Erik Read

Your question was if you have liability or if the firm has it? If the owner of your firm is TELLING you how to answer the form, document it in writing - then at least you are not liable - the firm is. I think you still have an issue. The other thing you can do, is tell the client they will need to answer the questions on the form, and sign accordingly, then send you a copy of what they submit. Your option short of that - is to fire the client or recuse yourself from the plan and have someone else in the office assigned.

Wait - I'm confused - 80% to EE and 20% for taxes is right - but then you say too much was withheld or too much was paid for the taxes? I guess I'm asking if the plan paid 23% for taxes, and still gave the EE 80% of his balance?

Are they truely waiting that long to deposit the funds, or is it that the wire/etf/ach takes 5 days to clear at the plan custodian? I'd ask the payroll provider when they're making the tax deposits, and the plan contributions should co-incide with those deposits, otherwise - time to find a new payroll provider.

Well, here goes - I started in college as a "trust balancer" - heaven forbid. Then this discussion board opened on AOL in I think 1993 or 94 (Dave?).... it turned into this MONSTROSITY called BenefitsLink, and has been going very strong as an actual site and board since 1998 - at least, that's when we all started to register to post here.... Back to my background - TPA's for 6 years, then moved into the financial side for the next 6, and now - ugh - I've graduated to TAFT-HARTLEY Health/Welfare/and Pension plans.... what a learning curve. Have one year of law school - thought I'd like to be an ERISA attorney - nope! Have an NASD license, that's going to expire soon since I'm not in the Broker/Dealer world any longer, have my APR from NIPA, am a member of the CFA Institute, and ASPPA among others, and LOVE to play devils advocate in all situations. Personally - I have a loving wife, and two children a 2 and a 4 year old boy and girl respectively - we can't decide if the job or the kids have caused the pre-mature graying.... Thanks for the opportunity to share - and keep the banter going.

Here's a question that has been posted on the DB board, but may get better response here. DB Plans Topic posting Have fun.

And, the Plan doc can be amended to allow for the "crazyness" - not sure about your statement: More a question I think if the system can do it - it can, you just have to create another source.

Been a while for loans, but I seem to remember a 12-month provision, with the aggregate of all loans during that period not exceeding the thresholds. So - at the point she is trying to "refi" her 401(k) loan, after the first in 12months she's probably out of options. Is that still correct - or am I really rusty on loans and just need to keep my 2c's to myself.

AGREED - the CCH search function sucks.... it's not very helpful - I can get source, and reference on this forum faster than I can narrow my search down to actually find an answer on CCH....not saying that this forum is slow.

Profit Sharing Plan - what is the Trust's business that it generates a profit over and above interest and capital gains? This is going to get interesting....I've not a clue about the if, just curious about the profit...

Yeah - you're right - didn't make sense - in short - I'm agreeing that it's not a protected benefit, but their could be some issues if the plan allows it now, and want's to remove it as an option for specific individuals.... unvested participants, and forces them to move to non-directed investments.

No problem

YIKES - what the .... okay back on topic----- I thought it was calced as a total - then the plan/trust determines the payment schedule - correct? Ours uses a 20 year payback on a quarterly schedule and yes, they do make it actuarily equiv. payments ( I think) Curiosly - The TH/MEPP newb.

NAV on date of transfer - if he needs to know how many shares, can use prior COB NAV, round up a little, and it'll maybe give him some toward next years contribution, otherwise may have to move twice. This - all assuming it's publically traded, and he's picking up the cost of the re-title of the shares and not the plan - right?

I've seen a few options. One we work with uses the 80 rule - age and years of service must equal 80 to qualify for early, and then they are limited to no more than 40 hours a month (one is limited to 50) before they are subject to suspension of benefits for the month. We've also got retirees welfare - that covers from no earlier than 55 to MediCare age and is medical only, however, it's a self-insured plan - not sure how a fully insured plan would compare.

