smm

BNA has a portfolio on church plans that has an excellent chart in the back that lists what sections of the Code church plans are subject and not subject to. Try that if you have not already done so.

Currently, DB plan is frozen. Sponsor wishes to "unfreeze" the plan for current participants only. Assuming that there are no discrimination/coverage/(a)(26) issues, is this permissible? Assuming that it is, can it be done retroactively to allow service/benefit accruals for the prior plan year? Once again, assuming no discriminatin, coverage, etc. issues. Am I missing anything? Thanks.

Have you tried to locate her on the internet and see if she has a copy?

Thanks. That's what I thought.

If this plan allows for and the employer makes a discretionary profit sharing contribution to this plan, would the employer also be required to make a minimum top he?avy contribution

I completely agree with you. I was simply looking for some documentation respond to a concern that it violates 1.401-1(b)(1)(i).

DB Plan will terminate and employer intends to make the necessary distributions following termination. Can participants who are currently employedreceive a distribution without violating the prohibition on in-service distributions. Ibelieve the answer is yes, but cannot locate any specific authority. Diane Bennett cites an undated 1993 letter from John Riddle which acknowledged a distribution pursuant to a "plan termination", but a wanted something that I can actually stick in the file. Any thoughts? Thanks.

Sponsor of a small defined benefit plan wants to amend the plan to allow retirees in pay status to elect another optional method of distribution, provided that all necessary spousal consents are obtained. Does anyone perceive any problems with this proposed change?

I don't think they they can. With respect to 401(k) deferrals, the IRS has generally taken the position that only current employees (not former employees) can make deferrals to a 401(k) plan. I haven't looked at the issue with respect to 125 plans, but if contributions can only be made by current employees, the result would be the same.

I'm impressed that you loacated the 1999 Q/As. I fiddled with it myself and came up with just the years that are listed.

What a pleasant response. Thank you so much for sending me the 1999 Q and As. Out of curiousity, was this copy on your system? I think that the question that I am looking for was actually in the 1998 IRS Qs and As, so I will continue to look for that year. But thank you very much.

I am trying to locate the Qs and As from the ABA JCEB for 1999, 1998 and maybe 1997. They are not on the ABA website. The earliest that they have is 2000. Any ideas? Thanks.

Must an employer who maintains a 403(b) plan that consists exclusively of salary deferrals allow collectively-bargained employees to participate. My understanding was that unlike qualified plans, they could not be excluded from participation. However, section 4.72.13.6.1 of the Section 403(b) audit guidelines says that they can be excluded. When did the rules change (or was it always that way??)

A new plan is set up for an employer who has several participants who are 5% owners and who are over age 70 and 1/2. Some are well into their 80s and are close to 90 -really!!. (We should all be so healthy!!!) I am assuming that a contribution can be made on behalf of these senior-senior citizens, but how does MRDs work for them. Are they given the grace period to the following 4/1 for purposes of receiving their first MRD and then double up in such year or must they take their first MRD by 12/31/03, the second by 12/31/04, etc....

Self-employed taxpayer wants to set up an MSA for the remainder of 2003. Under current tax code version of Code Section 220, will taxpayer be allowed to take deductions in subsequent years, or is he only limited to a deduction for 2003. Thanks.

An employer wants to adopt a safe harbor 401(k) plan with a 3% SHNEC - (no match). Employer wants eligibility requirements to be age 20/1 month of service for deferrals and age 20/6 months of service for the 3%SHNEC. Is it possible to do this? There would not be any service or end of year requirement, of course. 200-3 and 98-52 point out that you can treat the plan as 2 plans and give the SHNEC to the group that meets the 1/yr/age 21 requirement, and test the other using ADP, but how does this work when you use 6/mo/age 20 instead. Also, assuming that you can do it, if the group of new participants consists exclusively of NCEs, do you automatically pass ADP. Thank you!!!

Those are interesting cites, but I am fairly confident that this QDRO is not fraudulent.

Thanks for your responses - I agree that there is no right answer, although I will try to call the DOL to get their input. I would never have the Plan try to be the judge - not appropriate at all. The parties want us to stop the payments but I do not want to spend the money on going to court to modify the QDRO. That is something that the parties should pay for and do. Any other thoughts and suggestions are welcome.

This is a first for me. Participant and Spouse divorce. Plan receives QDRO and begins making payments to Spouse (now Former Spouse) pursuant to QDRO. Participant and Former Spouse remarry, thus, Former Spouse is now spouse. What should the Plan do? Does it stop making payments because there is no longer a former spouse; Does it continue to make payments, because, the QDRO is a court order, until such time that the order is modified...Any other ideas? Thanks.

Thanks for the cite. I did read the act prior to posting a reply. I generally ignore USC cites and go straight to the ERISA act as amended. Much to my surprise, CCH and BNA do not have the amended sections in the appropriate place (as ERISA Section 514a). In any event, back to the guts of my response, if I am reading the Act correctly, it merely prevents a state from treating a church welfare plan as an "unlicensed" insurance company and imposing the solvency/reserve requirements on the plan. All other rights of participants would still apply. Therefore, to the extent it is available, a church plan may still want to (assuming it is available) make the 410(d) election to come under all of Title I.

I have also been looking for some authority that specificaly allows a welfare plan to make a 410(d) election, but have not found located anything specific. The BNA portfolio (page A-15) on church plans states that such an election is no longer as critical as it once was, because of the impact of the Church Plan Parity and Entanglement Prevention Act. Supposedly, this Act "amends ERISA" (I have not located the specific amendment) to deem a church plan to be a single employer plan and allow for limited pre-emption. Has anyone looked at this? Thanks.

I agree with the previous comments. It is not unusual for an employer to limit what expenses are reimbursable. For example, I have seen several FSAs that are maintained by religious-related organizations (or board members who themselves have strong religious beliefs) that specifically exclude medical abortions.

This question concerns Notice 2000-56. I am setting up a rabbi trust for employees of a subsidiary corporation that intends to invest in stock of the parent corporation. Is it necessary for the rabbi trust assets to be subject to the claims of creditors of the parent and the subsidiary. If so, why? I was hoping that read Tom Brisendine's 5 page explanation in BNA would help clarify the issue - it did not. Any thoughts or guidance is appreciated. Thanks.:confused:

Employer has a M/P 401(k) Plan since 1997. Assume that the plan has operated in accordance with the safe harbor provisions since 1999. Has provided a timely annual notice, given 3% nonelective contribution to the correct individuals, etc. The plan does not have a match. The plan has never been amended to include safe harbor provisions. Can the safe harbor provisions be retroactively included in the GUST restatement?

I'm sure this analysis and discussin is out there somewhere, but I'm too busy at the moment to locate it. Can anyone direct me to a succinct discussion of what changes, if any, must be made to plain vanilla Section 125 plans (with DCAP/FSA and Premium-Pay Components) by year end. Thanks!!