Steve72

Call the DoL. Now. You can get their number at http://www.dol.gov/pwba/dol

It depends on whether the MEWA is considered to be a plan, or whether each participating employer is considered to sponsor a separate plan which participates in the MEWA. To oversimplify, check where the money is held. That's the entity that will need to file a 5500. Also note that a MEWA now must file a form M-1 with the DOL. You can get information on this at their website.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious, but the only voluntary-compliance type program for 5500s is the DoL's DFVCP. Since a cafeteria plan (standing alone) is only subject to the Code's filing requirement, and not ERISA's, I don't think it would be eligible.

No. In fact, there's nothing saying that they have to offer insurance at all.

If an employee is vested, there should be no issue getting the full balance from his or her account upon a distributable event, regardless of the source of the contributions. You are correct, a participant cannot simply "withdraw" his or her account from the 401(k) without a distributable event (such as termination). Loans and hardships, as you mentioned, are methods by which the participant can access the money, but they are subject to rules which should be given in the plan.

Just to be an annoying stickler: Elide I belive the Treasury may have already elided the definition. They may, however, need to elucidate it

Agressive argument: Who owns the "holding account"? If it could be said that it belongs to the Plan, then the employer could argue that they complied with the regulation. This, I think, would be a tough argument, given that the Plan here is a collection of IRAs, but it's worth some thought.

But the participant (if still an employee) is a party-in-interest. Unless the insurer followed the terms of the plan in providing this loan (including making such loans "reasonably available" to other participants), I would think the there is a prohibited transaction here.

How is everyone handling the effective date of your restatements of plans which have had substantive amendments adopted between the effective date of GUST's provisions and the date of redrafting?

What percentage ownership would the IRA have? If it rises to the level of a "significant plan investment" (basically, 25%), you may have a plan asset issue as well.

You may also want to contact the Department of Labor. Even if there's no insurance coverage, they may be able to help you get your premiums refunded. A small consolation, I know, but it's something. Just a side note: It would make far too much sense for COBRA to stand for "Continuation Of Benefits Reform Act". In fact, it means "Consolidated Omnibus Reconciliation Act".

I believe Reg. 2520.103-2(B)(5)(i)(B) is what you're looking for.

Paragraph (4) of that reg specifically exempts contributions to health and welfare plan that is part of a cafeteria plan from the definition of "all other plans maintained by the employer" 125's are included only to the extent there is a CODA as part of the 125.

There's really no such thing as a "COBRA plan". COBRA allows you to remain part of your employer's group insurance program after termination of employment (if your employer is subject to COBRA). The agency which oversees the notice requirements of COBRA is the U.S. Department of Labor's Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration. Most of the other provisions are overseen by the Internal Revenue Service.

My fault. As is probably apparent from my last post, I misread Kip's response (and sent myself into a panic). The dunce cap is looking more and more suitable.

Sorry, I'd keep using the dunce cap, but it would get redundant. I do not see a reference in 413© that says that the employers must be part of a controlled group. 1.413(a)(2)(ii) does say you count all members of controlled group or businesses under common control as separate employers, but doesn't require that the sponsoring employers fall into either category. Again, I apologize, this may simply be a case of my inexperience, but any feedback would be appreciated.

Kip: If you have a cite for that, I'd be most appreciative.

I've not yet read through the whole thing, but example 22 in Rev.Proc. 2001-17 seems to say that you can self-correct this issue by adopting a retroactive amendment.

R. Butler: It's in Q-A 20, Paragraph (3). Just to be clear, it doesn't prohibit the third loan, but it makes it a deemed distribution.

I think the 2000 proposed regulations have a maximum of two loans in a given year, but I don't know that there's an overall maximum.

Actually, it's Rev.Proc. 2001-13 that ups the limit. According to the advance copy now on RIA's Checkpoint, the limit is now $180.