Ron Snyder

That's the problem - we did that and IRS returned it saying we had to file electronically They were lying, according to their own instructions for form 5500 for 2008. 2008 Instructions 5500 If their system says they don't have the filing, does one send a copy with the proof of mailing or wait I would wait until they make a request. As suggested by D Rigby, the problem may be 001 v 002, so it might be a good idea to see if the DOL has record of a filing under either number. Sometimes they change the number as a presumed error when their records don't agree.

1) Respond to the IRS by sending a copy of the forms filed with EBSA, along with the proof of mailing. 2) Give the EBSA everything they ask for when they ask for it.

An order from a court in the state "where the Plan and Plan Administrator are" should be recognized by the Administrator and the Plan so long as it meets the requirements for a QDRO. Acceptable? Why wouldn't it be? What does "insist" mean? Does any Plan Administrator really want to hire legal counsel to go to court and ask the "state Y" judge who just issued the QDRO to countermand his own order and rule that the H&W should have had the QDRO granted in the original state first? Get real.

HSAs are property of the employee subject to claims of his/her creditors.

The Exec-U-Care website contains the following: Exec-U-Care is underwritten by The Lincoln National Life Insurance Company, 8801 Indian Hills Drive, Omaha, NE 68114. Therefore I would be shocked if Chaz's allegation (that Principal is saying good things about the plan) were true. The site also contains the following: Exec-U-Care is not available to small employers in MD, MA and NJ. Small employers are defined as any organization with fewer than 50 employees. Exec-U-Care is not licensed in AL, CT, KS, ME, NH, NY, ND, SD, VT, WA, and WV. Apparently they still consider the plan to be viable in 36 states. I have my doubts.

The employer has no unilaterally modify an employee's election. The section 125 Regs address similar issues (such as the employee electing one amount, spending it in January and terminating employment before the amount has been withheld). The employer has no "right" to recover and, in fact, this is one of the risks the employer took when it undertook to sponsor a flex plan.

I'm not talking about a welfare benefit type plan -- just an employer who's willing to purchase health insurance for some of his employees. Isn't there a disconnect here? Purchasing health insurance for employees is a welfare benefit plan covered under ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code. If the policies are policies purchased individually, the employer may pay the premiums but they will be declared as income to the employee (who may also be able to take a personal deduction for all or a portion thereof). It will also still be subject to pre-existing conditions notwithstanding health care reform. If the policies are purchased as small group coverage (1 or 2-10 employees, depending upon your state), the insurance company will require non-discrimination based upon its rules. There will be no exclusion of pre-existing conditions.

IRS Instructions

There are no legal obstacles to such a design unless the plan is established pursuant to a collective bargaining arrangement.

Maybe asking a financial planner who does 403(b) plans will help. How about: Zahorik Financial & Ins Services Inc 418 N Fair Oaks Avenue # 101 Pasadena, CA 91103-3660 Phone: (626) 792-0835 http://www.Zahorik.com

We have often noted that the advice you receive on this site is worth every penny you pay for it. This question is more complicated than I would care to answer on this board. The difficulty is not in saying "yes" or "no" (actually the answer is a qualified "yes"), but in going into the myriad issues raised by the question, preparing, explaining and defending the analysis. And then you would only have the opinion of a stranger who may or may not know what he is talking about. Your best bet is to engage an attorney who specializes in employee benefits and not only ask your question, but ask that he analyze the entire situation and make recommendations how to keep out of trouble.

If it's a 401(a) plan as you aver, it is a qualified plan. If it is not a qualified plan, it is not a 401(a) plan. Care to re-ask your question? Is it: How does a governmental entity convert its non-qualified plan to a qualified 401(a) plan? (It doesn't) You refer to FICA taxation of contributions. Are those employer or employee contributions (or both)? Generally, if those are employee contributions on which you wish to avoid taxation, the plan would need to be converted to a 457 plan rather than a 401(a) qualified plan. Similarly, if they are employer contributions on which you wish to avoid taxation, a new profit sharing, money purchase or defined benefit plan which complied with 401(a) would have to be adopted. The old plan could be frozen or distributed, as desired.

Cowabunga!

You might consider showing the value at $1 or other small amount, since you acknowledge that the stock is not entirely worthless.

Don't have a cow, man.

I suggest you go to Employee Benefit Jobs. You can search by location to see what is currently available. You may also wish to post your resume for free.

Your message is confusing. The plan is "significantly overfunded", but has no sponsor. And yet you're worried about whether you can use the short form 5500? I would be worried about the IRS's view of a wasting trust and how shut it down prior to 1 year from the termination of sponsorship by the sponsor.

You have raised and discussed some important concepts. I have a problem with rendering an opinion with respect to the plan's being qualified or not. That cannot be expressed by a professional advisor without having to comply with Circular 230. And no non-professional advisor should be giving opinions at all. Second, an attorney has a duty to protect his client. Other professionals should tread carefully for a similar reason. Since communications related to the 5500 filing with DOL are discoverable and not privileged, I would never put an opinion such as "your plan may not be qualified" into any written communication. I would contact this client by telephone to express my concerns about failure to adopt required amendments, and refer him/her to an appropriate attorney familiar with correction programs. A fairly serious problem arises, however, if the valuation software attempts to impose rules which were enacted subsequent to the most recent amendment. The administrator should abide by current rules and likely has a duty to inform the client of the rules applied in preparing the valuation. There is no requirement to point out that some of the rules are inconsistent with the latest draft of the plan document, which would have been done orally at time of delivery.

Operating a business within an IRA is a tricky proposition. Some practitioners are doing it by setting up a separate corporation or LLC as the operating entity, with the IRA as the sole owner. However, IRS would likely see through this device.

Your still on migraines? I graduated to cluster headaches several years ago.

This has been an issue for many years, since the IRS and the DOL have never reached a safe harbor agreement. The DOL issued a class exemption (latest issuance: PTE 92-06, most recently amended in 2002. In connection with the procedure, the DOL issued an advisory opinion in 2007 DOL Advisory Opinion. In none of the IRS and DOL pronouncements on this subject is there agreement on the valuation of the policy to be transferred. It is possible to follow the IRS rules and for the transaction to be a "prohibited transaction" under ERISA, if the transaction doesn't exactly follow the DOL exemption requirements. While this wasn't your question, it should be your concern.

I believe that DataPath DataPath and HR Consulting Group make such modules available in connection with their 125 plan administration software.

The simplest solution for us is to use Express Mail to avoid the street address problem. It's also cheaper than FedEx.

Note: There is an actuary who posts regularly on the boards whose name is also "Andy". Lance may have been confused between the two.

How can you call guaranteed employment for actuaries a "total waste of time"?