The rock or the hardplace.... it's a tough one. You should review the business that the advisor has referred in, and see if the fees generated over the course of the relationship are worth losing. If not, you may decline to quote with the new guy for fear of losing the referral business over a single client. On the other hand, maybe the new advisor would bring you more business if he likes the quote and work you do? Also, word of mouth from your client may be detrimental to referrals. So - the rock or the hardplace. In my prior life on the "advisors" side, when the client was the advisor, and not the plan, we could NOT suggest nor, refer the plan to any other advisors. The flip side to that was that we lost business because the advisor couldn't keep the client happy. Good luck.

Right, we're not proposing to deny coverage for the period paid, only that since the amount paid did not include the full retro amount, in this case, the system we use, terminated the COBRA coverage for the missed third month payment (payment was past due by statute, but could have been made within the 45 day period). Hope that helps, thanks everyone for the input. I'm arguing that we need to give the full 45 days, and getting some hessitation from the legal team - since the document states the initial payment must include all retro amounts.... sooooooo time to teach the lawyers again.

QB elects timely, sends initial payment within 45 days, however, the payment did not cover all three of the retro months owed at the time of payment. My question is - does the initial payment HAVE to include all retro, or can the QB have the remains of the 45 days to make a second payment? Trust document specifies that the initial payment must include all retro amounts, but we cannot find supporting law other than the initial payment must be made with in the 45 days. Thanks.

Add - to play devils advocate - what do you do when the plan specifies hours worked as performing service for the sponsor - not specifically compensable.... then does vacation/sick/sabbatical/paid holidays/personal days all come out for purposes of elig and vesting?????? I love these questions!

I've run into this in the past as well. More a head ache for the trust balancer trying to balance the book with outstanding checks, and making sure the sitting cash to cover them doesn't get invested... Most banks will only honor a check for a maximum of 180 days after issue. So, if they are older than that, I'd either issue a new check and mail it certified signature required - to see if they are indeed deceased, or - use the automatic rollover features now, to get the assets out of the plan trust and into an IRA.

Hmm - correct me if I'm wrong but deductability pertains to FYE not plan year - right. Are you asking by what date must the 2004 TH minimum for the plan be deposited by, in order to be deductible during the '04-'05 FYE? Or are you asking for '03-'04 deductions? Just trying to clarify some, and see if we can get you an answer.

Tom - your supposed to help, not further complicate the debate. Randy and I discussed this earlier, and I was flexible, you could convince me either way, as the letter of the regs does not truely accomodate for the situation - as usual. So - I said test it both ways, see if it helps or hurts, if it doesn't matter, then it's not worht arguing over, take it to a "ask the experts forum" at ASPA or NIPA, and see what they say about it. But - nooo - he wanted to get the topic board all fired up... so - let's here more. I like the "no service" then excluded, but, is that for just the participants balance, or for both the balance and the distribution??????

An oldie but a goodie - this happens a lot, and has been discussed for years. Opinions vary, and the best solution with the new EPCRS rules, is - DOCUMENT whatever you do. I've heard it argued to exhaustion that this is not a "DISTRIBUTABLE EVENT" and does not allow for the employer to remove assets. In those cases, the deferral file for the next payroll had "negative" deferrals to show for the deposit. I've also seen the excess put in the suspense account and used for match or Profit Sharing at Year end (most documents do not specify that those contributions are only made at year end). I've also heard it argued that so long as you document the mistake in fact under EPCRS you can have the excess returned. Pick a method, and if it happens again, be absolutly sure you treat it IDENTICALLY to the first correction.

Doesn't the loan policy state that the "investment committe" must determine if the loan is a worthy investment? As a fiduciary - I'd say I have an issue with repayment if the individual can up and retire in two years, but want's a 20 year term - loan request denied. Other opinions?

More than likely because if the IRA defaults on the loan payments, you cannot fund the IRA with capital to make the payment... are you following? The restrictions on the IRA limit the way you can collateralize the loan. Much the same that if you were to default on loans ERISA money is not usually reachable by your debtors. I'm not positive that the IRA should fall into that same class as the assets aren't secure from collectors, but I can understand why they can't use your FICO scores if your personal ability to make payment can't be used in the determination of credit worthiness. Hope that helps a little.

I'm liking this thread - reminds me of other fabulous pension singers - S. Derrin Watson comes to mind with his lunch session lyrics at the Summer Academy.