Kirk Maldonado

I agree with Jon, if the express purpose of the search is to reduce the employer's expenses . On the other hand, if the search is simply to find out who provides the best service at a reasonable cost, I'm not so sure that I agree. However, I don't know how you could differentiate the two in actual practice, because few employers would want to engage incompetent TPAs, simply because they are cheaper.

Although it is a close call, I tend to agree with MWeddell.

What RLL is referring to is the SEC No-Action Letter issued to Diasonics, avail. Dec. 29, 1982. My personal view is that the SEC's reasoning in that letter is flawed, and I don't recommend relying upon it.

Harry O is right, but representatives of the IRS have publicly disavowed those rulings. Also, I seem to recall that they dealt with tax-qualified retirement plans, before the constructive receipt doctrine was repealed as it applies to tax-qualified retirement plans. Thus, they may not have strong precedential value as applied to nonqualified deferred compensation plans.

MBG: Don't the new 411(d)(6) allow some of these distribution options to be eliminated?

If you can't find it on FreeERISA, you might want to contact Judy Diamond & Associates. In one case, they found documents for me that were not on FreeERISA. P.S. I am not in any way connected with Judy Diamond & Associates.

I concur with Earl, with one caveat. Even if the plan is squeaky clean, many clients, when given the choice, would prefer to avoid an IRS audit, even if it delays the termination of a plan several months and costs some money. It should be the client's determination, based about his or her risk tolerance level.

The issue is whether you are assigning a proper value to the policy or some artifically low number.

I disagree with MWeddell. I think that QDROPhile has it right. The regulation provides as follows: In no event is an election made after December 23, 1994 treated as one-time irrevocable election under this paragraph if the election is made by an employee who previously became eligible under another plan (whether or not terminated) of the employer.

Wouldn't the Georgia law be preempted by ERISA (at least with respect to self-funded plans)?

Paul Dugan: Is your position consistent with that underlying IRS Announcement 88-51 and Notice 89-25, Q&A #10?

What if there is only one participant left in the plan? What is the difference in that case between the plan bearing the cost and the participant bearing the cost?

What does the plan say?

Everett Moreland: Were those court decisions based on the economic benefit doctrine, or did the court employ some other line of reasoning?

Have you thought about the possible federal and state securities laws implications of issuing those notes?

You need to read Rev. Rul. 96-47, 1996-40 IRB and Treasury Regulation Section 1.411(a)-11©(2)(i).

MoJo: What if the plan said that it would only make a loan only if the participant agreed to repay the loan through payroll withholdings and that the participant's election to do payroll withholdings is irrevocable? Believe me, there are plenty of plans that provide that.

What about Advisory Opinion 94-27A?

Revenue Procedure 71-19 sets for the official IRS position on this issue.

Would restructuring provide any help, or is that precluded under Section 401(m)? I seem to recall that use of restructuring is precluded under Section 401(k).

EAKarno: Are you concerned if the extension occurs shortly before the deal becomes effective, or do you think that the bilateral nature of the extension avoids any timing concerns?

I don't think that they work. I'm almost positive that the regs say you can't reimburse the individual for premium costs out of a reimbursement account.

Sorry Tom, but I can't help you on this one.

I could have sworn that there is an EITF stating that if you diversify the stock deferrals (into other assets), there is a charge to earnings. How do you get around that problem?

RLL: Do you believe that the holdings of PLR 90-01-035 are no longer valid because of the change in the statutory language regarding non-allocations?