Kirk Maldonado

In addition to all of the standard features built into Firefox, there are a large number of extensions that are available These extension ares small programs that do things like add more privacy, block ads more effectively, etc. You can find the list of the extensions at: https://addons.mozilla.org/extensions/?application=firefox

I think that everybody has gotten sidetracked, or at least the situation could be handled in a much simpler fashion. There is no issue involving the insurance company; this matter only involves the amount that the employer subsidizes the premium for the different classes of employees. If the employer unilaterally lowers the subsidy for all of the higher-paid employees while simultaneously raises the subsidy for all of the lower-paid employees, I don't see a constructive receipt issue, because the higher-paid employees are not given the choice as to whether or not to receive the lower subsidy. That is a very simple solution, although it might not be too palatable to the less charitable members of the highly paid group. Besides the tax issue, I don't see allowing the higher-paid employees the choice is administerable. For example, would you have to recompute the premiums for the lower-paid employees part way during the year if a number of the higher-paid employees who donated some of their subsidy were laid off or quit?

I assume that you are talking about viatical settlements. If that is true, I think that gdburns is understating the risk when he described them as speculative. Here is a snippet from an article that I saved on my computer: The North American Securities Administrators Association added four scams to its annual list of the 10 most egregious frauds perpetrated on investors when it released the compendium Aug. 26. New to the list are analyst research conflicts of interest, unscrupulous brokers, charitable annuities gift scams, and oil and natural gas schemes. The four join these holdovers: unlicensed individuals selling securities; promissory notes; prime bank schemes; viatical settlements; affinity frauds; and equipment leasing.

k man: If you are looking for somebody to act as the named fiduciary for the orphan plan, I have somebody that you can contact. He will also act as the TPA too, if that is also desired. I've known him for over 20 years, but I don't get any kickbacks, referral of business to me, or any other incentive to recommend him, so that there is no conflict of interest. Here is his contact information: Nick Saakvitne (310) 451-3225 saaklaw@aol.com www.ERISAFiduciary.com NICHOLAS L. SAAKVITNE, A LAW CORPORATION 4712 Admiralty Way, PMB #601 Marina Del Rey, California 90292

Why doesn't somebody post a comment to the IRS on this point so that it can be addressed in the final regulations?

Technically, what you had was a complete cessation of contributions to the plan, causing full vesting. The interesting work will be for you to determine when that occurred, so as to make sure that all of the eligible persons became fully vested back then.

I think that Reish & Luftman posted something on their website about this issue, but I'm not absolutely sure.

Was the stock that was contributed to the plan registered with the SEC?

b2kates: Is there an issue as to whether you have created a MEWA by covering that individual? (I honestly don't know the answer to that question.)

I seem to recall that there is at least one DOL Advisory Opinion addressing this issue.

J2D2: You said that was your goal, what did your research reveal about whether that result was feasible?

J2D2: Are you assuing that the receipt of the benefits will be taxable or tax-free?

My conclusion was that aggregation was required for this purpose.

TCWalker: While that may be true, it doesn't stop the person from continuing to vote in certain locales.

E as in ERISA: Is there any guidance stating that you don't have to aggregated grandfathered plans?

mbozek: If the distributee hadn't kept the money segregated, would the Supreme Court decision Great West pose an obstacle to the plan's recovery? (I've not thought this through yet, so I am sincere when I ask this question.)

You can never do a limited scope audit if the plan is required to file a Form 11-K (which occurs if the employer stock that is available for employees to purchase with their contributions has been registered with the SEC).

VEBAGuru: You post mentions an important point that many people would probably otherwise overlook. Of course, it depends on the terms of the plan, but people need to look at those plans to see if there might be a problem.

If you don't think that the proposed regulations provide enough detail, your best strategy in the long run would be to submit a comment to the IRS asking them to add more detail on this issue in the final regulations. That would seem to be infinitely more valuable than getting the perspective of the other people on the Message Boards.

IRS Reg. Section 1.410(b)-1©(1) provides as follows: (1) Bargaining unit. Under section 410(b)(2)(A) and this paragraph, there may be excluded from consideration employees not included in the plan who are included in a unit of employees covered by an agreement which the Secretary of Labor finds to be a collective bargaining agreement between employee representatives and one or more employers, if the Internal Revenue Service finds that retirement benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers. For purposes of determining whether such bargaining occurred, it is not material that such employees are not covered by another plan or that the plan was not considered in such bargaining.

The applicable regulations are 1.105-11.

You might find some useful information in Notice 2004-84, which contains the Cumulative List Of Changes In Plan Qualification Requirements.

Going back to the "doe shave" topic, I recall that one ancient language didn't use spaces between the words, so translating it was a mess. There were some ancient scriptures of some religious import that some scholars were working on. The example that they gave of the complexities caused by the lack of spacing between words was illustrated by the following sentence: Godisnowhere. Is the correct interpretation? God is now here; or God is no where?

I nominate WDIK's post as the best one of 2005.

Are you possibly thinking of section 409A?