JanetM

No, payments for insurance premiums and commissions are on Schedule A. Sounds like fully insured welfare plan. If all your benefits are fully insured by insurance policy(s) and you are paying premiums and commissions then you will file the 5500 and then as many schedule As as it takes to have one per provider.

UMMMMMM. How can you file a C without an H? Are you saying the plan sponsor pays expenses. Think you are misunderstanding the purpose of the C. Schedule C is to list who was paid from PLAN assets (trust). If you have no plan assets you can't very well pay someone.

Since they are deceased isn't the life insurance paid to estate or beneficiary? The estate or beneficiary would have to return the overpayment to the DB Plan.

What's so bad about top heavy? Make merged plan safe harbor with 3% non elec and you are don't fooling with it.

Unless there is something really bizarre about how the trust is setup they should just file one MT 5500 showing all the detail of all assets. Then each plan in the MT will have single H line item showing investment in MT. Trust agreement is where you have to start. Then look at agreements with the different investment managers to see if there is something goofy there.

Plus that gets the statute of limitations running by filing a schedule P for the final year. The assets could be found in personal or bank audit.

Sounds like they were consolidating the 401K plan with the profit sharing plan to save money on administration. You MUST read the SPD, chances are you won't be able to borrow the profit sharing funds. Many Profit sharing plans with 401K features only allow you to borrow your own contributions and rollover amounts. The statement that you can elect your own investments does not mean you can use the loan as on option. You must read the SPD! Just cause you want it doesn't mean the plan has to allow it.

I just got a panic call from friend in OH. He was just informed that his plan never filed letter with IRS or DOL. He is seaching for guidance (OMG and he is asking me) I need help with cites and references ........... This plan has been around for a number of years, how far to we go back with filing, what needs to be done, what happens now under new 409A regs? Does this mean it doesn't fall under 409A regs going forward?

We all need to get together and come up with somehting like a "Darwin" or "Stella" award for the worst proposed pension law in House or Senate. Got to thinking we should award those folks like Tom Harkin (who truly needs a hobby). Senator Harkin proposed S.607. This bill provides that in the event of a sale of a corporation or division, liquidation, merger, consolidation, or other similar transaction, an employee who continues employment in the same trade or business with the employer that acquires the trade or business and who participated in a pension before such transaction must, solely for the purpose of determining eligibility for any subsidized early retirement benefit provided by such plan, receive credit for any periods of service with the successor employer that would have been taken into account had such transaction no occurred. This provision would apply only if the successor employer did not continue to maintain the plan in which the employee participated before such transaction. This one is giving me hives. Can just see my department 10 or 15 years from now trying to verify that someone continued working in a Plant we sold years ago. Of course we all know facilities never change hands, and all HR folks have employee files going back to when Noah built the Arc, and of course those folks the facility we sold to will drop everything to provide us with the proper data. And lest not forget, the verification and data will have suffer the scritiny of the new SOX requirements, the internal auditors, the external auditors and of course me the department head. Did I mention, most of our plants are in rural non unionized locations. Can just imagine plant mgr and HR person "verifing" that 99% of the county continued to work at the plant after it was sold to new owner. Then every one gets to draw pension early and subsidized. AndyH please feel free to join me in my vent. Guess the new SSA regs weren't enough for me today.

If Company B purchased stock of Company A then they should be able to assume sponsorship of the plan. Plan is simply amended to change name of sponsor. Depending on how A set up the plan you may not have much to do.

MBCarey, I agree that he HCE deferring nothing has not met any limit and therefore can not do catch up. Not sure about Pensions suggestion of amending the plan. You can amend to lower deferral rates for HCEs, but I see issue if allow other HCE to defer 100% and don't allow NonHCE to defer 100%. Why not just make the plan safe harbor next year and eliminate the problem. Do a safe harbor match if they don't want to spend money on their employees.

That is how we always did. The way we (the TPA) could do all the tax reporting and not have the employer/PS screw it up. Leaves a cleaner audit trial in the record keeping and reporting files too.

AndyH, don't forget all the chiropractors out there who tend to the mail carriers........... I agree with you and will be enjoying the same vent when it comes time to complete the SSAs.

Kirk, yes in late 2001 or early 2002. Boxer and Corzine proposed bill that would limit employees to not more than 20% of account be invested in single stock. They didn't specifically say it was just employer stock.

Just pulled ERISA Section 404 up and don't see any changes to it since I looked last. May have been something that was proposed but died before passage.

I don't see it applying retro to prior years. If there is no way to come up with previous years distributions then just skip it. Going forward it would be easy to keep list of who has been reported. I have so many take over plans (am plan sponsor not TPA) that I just now list all distrbutions as Ds on SSA if they terminated before we bought their company.

GBurns, I strongly advise you get off your high horse and read the notice Lizana posted before you post a response. You are looking like a bad tempered jerk right now. Then again, you can continue to entertain us with your hair trigger temper and sometimes stupid, sometimes brilliant postes that pound on folks trying learn or help others. Your choice.

Why do you think that cutting hours going forward from November will make the employee ineligible. If they worked full time from Jul 1 (start of plan) to late November you could still have very reduced schedule and get the 1,000 hours before Jun 30.

GBurns, I read CheiAnn's post to include flex spending. The first day of the plan year the annual election must be available for reimbursement.

I do it all the time. Is just a CYA thing. Looking back in old files they never reported anything but As. This is especially important for those who have been deferred vested for 10 or 20 years. So far - since 1999 filings - I haven't heard a word about it from SSA, IRS, EFAST, or EBSA about it.

Why not just amend each to be "discretionary" formula.

OH No, I sure hope you don't find one. We regularly point outside the plan document to collective bargaining agreements to define contribution levels and eligibility.

Your client is getting bad advice. Can't cite the reg, but the regs haven't changed at all. You can't pay child support pretax via 125.

This is really a question of plan definition. Most of our DC plans exclude from comp any amounts received from 3rd party even if on the W-2. In Belgarath's situation the plan defines comp as W-2. If there are not exclusions to that definition then the disabilty pay would be included for plan purposes. Curmudgeon, does you definition mean you don't count vacation, holiday and sick pay or any other paid time off for you plan? Those are clearly not payments for services performed in employers trade or business.

austin (don't take offense) but I call it a blonde moment. I figure blonde is fleeting, senior is forever.........................