you would want to know, but I am curious to hear your reason.

EDOUBLE4 As you can see from the last few posts, you probably need to throw away all that you have and erase all that you think. If you are going to use a Roth, there should be no need for Schedule D info. To want to exclude Scottrade because they do not provide something that might not needed suggests that you might not yet understand what is needed, which means that you are not yet in a position to be evaluating providers. If you have, as you stated, narrowed it down and want to pick to 1 Mutual Fund but think that you have to get it from a BD etc and do not realize that you might be able to go direct, suggests that you still need to learn more about Mutual Funds. If you think that you need to get an IRA from someone so that you can invest in a Mutual Fund and have not realized that you can open the IRA directly with that Mutual Fund, suggests that you still need to learn more about IRAs and Mutual Funds. There are other things that I would mention but I think that I have pointed out enough to justify suggesting that you need to learn more first and have someone explain and guide you through. So stop whatever you are doing and start the learning before making decisions.

See how rumors get spread and reputations ruined. Its $101 as in PS 101 the basic course. Adress for remittance can be provided.

The original post was based on "Doc wants to know if.. " The assumptions about creditor protection are part of the poster's rationale and answers to the Doc's original question, but were neither the Doc's question nor the poster's question itself. The poster pointed out his conclusions so far and wondered if there were any other issues to be considered. AndyH, Yes, there has been a very good discussion of relevant issues by many. However, mbozek seems to think that there is only the ERISA protection issue as is evident in the wording of many of his posts. So I guess a lot depends on whether or not creditor protection is the only issue and as he put is "Nothing else is relevant to the question asked". But my take is that it is not and that is why you and others spent time addressing other issues that you all deemed relevant.

A salesman selling a Plan whether NQ or Q usually makes nothing (or nothing directly) from the sale of the Plan concept itself. The money is made off the providing of the PD, enrollment, possibly something from the Administrator from the set up fee, but the vast majority from whatever the money will be invested in. Since it would be either suspicious or limited by incidental amount rules etc to use all life insurance, annuities etc are put into the mix. Quite often this is explained as diversification, tiering, layering etc. In many cases commission maximization is the bulk of the planning, of course, colored by the need to show you sufficient return and tax deductions to make the whole scheme palatable. The result is that a simple concept is make complex so that expertise and proprietary claims can be made. It is the old saw, If you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with ... If you really want to help your client, just call a few advanced market salesmen at any of the larger agencies or financial planning firms and see how quickly they can bombard this same client with a similar plan using product names that might even be the same but with different results. Tell them about the competition and you will see that their needed investment amount (premiums) and the returns will be made better than what the "Dolgoff" guys have shown even if the exact same products are used. If you have difficulty in finding some of these advanced market salesmen, let me know what city and state your client is in and I will give you some names. I do not get any commission or any reward other than satisfaction but maybe a new acquaintance or someone who might do me a favor one day.

Why not just use the mutual fund as the custodian? What would be the purpose of ScotTrade etc? What Schedule D info do you think that you will need for a Roth that ScotTrade is not able to provide? There must be a reason why they do not provide it.

Good point, but if the employee salary reductions etc are not plan assests, What are they? If they are funds being "held in trust" or "held in escrow" "or "allocated" for the purpose of paying claims, then isn't there a fiduciary responsibiliity or "prudent man" responsibility to not only safeguard the funds but also to have them readily available for the purposes intended? If so then how can it be that the employer "can do whatever they want with it" Maybe the reason why PDs make no mention is because it was never expected that employer's would feel that it was their money and "can do whatever they want with it".

iknowu2 You might want to see if the facts and circumstances have any parallel to your case: http://news.public.findlaw.com/employment_...8130009_28.html

"Nothing else is relevant to the question asked." 2 of my 3 questions were taken from the third paragraph in the original post. That 3rd paragraph was the main question that the poster asked.

An issue I have not seen addressed is "his "other business" can establish a PS Plan, to which he would rollover his balance under the medicla practicie's Plan (via an in-service distribution)" Is such an in-service distribution allowed? The Dr would still be employed by his medical practice. Is a rollover to another plan allowed under these circumstances? What gives the new PS any ERISA protection?

