Steve72

ERISA Section 502 permits the penalty, but only if the plan administrator fails to comply with a REQUEST for an SPD. I am unaware of any statutory penakty for a failure to distribute the SPD or SMM absent a request. ERISA does require that both be distributed within a set time frame, but doesn't answer the question "or what?"

I believe the DOL considers a 5500 without the accountant's report (if required) to be a NON filing, rather than an incomplete filing. Therefore, I think you use the DFVCP procedure.

It sure would make minimum distributions more painless.

The SPD "...should also clearly identify on the first page of text the class of participants and beneficiaries for which it has been prepared and the plan's coverage of other classes"

Sure, if the LTD plan has a subrogation provision. However, the Supreme Court's recent decision in Great West v. Knudson will limit the plan's ability to enforce that provision.

DOL Regs. 2560.503-1(B)(3) states that a plan's claims procedures cannot contain a provision that unduly hampers the initiation or processing of a claim. That would seem to fit the bill.

Companies (including insurers) are currently permitted to ask for information such as a Social Security Number to ensure that they have a unique identifier for each customer. HIPAA governs "protected health information", which is basically information related to your health status or treatment. States have different privacy laws. Although it is unlikely, your state may have a law preventing the employer from requesting or using this information. In what state are you located? [edited for terrible typos]

I don't know if this is the case here, but frequently the employer's hands are tied. Insurance companies have a habit of flat-out refusing to accept individuals who are not legally entitled to COBRA, if they are a high medical risk. I agree with mbozek that, from the employer's perspective, clearly the risk/reward analysis goes in favor of offering coverage. However, the employer may find itself pulled into a struggle with the insurer.

Small addition: An IRA can be divided by a divorce or separation instrument. The IRA will not serve as a "shelter" from the divorce.

http://supct.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00...00-1021.ZO.html

You're right. I am unaware of any formalized procedure (other than the IRS's reasonable cause waiver) of filing a delinquent 5500ez. Sorry. I have found the IRS to be very amenable to granting the waiver.

There is some inaccurate information in this thread. Both the DOL (PWBA) and IRS assess penalties for late filing of a 5500 (for those 5500's required by ERISA and the Code). The corrective measure sponsored by the IRS is, effectively, throwing yourself on ther mercy. Anecdotally, they are usually fairly reasonable about granting penalty waivers. However, if the 5500 is required by both DOL and IRS, DOL sponsors a program called DFVCP, which significantly lowers the penalty. The IRS has recently agreed that any form filed under DFVCP will not be subject to IRS penalties. Of course, you've still got to file before either agency catches you......

If an audit is required, but not filed, the DOL considers the 5500 to not have been filed at all. DFVCP is your best option, IMHO.

Personally, I love RIA Checkpoint. All the Regs, Rulings, PLRs, Code, the whole deal. Plus, it's web accessible. Normal disclaimer: I am not in any way affiliated with RIA, except that I use their service.

Kipp's right, I think. HIPAA only applies to group health plans.

I don't disagree with Kirk. The statute simply exempts individual account plans from the 10% limitation in they contain language permitting the investment. I don't think Kirk has referenced any statutory limit on such plans. If the plan contains a limit, it must abide by that limit. According to Kirk's post, the plan must contain a limit (which can be 100%). I was unaware of this requirement, but that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Your plan document states that the plan "may invest in common shares of employer securities". Based on Kirk's post, your plan does not meet the criterea for the exception, and would be subject to the 10% limit.

The general limitation in 407 is 10%. This is the only limitation I am aware of in ERISA. DC plans that contain language permitting the investment are not subject to this limitation. Therefore, there is no limit on the amount of employer stock. Of course, if a plan by its own terms is limited to (e.g.) 50% employer stock, the administrator would have to abide by that.

MWeddel is right on. An "individual account plan", effectively, is a DC plan. Individual account plans are exempted from the 10% limitation of ERISA Section 407 "...only if such plan explicitly provides for acquisition and holding of qualifying employer securities..." ERISA Sec. 407(d)(3)(B). That seems dispositive of your question.

It's not every day you see EGTRRAsh talking.

I guess I think the can has already opened up. I'm not sure I'm sold on the idea that the fact that deposits were made "late" in the past means they can be made "late" now. In my experience, the DOL has used the past history as one indicator, but has tended to be stricter than what the employer would like. asserting that 15 business days is the earliest the deposits could be made would not fly at all, IMHO. I know that the DOL and IRS have an arrangement whereby 5330s are forwarded to the DOL for investigation. Whether that always happens is another matter. If you want to be safe, but conservative, VFC for all past deposits may be a better option than filing the 5330 and potentially alerting the DOL to the delinquency (and setting yourself up for 502(l).) Like I said, very (maybe overly) conservative, but safe. Sorry, I know it's not the question you're asking, so I'll shut up now.

I don't know of a de minimus exception, but you should keep in mind that calculating the delinquency from 15 business days after the end of the month will probably not be sufficient. I don't know the set up of your company, but it may be advisable to calculate the interest using an earlier date. There is a thread from earlier this month that discussed this issue in great detail: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=14389

Agrred, but the DOL had not ruled in either of the PLRs you listed. If an IRA owner has a DOL opinion stating that there is no PT, it is my understanding that they are protected from both the IRS and the DOL (although the DOL would likely be unable to take any action anyway.)

mbozek: Presidential Reorganization Plan No. 4 of 1978 transferred the authority to issue interpretations of 4975 to the DOL. The interpretations so issued are binding on the IRS. See, e.g., DOL Opinion Letters 93-33A, 2000-10A, 2001-02A. However, I've not read the case you cited. I'll take a look.

mbozek: >>>These people seem to believe that if the DOL says that something is ok then the IRS would not tax it. This is not true. <<< I had thought that the IRS deferred to the DOL in interpreting 4975, even if the question applied to an IRA and not a Title I plan. Do you disagree? That said, this memo completely ignores the prohibition against dealing with the assets of an IRA on the owners own account. The DOL will not issue a ruling on this prohibition, and most of the examples he cites would run afoul of it.

The deferral becomes a plan asset as soon as it is administratively feasible to segregate it from the employer's assets, which date can be no later than 15 busioness days after the end of the month in which the deferral is made. So, for a contribution made Dec 31, 2002, the $10,500 must be in the plan as soon as it is administratively feasible to get it there, no later than January 21, 2003.