Kirk Maldonado

No. They only make sense in a defined benefit plan.

Plan may require that the "successor in interest" to the alternate payee in the event the alternate payee dies before having received the payment must also qualify as an "alternate payee." Shelstead v. Carpenters Pension Trust For Southern California, Ct of Appeals, 4th Dist., 1998 Cal App LEXIS 782 (1998), 22 EBC 1906.

Better check the plan document to see whether compensation earned prior to commencing participation is taken into account.

That is what the PLR states. (It is available on LEXIS.) I question whether that is the proper result. I don't think that you can "tranfer" basis and/or NUA between shares. I don't recommend relying upon this PLR. If you want to take this position, you should seriously consider obtaining your own PLR.

There is an example (somewhere) in the Section 410 regulations that expressly states that you cannot exclude part-time employees as a class.

You can suspend loan payments for up to a year with respect to a participant who is on any leave of absence. However, that cannot extend that term of the loan

You might want to consider contacting the Self Insurance Institute of America, they might be able to help you. I believe they are located in Orange County, California.

Upon reading that portion of the proposed regulation, I agree with Harry O.

Without doing any research, I would assume that the alternate payee is separately subject to Section 401(a)(9), so that the alternate payee would be able to delay distributions until the alternate payee must begin receiving distributions. Similarly, I don't think that the alternate payee would get credit for purposes of the minimum distribution rules for any amounts payable to the former employee.

Without doing any research, I would assume that the alternate payee is separately subject to Section 401(a)(9), so that the alternate payee would be able to delay distributions until the alternate payee must begin receiving distributions. Similarly, I don't think that the alternate payee would get credit for purposes of the minimum distribution rules for any amounts payable to the former employee.

A VEBA is simply a trust that is used to fund benefits; it does not provide any benefits per se.

I've never been involved in doing that, but I know of a company that does that for other businesses. Contact Dennis Rainey at dennis_rainey@btabta.com.

I think that TAM 9635002 is the right one.

There's an exemption from the prohibited transaction rules, provided certain conditions are met. The big problems are federal and state securities laws. You better get a competent securities lawyer involved.

There are several companies in California that specialize in translating benefits communications materials into Spanish. Unfortunately, I don't know the names of any of them, but I have received several flyers from those companies over the years.

I think that if any portion of the original loan was not paid within the original 5-year period, it is taxable. Otherwise, you eviscerate the 5-year limitation.

The "insurance" policies that I've seen that are designed for this purpose generally would not satisfy the "risk-shifting" criterion of the regulations under Section 105(h).

Watch out for a possible ADA violation.

BNA Tax Management Portfolio 354 (ESOPs) is quite good. Also, I wrote chapter 50 of the Employee Benefits Handbook (which exclusively deals with ESOPs), published by Warren, Gorham & Lamont.

I haven't seen the EBIA treatise, but the "Mandated Health Benefits - The COBRA Guide" published by Thompson Publishing Group is the best treatise on any employee benefit topic I've ever seen. It's unique advantage is that it is equally good for the novice or an extremely experience practitioner.

It would take hours to explain all of the securities laws consequences. Read my Treatise on this topic. It is BNA Tax Management Portfolio #362.

Harry O did a good job of summarizing the tax consequences. One warning, though. If the benefit is rolled over into an IRA, all of the special tax benefits he mentioned are lost.

One big problem with self-funded plans is the difficulty in getting stop-loss insurance to cover claims that come in after the plan year ends when you terminate the plan. I strongly urge you to get an insurance broker or agent, whichever is applicable (obviously, I don't work in the insurance industry) that regularly works with self-funded plans. There are a number of nuances that only apply to self-funded plans. Most agents that don't deal with them on a regular basis will refer in a specialist when issues regarding self-funded plans arise.

Unfortunately, I have encountered it several times before. The typical scenario is that a publicly traded company has a Section 401(k) plan that is administered by an insurance company. The employer asks if they can add company stock as an investment alternative under the plan. The insurance company says that if the stock is publicly traded then it's OK. Needless to say, it becomes quite messy when we later advise the company that they needed to register the sale of the shares of company stock under the plan and about all of the SEC filings that weren't done. While the SEC compliance measures aren't that onerous, they can't be disregarded (either intentionally or unintentionally).

Yes, it works. In fact, it is pretty common for small employers where it is very likely that the newly-hired employee (or their dependent) will encounter significant medical expenses. It is much cheaper (in the long run) for the employer to pay the premium than to have the employee in the plan.