We provide a COBRA subsidy to our employees. In our self-insured plan, the benefit varies based on position. For example, 6 months for staff and 12 months for Senior employees. Is this a 105(h) issue? If so, what does this mean? The first 6 months would be non-taxable for everyone, but the second 6 months for Senior employees would be taxable as an "excess reimbursement"?

[Advert.]

The DOL is coming ... Pension plan audits are on the rise with a specific focus on the Term-Vested population and RMD. Attend our free webinar that will educate you on the DOL focus, identify options and introduce you to our new Term-Vested Audit & Remediation Service.

I have a prospect that wants to convert their 412(e)(3) plan into a traditional defined benefit. I've never done this and the only way I can see when I read the ERISA Outline Book is to ask the IRS to treat the plan as if it was never a fully-insured plan. I calculate funding minimums and maximums back to plan effective date. If the contributions fall in the range and I do everything else the examining agent asks, then it would be "converted" or in other words, it was never a fully-insured plan. Anyone ever done this?

Plan has a pro-rata formula for profit sharing contribution. CPA tells client to contribute $100,000. But HCE maxes out at the $54,000 limit so only $60,000 of the $100,000 is allocated. Client is not happy. Boss tells me to "make it happen." Can the remaining $40,000 be allocated to the non-HCE's?

Are there any particular consequences to having a small amount of hard to value assets in a one-person DB plan? ($15K out of $650K.) It's some kind of private equity; it shows up on a brokerage statement as an alternative investment/held outside the account and the purchase price is shown as its value. That question on the SF is grayed out for a one-person plan. Do I just say "give me a true fair market value" and move on?

Any reason a DC plan that didn't allow partial distributions at termination date (12/31/2017) can't be amended to allow them now? Final distributions won't be available for quite some time, but the plan sponsor wants participants to be able to receive some money now. I seem to recall some post-termination amendment issues with DB plans, though.

My client's financial adviser suggested that the client take very a low salary for the next couple of years to reduce income taxes. But each year we need to run the nondiscrimination test under Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-9 Aggregating DB and DC Plans. This client's DB/DC combo plan use the minimum aggregate allocation gateway test (GT) in order to test on a benefits basis. Isn't the plan required to use plan year compensation, pay defined under section 415(c)(3) (not section 414(s)), and the annual method to calculate allocation rate for gateway purposes? If so, wouldn't a very low current year compensation amount greatly affect the EBAR for the gateway test, which in turn requires the plan to provide higher employer contributions in order to pass the test?

Employer sponsors more than one plan. Each plan has a plan expense account (excess revenue account held within the trust). Can the plan expense account from Plan A be used to offset reasonable administrative expenses for Plan B? Any guidance would be greatly appreciated!

Soon, "a plan providing disability benefits" must design its claims procedure to meet some conditions that ERISA's claims-procedure rule doesn't require for a retirement plans. (https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2016-12-19/pdf/2016-30070.pdf) If a 401(k) plan has immediate vesting for all contributions and allows a distribution on a participant's severance-from-employment (without considering the reason for severance), is it fair to say the plan provides no disability benefit? Can anyone think of a situation in which a 401(k) plan's administrator must decide whether a participant has a disability?