Kirk Maldonado

My recollection is that Revenue Ruling does not address a situation where the plan uses a composite rate, so I'm not sure that it is binding guidance in this situation.

That works great. Thanks.

For some reason, clicking on it doesn't work. However, when I copied the URL and pasted it into my browser, I was able to access the page. Thanks for posting it.

That link didn't work for me. Is the URL right?

I agree with JPod.

Check out the website for the National Association of Stock Plan Professionals, www.NASPP.com.

I don't think that the number of vendors or the number of pay periods will be determinative, in the view of the DOL, regarding when the employee contributions must be forwarded.

ActuarySmith: I think your statement is a bit overbroad. Read Section 1.411(a)-5(B)(3).

What about an amendment that provides for that? Assuming that there is no plan provision entitling all rank and file employees to QNECs, that might work.

My understanding is that although some tax-exempt organizations (e.g., churches) are exempt from this requirement, the rest must file a Form 990 with the IRS annually.

DeVoll v. Burdick Painting, Inc., 9th Cir. 1994, 35 F.3d 408.

I disagree with both JPOD and mroberts. The issue isn't whether withholding applies; it is whether or not the amounts are taxable. The fact that amounts are not subject to withholding is not dispositive as to whether or not the amounts are taxable. I think that the amounts should be reported on an amended Form W-2. (I think that the correct name for the form might be W-2C.)

A change in the eligibility conditions for coverage (resulting in the loss of coverage) is not an event that triggers COBRA. That point has been litigated several times and the courts are unanimous. Moreover, it is completely clear in the statute and the regulations.

Why not put all of those rules in Appendices in the back of the document. You could even simplify things more if you did a separate Appendix for each acquisition, and name the appendix for the name of the target company.

While I generally agree with Becky Miller, I have a question. What if the member of the LLC receives a fixed salary (regardless of the level of profits)? Would that be treated as a guaranteed payment to a partner? If so, would that enable the person to participate in the cafeteria plan to the extent of the guaranteed payments?

I thought that the penalty for the failure to make a contribution required by the minimum funding standards was an excise tax under Section 4971.

Aren't employee's entitled to demand that their benefits be distributed in the form of stock to the extent that they had elected to over-diversify?

Would you have an issue about the employer sponsoring a pension plan (for purposes of ERISA) if you start down the path of the employer being involved in the arrangement?

What deferal percentage do you get when you divide $0 deferrals by $0 of compensation? My computer doesn't like it when you divide by zero!

The new plan might have some reservations about accepting a rollover from a plan whose sponsor is in bankruptcy.

mroberts: Your distinction between a cafeteria plan and a Section 125 plan does not seem to be reflected in the terms of Section 125 of the Internal Revenue Code.

Didn't the recent FMLA final regs require some changes to the plan?

Continuing to pay down the debt when you know the stock is a "known loser." (It's like pornography; you can't define it, but you can recognize it when you see it.)

Are you sure that the investments did not actually go down in value (or at least stay the same) during the interim?

This is a wild unfounded guess, but what about having the plan's administrative committee sign it?