Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'church'.
Found 5 results
-
A nonelecting church plan sponsors a 403(b) Plan. All employees are eligible and there is one platform provider. Much nicer and cleaner than most 403(b)s! Oone of the pastors would like to have the church start a separate plan with a company dedicated to retirement advice specific to clergy, which appears to have a MEP for church plans. The only reason for this change seems to be that the pastor has personal investments with this company already. The church would like all employees to be able to choose between the new plan and the existing plan. I understand that 410(b) does not apply, but there are still pre-ERISA coverage requirements. Questions: 1) Can each plan exclude employees covered under another plan sponsored by the church? Would it need to be specific as to who is covered under each plan or is it okay to allow participants to choose? 2) If the new plan is set-up, can this pastor move his existing 403(b) Plan assets? There is no distributable event that I can see, but is there a way to do a 403(b) plan to plan transfer? Thanks, Kathryn
-
Good morning, this falls under the "please don't shoot the messenger" heading. A prospect for a non-ERISA 403(b) Plan, which is a church, is asking whether they can take advantage of the "tax credit under the Secure Act". We don't see how this could benefit an entity that does not pay any taxes in the first place, but we were still asked to research the question. Maybe we are missing something. Thoughts? Thank you.
-
Can (or is) a church plan with multiple employers also be considered a Multiple Employer Plan (MEP) or a Multiemployer plan? Thanks for any help.
-
So I'm having a hard time finding anything that allows (or disallows) a plan to not allocate any interest to employee contributions if the participant terms before becoming vested? Would this be discriminatory? -
This is a church plan so maybe this works but I have my doubts: A) Monthly benefit defined as NRA Cash Balance Account divided by a annuity factor based on 417(e) mortality table and 30-year Treasury rate @ first day of year of retirement B) Benefit accruals frozen as of 1/1/2007 C) As 30-year Treasury rates tumbled recently (and for 2009) the annuity factor rose and monthly benefits dropped so that someone retiring at age 65 would get a monthly benefit about 15% lower if they retired now (or in 2009) than they would have had they retired in any other year since the freeze. Any problems?
