J2D2

Agree with jpod. If the fiduciaries decide not to pursue those who received the excess payments, or if they decide to discontinue efforts to recover, the fiduciaries should thoroughly document the reasons for their decision. For example, the costs of recovery would far exceed the potential recovery, etc.

I apologize. I meant the Q&A Columns.

I know that they haven't been active for awhile, but why were the Q&A Columns cut back? They included some good info on a number of relevant topics.

How about "The Plan" or "Earl"?

IRC 408(g) states that "This section [408] shall be applied without regard to any community property laws." I'm trying to determine the proper application of that provision in the following situation. Owner of IRA lives in a community property state and names spouse as sole primary beneficiary and adult child as sole contingent beneficiary of his traditional IRA. Owner dies and spouse timely executes a disclaimer of owner's interest in the IRA. Disclaimer goes on to recognize that the effect will be that the disclaimed property will pass as though spouse had predeceased the owner. The result intended by the parties was that the spouse would retain a 50% intererst in the IRA, as the primary beneficiary [she disclaimed the community property portion] and that the remaining 50% would go to the adult child as contingent beneficiary. Applying 408(g) to this situation, it would seem that there is no community property interest in the IRA. If that is the case, wouldn't the owner's interest in the IRA be 100%, rather than 50%, with the effect being that the spouse is waiving her entire interest in the IRA? The entire IRA would then pass to the contingent beneficiary, as though the primary benficiary [spouse] had predeceased the owner. I'd welcome any thoughts on whether my read of 408(g) is accurate.

I must be missing something in the 408(b)(2) interim final regulations and hope someone can set me straight. Is a bank that is providing custodial services to a covered plan a "covered service provider" where it is paid either by the plan sponsor or from the custody account? The reg seems to provide that a custodian would be a CSP only if it receives "indirect compensation." Compensation paid out of the custodial account seem to be direct compensation [paid by the plan], and compensation paid by the plan sponsor is (oddly enough) neither direct, nor indirect compensation. What am I missing?

Donuts!!! - Homer Simpson

What's wrong with his advice? I bet it is the fuel pump.

Thanks, PensionPro. Am I correct in interpreting your caution to apply to self-administered/self-trusteed situations?

I'm also interested in this one. Any thoughts out there?

And we've been trying to catch-up ever since!!!

Try Legalbitstream.com

vebaguru, Any thoughts on whether it is appropriate for the employer to hire the TPA?

Interesting questions. My (admittedly rudimentary) understanding of Davis-Bacon Act and related laws (such as the Service Contract Act) is that they address what the employer must contribute to a fringe benefit plan as part of its prevailing wage commitment. Once the dollars are in the trust/plan, my guess is that they can be used for any appropriate plan purposes, including administrative expenses. If the trust is going to pay administrative expenses in any event, why should it matter (for purposes of D-B or the SCA) who hires the TPA? But, I'll defer to those with more experience in this field.

Larry, I still remember sitting under the apple tree with my grandfather, transistor radio hanging from the swing supports, listening to Jimmy Dudley; great, sing-song voice of the Indians. Later, we'd hear Herb Score say "It's a beautiful day for baseball!" no matter the weather. On days when the Tribe wasn't playing, grandpa would tune-in WJR and Ernie. That was my introduction to the Tigahs. After I moved here, I was privileged to hear Ernie for many more years.