J2D2

My recollection is that there are withholding exceptions for employer securities and participant loans, but no such exception for any other distribution in-kind.

I must be a bit slow today. How would this situation come about?

Judge Shabaz, WD Wisconsin, has dismissed the case brought against Deere & Co and Fidelity. Here is the Memorandum and Order. Hecker_v_Deere.pdf

Unless I missed it, you never stated that the order was, in fact, entered by the court. You only state that the order was signed by the P and AP. Can't be a QDRO unless it's first a DRO issued by the appropriate court.

My recollection is that withdrawal liability is calculated as a lump sum, then converted to periodic payments for those employers (most of them, in my experience) who either can't afford or don't want to pay the single sum. If the employer pays the single sum, it is done with the plan. I don't believe it is very common to pay off the withdrawal liability in a lump sum, but it is certainly contemplated by the statute.

Ours is not to reason why . . .

I'd like to tweak Jim Chad's situation. Suppose the employee left the plan sponsor at age 68; he has now reached age 70 1/2 and is working for an employer that is unrelated to the plan sponsor. Is the employee retired for purposes of the RMD rules? I'd like to say "yes" on the grounds that those rules are geared to the plan sponsor, but the statute and regs refer to an individual who has retired, not separated from service. Has anyone had occasion to address this situation?

leevena, I agree with you, in part. I neglected to mention business associates in my post and I agree that a BA is subject to the same HIPAA requirements as the covered entity to which it provides services. Also, I cannnot, offhand, think of a situation where a TPA would not be a BA. However, an employer, with the qualifications noted in my earlier post, is not a covered entity. Unless the regs or statute have changed since I last looked the sponsor of a health plan, i.e. an employer, is not a covered entity.

leevana, my understanding is that HIPAA applies to "covered entities" not information. A POP is not a health plan, so it is not a covered entity. The sponsoring employer (unless it is a health care provider, ie hospital, doctor, etc., or a health care clearinghouse) is not a covered entity. HIPAA applies to covered entities and restricts their use of protected health information. No covered entity, no HIPAA issue. Even though it does not appear that HIPAA applies in this situation, there may be other privacy laws that apply.

My understanding is that a premium-only plan or POP simply acts as a conduit for premium payments and does not provide any benefits. If that is the case, the POP is not a covered entity under HIPAA because it is not a health plan. Of course, if you add FSA provisions, you are subject to HIPAA. But, if you have a true POP that is simply a means of allowing participants to pay premiums on a pre-tax basis, I don't believe you have to worry about HIPAA.

Thanks for the comments. Bird, I'll go back and check the plan provisions; it may be that it is siimply company practice to deposit the match on a per payroll basis. WDIK, I have no problem with the reason for the true-up contribution; it's the addition of interest that concerns me.

You should also check the collective bargaining agreement.

Plan calls for employer match to be deposited on a per payroll basis with year-end true-up. Former attorney apparently told plan sponsor that it was required to add interest to the year-end true-up contribution. No one can find anything in writing from the attorney, nor did anyone note the reasons that the attorney may have given as the basis for this opinion. I can find no basis for requiring interest, but, admittedly have not researched the issue to death. Any thoughts on this issue? Any cites would also be most welcome.

Bimp. -Inspector Clouseau

This may be off-base, but I always understood that the plan was a "creature" of the CBA (collective bargaining agreement). If you buy that argument, and the CBA states how the trustees are selected, the trustees' action in this situation contradicts the CBA and would not be valid. Just a thought.

New ERISA 101(m), as added by PPA, is generally effective for plan years beginning after 2006. but has a transition rule that is confusing me. The transition rule provides that, if notice would otherwise be required before the 90th day after enactment of PPA, then the notice need not be provided before the 90th day. For a calendar year plan, does the transition rule override the general effective date and require notice to be given by 12/2/2006? Note: I also posted this message on the ESOP board.

New ERISA 101(m), as added by PPA, is generally effective for plan years beginning after 2006. but has a transition rule that is confusing me. The transition rule provides that, if notice would otherwise be required before the 90th day after enactment of PPA, then the notice need not be provided before the 90th day. For a calendar year plan, does the transition rule override the general effective date and require notice to be given by 12/2/2006?

Priceless, Tom. The Capitol Steps have nothing on you.

#1 North by Northwest

Looking now at a similar situation where participant stopped payments in 2004, so (depending on timing) the grace period would have ended in 2004 or 2005. For reasons still unknown, the loan was not deemed and no 1099R was issued. Should we now issue 2006 1099R, using current loan balance; or issue '04 or '05 1099R, using balance at that time? R.Butler, presumably, would go with the latter approach. Anyone think that the '06 1099R is the better solution?

I like those nice fudge words like "attempt."

Off the cuff, I'd say that the same rules apply. The rules define "plan assets" and, if memory serves, do not refer just to 401(k) plans.

GBurns, How do you distinguish between those 2 dates?

page 1 #8 Sideways page 2 #1 Old Yeller #3 Caddyshack page 3 #1 One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest #5 Carrie

name, I agree with the prior posts. Unfortunately, I don't think yours is an unusual situation. I've seen several circumstances where the withdrawal liability payment exceeded the employer's "regular" contributions to the multiemployer fund.