R. Butler

http://www.benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=20627

I double checked these 2 states on their websites. NC is 4%; it is mandatory, but participant can elect out (See Form NC-4P). Viriginia is also 4%, it is mandatory & participant can only elect out in limited circumstances (See Form VA-4P).

I'd look at the entire dicorce decree. I don't agree that if the spouse received benefits under the QDRO that she is automatically precluded from receiving death benefits. That may be the result, but its not a definite. There have been cases, including the Egelhoff case cited in the initial post, where the Court decided that the ex-spouse was the proper beney. I did a quick search in the ERISA outline book. You may want to review the following cases: Hill v AT&T Corp., 125 F.3d 646; Lyman Co. v Hill 877 F.2d 692; Manning v Hayes, 24 EBC 2042 (former spouse still proper beney); Estate of Altobelli v IBM, 77 F.3d 78; Brandon v Travelers Insurance Co., 115 S.Ct. 732; Clift v Clift, 24 EBC 2110; Fox Valley & Vicinity Construction Workers Pension Fund v Brown, 897 F.2d 275 (former spouse not the proper beney)

According to the little chart I have Delaware, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Massachusetts, Oklahoma & Vermont have mandatory withholding rules. In California, Georgia, North Carolina, Oregon & Virginia withholding is required, but the participant may elect out. Some of these states only require tax withholding if the distribution is over a specified amount. You should be able to find the precise requirements by checking the State Dept. of Revenue websites.

I tend to agree with mbozek. A close examination of the QDRO will probably shed light on the former spouse's rights. You should seek counsel. If it isn't clear from the QDRO, this is the situation where an Interpleader action is appropriate.

Even the investments are generally participant directed wouldn't the transfer from Fidelity to Manulife be a reportable transaction, simply because that transaction was not participant directed?

For tax deduction purposes, employer contributions must be made by the due date of the employer's federal tax return including all valid extensions. If the sole proprieter has a valid extension thru 10/15, then he has until 10/15 to make the contrib. See 404(a)(6). MGB makes a good point about the 10/15 extension not being automatic, but I've never seen a request rejected. Form 2688 does state that if you did not originally file the 4868, the extension will only be granted only for undue hardship, but absent that I don't know why they would deny the request.

The new SPD rules require that you give some form of notice in the SPD (or I guess SMM, if you aren't restating the SPD).

I'm leary of forfeiting vested benefits. I know that in certain circumstances that it is permissable, but that is a last resort. You still have to make reasonable efforts to make the distribution first. It seems to me that at a minimum, reasonable includes providing a distribution packet.

I echo everything Blink said. $2,500 to $3,000? Thats 10-20 years of premiums.

See IRC §6656 http://benefitsattorney.com/cgibin/framed/...?ID=304&id==304 (1) Applicable percentage (A) In general Except as provided in subparagraph (B), the term ``applicable percentage'' means-- (i) 2 percent if the failure is for not more than 5 days, (ii) 5 percent if the failure is for more than 5 days but not more than 15 days, and (iii) 10 percent if the failure is for more than 15 days.

That would seem reasonable.

Its still required (See IRS Notice 98-52, V.C.2.a.) It has to be provided within a reasonable period before the participant becomes eligible. If possible I would use the same 30/90 day rules you normally use.

1. It is permissable for the Sponsor to use different safe harbor methods from year to year. 2. I may be too conservative, but I wouldn't recommend a mid-year switch from matching to nonelective for several reasons. In addition to the notice problems I don't see how you can suspend the matching contributions without meeting the requirements of 2000-3, Q&A 6. What you propose does not meet the requirements.

You only file the Schedule H if you are filing as a large plan. The 5500 instructions give you a chart of when to file each schedule.

Stevena, Its only 1 exam, you can do it. I'm taking it this fall; I'm lazy, if I can do it, anybody can. I have a few other other designations & I must say that I do get more out of the contiuing ed that pertains to ASPA than I do for the other stuff.

Ya, ya, ya and my grandparents used to have to walk to school both ways in 10 feet of snow. Unless its recently changed QKA's have to pass the Daily Val exam & QPAs don't. But lets be honest, the only thing they can really do to make that exam easier is to actually reference the page number & paragraph where the answer can be found in the question.

Its not really new, but the final regs. specify the details. http://benefitslink.com/erisaregs/2520.104...-41-final.shtml

5305 SEP is the IRS model SEP docuement. Appleby is correct, you can't use it if you have a qualified plan or ever maintained a DB plan. It is clearly stated in the instructions.

Try these links. http://benefitsattorney.com/cgibin/framed/...gi?ID=50&id==50 http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/programs/ori/advis...01/setQ&Are.htm http://www.cigna.com/professional/pdf/CPA_...A_Blln0301r.PDF

The hour restriction on deferrals is clearly different than an hours restriction on a match. If a participant works 1,000 hours he has lost nothing due to the hours requirement on the match. He will receive a full match under the formula. If a partcipant is required to work 1,000 hours before deferring, unless he's making pretty good money, he can't make up the lost opportunity to defer. Also, if you impose the requirement, then the participant should have been eligible as of the first day of the plan year. Lets say participant meets the requirement in June. The employer didn't let an elgibile employee defer for 5 or 6 months out of the year. It seems to me that the employer has to make up the lost deferrals.

I pretty much agree with Katherine's analysis. Spot, Really wouldn't the TPA know whether the audit was being completed? Why did the TPA check unqualified opinion? Was the TPA just guessing? I can't remember an audit where I didn't speak with the auditor. I usually send the completed 5500 to the auditor or the auditor sends the opinion to me that way everything is sent to the client in complete form.

Not necessarily of the Plans pass coverage on their own you don't have to aggregate. If you don't aggregate for coverage then no aggregation for ADP/ACP test.

Victory at last!!! This is definetely a banner day.

I was aware of something that Tom Poje was not!!!! My pension career is now complete. I am going to retire and rest on my laurels.