Kirk Maldonado

lbell: You are saying that the plan can pay the cost of the E&O coverage?

I agree with MBozek. Raising frivolous arguments with the IRS will not only not help, but could hurt. You need to retain somebody who is knowledgeable and skilled at these matters. That person should be somebody who can and will objectively evaluate whether there are any legitimate arguments to be made and will advise the client whether it even makes any sense to fight the IRS. Anybody who will fight the IRS on every single case is only looking to increase his or her income; not serve the best interests of the client.

One solution to avoid having to track hours or use equivalencies is to adopt the "elapsed time" method of crediting service. See Treas. Reg. § 1.410(a)-7.

WDIK: You are not only very observant, but very analytical. I think that if I automatically posted "What does the plan say?" every time that there was a new posting, that would be an appropriate comment at least 50 to 75% of the time. In fact, I wish that the Message Board were set up so that the person posting a new message would get that query before they could actually post the message. I never ceased to be amazed at the number of people who post questions about their own plan document without first reading it. I simply can't understand why somebody would do that.

What does the plan say?

VebaGuru: I'm not surprised in the least. I've seen COBRA notices prepared by insurance companies that were less than half a page.

What does the plan say?

I wrote "Why An Insured Health Plan Requires a Wrap-Around Document," 3 Journal of Compensation and Benefits, 147 (1987). However, it is very much out of date, so I doubt that it would be of much value anymore.

erisamelissa: From time to time, there are some in-depth discussions of QDRO issues written by Paul R. Commerford. You might find reading them to be worthwhile. They are listed in Benefits Buzz, so you should be able to find them just by using the search function there. P.S. I have no relationship, monetary or otherwise with him.

Similar discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...=15entry88388

Treasury Regulation Section 1.401(k)-1©(1)(ii) provides: The [section 401(k)] contributions are disregarded for purposes of applying section 411(a) to other contributions or benefits.

Becky: I differ with you on one very minor point. The person pay's tax on his or her basis in the shares that they receive in the distribution. That amount with respect to a particular share may be different than the plan's basis in that share.

I recently reviewed one that limited the TPA's liability to the amount of fees it received.

I recommend that you retain competent ERISA counsel to review the contract with the TPA. I recently had the chance to review one that a major corporation had entered into with the involvement of an ERISA attorney and was aghast at what I found in it. The TPA will have a document drafted that favors them and not you. If you want to have any meaningful rights, you need to have the contract reviewed (and revised) before you execute it.

If the person has osteoporosis and the doctor certified that the person needs them, then they might be covered.

Here's the cite to the reported decision: http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/07...3pdf/02-891.pdf

What may have made my case worse was that the amount of the demutualization proceeds was an eight figure sum. My experience has been the same as the other commentators; the people in the National Office are much more pragmatic than the ones in the local office.

Harwood: You need to hire a litigator that is experienced in ERISA issues to advise you on these matters. I only represent employers on ERISA issues, I don't represent employees. The only time I represent employees is when I am retained by an executive to negotiate his or her employment or severance package.

In my experience, you don't even have to have the price of the employer stock drop to zero to get a visit from the DOL. I've had substantial declines in price precipitate an audit. However, the audit was confined to that one issue.

I don't think that the State of California has jurisdiction to determine whether ERISA preempts California law. That is a federal law issue; not a California law issue.

You would have to make a lot of procedural and substantive changes if you wanted to make a valid claim that you have converted the defined benefit plan into a Section 414(k) plan.

Rachel: If it is a QNEC, then it would have to be fully vested and subject to the limitations on distributions that apply to Section 401(k) contributions. That would seem to make sense only if the amounts are need to satisfy the ADP/ACP test.

Isn't there an issue as to whether ERISA preempts the Uniform Simultaneous Death Act?

I think that issue was addressed in the preamble to the final Section 415 regulations that were issued in the early 1980s.

Blinky: Having worked on some limited amounts of international work, I've learned that (at least some types of) employee benefit plans in England are referred to as "schemes."