IRC401

I can think of two reasons. You decide how compelling they are. First, how does one run a test on a state government? I'm guessing that somewhere out there is a state university with a self-insured medical plan that hasn't given the slightest thought to 105(h). Second, what about Congress? I assume that Congress' medical program is self-insured. (Why have insurance if you can print money, unless you want to direct an insurance commission to some politician's relative or contributor?) Is it possible that Senators have a taxable retiree medical benefit that creates a 409A problem?

I believe that PA law prohibits governmental entities from increasing pensions after an employee retires (except for certain COLAs). Other states may have similar laws.

Does IRC 105(h) apply to governmental plans? I can't find an exception, but I have a diificult time understanding why Congress would want to apply 105(h) to governments.

I do not understand the question. To me a "KeySOP" is a nonqualified option product sold by Deloitte & Touche that has nothing to do with qualified plans. If you exercised a KeySOP, you have W-2 income.

Suppose that someone makes a rollover from a DC plan to a DB plans and that the rolled over amount is converted into a DB benefit and that the employer goes bankrupt at a time that the DB plan is underfunded, does the benefit attributable to the rolled over amount count aginst the PBGC guaranteed amount?

Kirk- Was the withdrawal liability assessed against the buyer or seller? If it was assessed against the seller, that doesn't surprize me. If it was assessed against the buyer, what was the basis for the assessment?

Aren't the MDs also on the payroll of the university, and doesn't the university have a 403(b) plan? In any event, I agree that this is a very complex area, and it would be dangerous to rely on the advice on anyone who doesn't have all of the facts.

Doesn't the plan document have some mechanism for throwing the noncontributing employers out of the group? Tell them that they are not longer contributing sponors, that they need to do nondiscrimintion testing, that they need to get their own plan document, and that unless they separately engage your client, they need to arrange for a new administrator.

Check the ESOP board. Nov 13th.

Yes, the client may do it (subject to the plan's complying with 401(a)(4)), but why? I strongly recommend explaining to the client all of the nondiscrimination testing issues (and associated fees) that go with that type of plan design. It would also be a good idea to discuss the plan design with the actuary.

I was going to ask how the new advisors got paid. Do you have any idea where you would like to invest your money? Why doesn't someone call Vanguard, Fidelity, TIAA-CREF, T. Rowe Price and a few other organizations and find out what they have to offer. PS: TIAA-CREF will try to sell your organization a money purchase type plan instead of a p/s type plan and saddle you with all sorts of unnecessary annuity waiver forms, but that is a whole let less of a problem than paying 4%+ every year. PPS: If there isn't a matching contribution, some of the employees may be better off contributing to an IRA instead of the plan.

Will the plan of the controlled group be split, or will the spun-off subsidiary set up a new plan and then accept transfers from the old plan? If the plan is split, I don't think that a new notice is needed. If a new plan is established, then I agree that a new notice should be given.

Many foreign countries will tax 401(k) contributions. In such a case a foeigner will owe tax to his country when he makes the 401(k) contribution and tax to the US when it is withdrawn. Non-resident aliens with no US source income should be excluded unless there is a specific reason to include them (and the employer should be willing to pay for good tax advice). PS: I once had a client that had not excluded Canadians (with no US income) from its DB plan. My firm got a lot of fees to figure out how to deal with the tax issues.

Isn't there a requirement that an ESOP have recurring contributions? If all of the contributions are in cash, there will be a 401(a)(4) issue if the other employees don't have the right to purchase stock. An ESOP must be designed to invest primarily in employer securities. If only one rollover and no employer contributions are invested in employer securities, I question whether that requirement will be met.

Before you do it, make certain that the plan permits it. If the plan document permits it, the SPD should also mention that the administrator has such discretion.