Search the Community

One of the requirements for a pick-up arrangement is that the "employer must specify in writing (e.g., minutes of meeting, a resolution, or an ordinance) that “contributions on behalf of a specific class of [its] employees . . . although designated as employee contribution , will be paid by the employer in lieu of employee contributions.” Is there any guidance on what constitutes a "specific class of employees"? It appears that the employer need not cover all employees, just a "specific class." Is anyone aware of any guidance on this point? For example, it would appear that the employer could commence pick-ups after two years of service and have different rates of pick-up for different classes of employees covered by the plan. Can the employer prospectively change the amount of the pick-ups, provided the employee doesn't have a cash or a deferred election right?

Client is a local government entity that has a FICA replacement plan, so employees who participate in the plan don't pay into Social Security OASDI or receive those benefits. My question is - the requirements for replacement plans are framed in terms of what the employee must receive. Is there any requirement that a replacement plan provide spousal benefits? Thanks -

We are a TPA firm that administers Cafeteria Plans for public employees that are exempt from ERISA requirements. Currently, our clients hold their own checking accounts with which the funds are held. We are looking to offer a funding method where we, as the TPA, have a checking account that the client's funds are held in. What are our funding options that will keep us compliant with IRC and California banking laws? Because our clients are exempt from ERISA, but our TPA firm isn't, do we have to comply with ERISA requirements if we decide to hold the funds for them? We are considering opening one business checking account to hold all of our client's funds with the idea that we would not dip into one client's funds if another falls short, but I am concerned with the commingling of funds and think it would be cleaner (and maybe the only compliant option) if we held separate checking accounts for each client. If we were to open a Trust, could we commingle different Plan assets then? Any help would be very much appreciated.

Good morning! Code Section 401(a)(17) places a limit on the amount of compensation that can be used to determine the amount of a defined benefit plan participant's benefit. There is a special transition rule for governmental plans. That special transition rule for governmental plans provides that the Code Section 401(a)(17) limits will not apply if such limits will reduce the amount of compensation that was taken into account (for purposes of determining a participant's benefit) under a governmental defined benefit plan on July 1, 1993. The governmental plan however, must be "amended so that the plan incorporates by reference the annual compensation limit under section 401(a)(17), effective with respect to noneligible participants for plan years beginning after December 31, 1995 (or earlier, if the plan amendment so provides)." It's unclear to me whether the foregoing language means that a governmental plan (i) only has to be amended to incorporate the Code Section 401(a)(17) limits; or (ii) has to be amended to incorporate the limits effective with respect to noneligible participants. Can a governmental defined benefit plan apply "special" Code Section 401(a)(17) limits to eligible participants if that governmental plan (i) was amended to incorporate the Code Section 401(a)(17) limits by reference, but (ii) did not indicate that such limits applied only with regard to noneligible participants? There seem to be varying opinions on this issue. I appreciate any thoughts.