A few : http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publicat...il.aspx?ID=1013 http://www.pwc.com/extweb/pwcpublications....o.3%20F1021.pdf http://www.plantemoran.com/news/latest_detail.asp?id=161 http://www.aicpa.org/pubs/jofa/jun2003/alexand.htm http://www.bkadvice.com//bkb/finditem.cfm?itemid=1352 http://www.bkadvice.com//bkb/finditem.cfm?itemid=1059 http://www.newjerseylaw.com/pubs/irstaxes.htm http://www.elkin.com/split_dollar_rules_ir...ts_it_right.htm http://www.mwe.com/info/news/ots0102b-2.htm http://www.reish.com/publications/pdf/busadvnov03.pdf Refining the search terms would have returned more specific articles. Try adding "disadvantages" "death" etc. tp "split dollar". You should be aware that there is no such thing as a "split dollar policy" Split dollar is a "funding arrangement" that can be used with any type of policy. It is neither a type of policy nor a type of insurance. Take note of Mark Whitelaw's post. By the way Why only 10 year Term? What about 30 year or Term to 95 or even minimum funded UL? If you get the term or alternative quote from the same person, How are you sure that the dice is not bieng loaded against you?

pax etc, I thought that I had answered in my second post. It is not that the employer cannot or should not invest the funds in a MM or other interest bearing account. It is that the employer cannot do as they like with the funds and that it is not employer money, per se, it is employee money that is being treated as employer contributions that are being held "in trust" pending the submitting of claims. Once the salary reductions etc have been made, the employer has to hold the funds somehwere. Whether in the generaal assets account or in a separarte account does not matter, as long as the funds are readily available when needed and unless the Plan Document says where it should be held. If the employer "can do whatever they want with it" does that not put the availability at risk? Does that also mean that the employer can ignore whatever it is that the Plan Document says must or should be done with the money? If the salary reductions are just barely sufficient to meet the periodic claims and there is no significant surplus. Why would the money be kept anywhere other than in the general assets account? If kept anywhere else and if anywhere else is not dictated by the Plan Document, would putting it in an interest bearing account restrict availability or cash flow to an extent sufficient to cause a delay in the paying of claims? It is the "It is the employer's money and they can do whatever they want with it" and ignoring the PD, availability and cash flow etc issues that I have a problem with NOT where the money is held although that has its own questions.

The only new angle would be to suggest that you use your new dictionary to look up "tirade". To regard the total number of words used so far as being "prolonged" is more than a stretch even if your mood (regardless of any causative frustrations) makes my posts seem "abusive".

That is a question that should be posed to those who have annuities. In fact, from a sales (or consultant's) viewpoint, it could create much goodwill and enhancement of reputation, if help was offered to correct the situation, assuming that it turns out that they either have no exemption, did not know the law or had receieved bad advice.

vebaguru, "5. Medical, legal and other professional services paid from the trust are reported as paid to the payee (not the participant or beneficiary) on form 1099-MISC." Why is the 1099 isssued to the payee instead of the plan participant? The amount paid to the payee was paid on behalf of the participant, and should be no different from any other payment for medical services rendered to a plan participant except for being not excludible as expenses of medical care for a dependent.

Do you also believe that the employee's salary reduction that is being help pending any claims "is the employer's money and they can do whatever they want with it" ? Spend it, use it to pay the rent, loan it out or invest in whatever (whether interest bearing or dividend paying)?

You are not being serious are you? I really hope that you were just joking.

I thought that the argument was whether or not municipalities had annuities in their 457 and not whether or not they had them legally. It might very well be that those that have annuities reveived an exemption or just found a way around the restriction.

But does it allow the insurance company acting as administrator of the 457 to use annuities etc since it prohibits " the investment of any amounts under a plan in any annuity contract providing for a term which could exceed five years or which is measured by one or more natural lives or any life insurance or other contract providing traditional death benefits."?