JanetM

Belgarath, opps you got me there. Current plan is profit sharing plan not K plan. I kind of jumped the gun. Moe, the employer would adopt the new brokers plan and trasfer assets. Take heed of Belgaraths warning. If the assets are distributed and the there is no "business necessity" for the termination the IRS could see the plan as never having been qualified. It is all facts and circumstances.

Not sure I understand your question. How can you be eligible and excludable? It's friday and my brian is tired, be kind.

GBurns that was harsh. could be maybe not was just making an observation. I too noted you and Blinky were not posting. I ususally enjoy your posts..... but that was a bit harsh.

You would have to wait more than 12 months from distribution the assets to avoid successor plan rules. 401(k)1(d) is cite - I think. Why not just transfer the assets to new broker with new plan and be done with it.

Does it matter Pax, it will keep him entertained.

Okay, you win.

That varies by company. Some banks will open them if you promise to direct deposit minimum amount per month. Some of the large fund companies require minimum deposit to get into a specific fund. Get a copy of Money magazine and call a few who advertise and ask.

I did the same thing and found the same unflattering reports. Lots os hits on NLRB too.

Still doesn't sit right with me. No warm fuzzy or anything.

Well having union workers does allow you to avoid the issue of covering them under the same plans as management. But how could management force their workers to join a union? Why would folks stay if benefits were minimal? What would management do if the workers demanded better benefits? You say this is Chicago? My thoughts are now organized crime. The only way you could make it work to managements favor over the long term is if this UFG has some ties to the Union that would be negotiating for these workers.

KJohnson - that is exactly what I am looking for. Belgrath - the issue arises from 3% Nonelective and profit sharing contributions. Even if we tell them they will be getting the contributions they don't always make investment elections. Right now we tell them that by not selecting investments they are electing the X fund.

Yes that is what I mean by default fund. I know the drawbacks to the sponsor selecting the fund and retaining the liability. Am looking for research on the topic so I can present the issue to the board. Need facts and figures to sway them to change how we do things now.

Can any of you wonderful folks point to some research or survey results on this topic. Looking for views -pros and cons - of stable value vs. balanced vs s&p500. Many thanks!

I think it was notice 2002-4 that gave control groups until 10/01/02 to adopt the catch ups or violate the universal availability requirement.

You are correct. If you don't have any union folks who are HCEs you are done with that group.

I have to think that he is showing comp somewhere.... Schedule C or K-1. The only way he can be part owner and not have comp is if this is C corp. From your post it sounds like the employer is trying to bend the rules a bit.

Sure it can. We have plans that do that.

I don't see how this is any different from what the Vanguards and Fidelities do now. When someone takes distribution from plan they record keep they send their IRA rollover kit with distribution paperwork. As long as you don't get kick-back and you tell the plan sponsor I don't see you have an issue.

While not being a payroll expert I will take a stab at it anyway as I am a CPA and there is some (if you stretch it) logic to the tax code. You are imputing income to them similar to the cost of group term life insurance in excess of $50K. The insurance you are providing is employer paid just like the discount you are offering. Insurance income is only imputed for FICA and FMHI not fed and state. I would think this discount would be taxed the same way. Started by saying I am not payroll expert so take it for what it's worth.

Yes get an audit, caveat - unless can avoid using 80/120 rule. Then tell them they need professional help running this plan. If 100% of assets are in money market they may have some serious issues (unless this group is all 64.5 years old and about to retire). Quick question - you administer the plan and don't know what assets are invested in? What do you mean by "I administer"?

Search the recent mail from financial institutions, if they had a plan they had to have it invested somewhere. Once you find the assets the financial institution would be able to tell you who the trustee and PA are. In my time in TPA land it was normally the participant/owner/employer.

If you were a participant or beneficiary of the plan you can write the plan sponsor and request a copy. This is your right under ERISA.

Scott, I would liken this situation to the 1993 when 401(a)(17) was cut back to $150K. Just cause the given limits change doesn't mean it is a cutback un 411(d)(6).

If it (and I am assuming you are talking about welfare plan) is not fully insured and funded from sponsors general assets you still avoid the audit. Is this a VEBA or funded plan?

^ is showing something as exponent is my understanding