k man

Is anyone aware of a new lawsuit involving nationwide for allegedly making too much money on certain mutual funds. the details i have are very scetchy but it could have something to do with sub-ta or subsidies the are paying record keepers.

example: late deferrals

Well everyone is a bit scared of having the DOL around these days. The actual investigators might be reasonable but the supervisors and the regional offices do not share this reputation.

If you give more detail or give the factual scenerio I might be able to answer.

Is there anything wrong with the following transaction? Trustee and participant in a small non-participant directed plan wants to make a loan to his brother (not a participant). The loan amounts to 70% of the total assets in the plan. Is this a prohibited transaction? My thought it is not because the brother is not a party in interest as defined by the statutute. However, my thought is that it violates some the prudent investment standard, even if the loan is made at a reasonable interest rate and with other acceptable terms.

Granted 404© is not likely to prevent anyone from being sued or even a finding of liability. Nevertheless, it seems to me to that it is sensible for employers to attempt to comply with 404©. Surely if an employer does not comply with 404©, that very non compliance is going to furnish a basis for liability. It might be just as bad in this day to not give participants the tools and information to make the appropriate decisions, particularly if there were good performing or conservative investments available. I cant imagine why a plan sponsor would not want to attempt to comply.

How are matching contributions treated? The guidance suggests that it is up to the employer

I think there might be a subtle difference. Under your scenerio are you making all future contributions, regardless of to whom they are made, subject to the 2/20 or are you making the contribution 100% vested to some and subject to the 2/20 to others? Also, I think there are certain rules for amending vesting schedules.

If an employee does not hit a plan limit or the applicable 402(g) limit for deferrals are previous contributions that had been designated as catch up contributions then reclassified as ordinary deferrals up to the applicable limits?

Im sorry but I dont understand your answer?

Is there a possible discrimination issue if a plan sponsor starts a plan and allows all people employed as of a certain date to be 100% vested in all current and future contributions and the plan makes all new hires subject to a vesting schedule? The existing employees are not being credited with past service as they have only been employed for one or two years. I think this is a current availability of rights or benefits issue. Does anyone agree or disagree?

I thought I recalled an article written by some authority on the subject

I recall an article on benefits link on the topic of SDBA's as a right benefit and feature which must separately pass 1.401(a)-4. Does anyone have a copy or have the link to the article.

I recall an article on benefits link on this topic. does anyone have a copy or have the link to the article.

Does anyone have any suggested procedures for Plan Administrators to utilize when accepting rollovers from the various sources now available. ie. if there is basis the administrator needs to be aware.

What is the deadline to amend and restate a 403(B) to comply with GUST? Is it the same as the deadline for other prototype and volume submitter documents. p.s. we will be using a prototype document.

We use PPD but and you indicate that they might make a safe harbor contribution. something else i read confused me though and that is why i posted the question. i read somewhere that they had to pass the adp/acp if they used this method. i could see if they did not make the contribution but what if they do. do they still get the free pass?

recently i read that an employer can do a notice 30 days before the first day of the plan year saying that they might make the safe harbor nonelective contribution and then 30 days before the end of the next plan year they must decide whether they will or wont be making the contribution. I call this the wait and see nonelective safe harbor. Is this accurate or are their other restrictions?

I know very little about 403(B) plans but can someone explain the reasoning and mechanics of the old 402(g)(8) catch up and how it is effected by EGTRRA if at all.

This question concerns the issue of whether it is a problem for an enrollment company that uses unlicensed workers to conduct 401(k) enrollemt meetings to hand out prospectuses and other investment related information. clearly, the DOL regs say that as long as you stick to certain things, the person is not "giving investment advice." However, is there any NASD rules that govern the distribution of prospectuses etc? I am inclined to think that as long as the enrollers stick within the parameters of the DOL regs, there wont be a problem.

I have read conflicting items as to the proper definition of compensation for determining the match in a SIMPLE plan. Is it the 401(a)(17) definition or something else?

Has it been confirmed that the IRS will allow sponsors to amend their plans for the new RMD regulations by the end of their remedial amendment period for GUST?

would it be a problem if a plan sponsor amended its plan which previously provided for a discreitionary match so as to add a last day rule for HCE's prior to the end of the plan year? Thus effectively adding an additional allocation condition during the plan year for HCE's but not NHCE's.

two questions: 1) does the catch up count against the overall 415 limits? i dont think it does but if everything else is designed correctly a partiicipant might be able to get 41,000 for 2002, correct? 2) does the plan have to be amended for EGTRRA at the time of the catch-up or can the amedment be done by the last day of the plan year?

I think you can have more than one integrated plan; however, 1.401(l)-5 sets forth requirements and an overall disparity limit.