Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

IRS grants relief to employers attempting to comply with notice requirement for SIMPLE plans adopted effective January 1, 1997

Article Abstract:

The IRS has issued relief to employers planning to begin SIMPLE pension plans on January 1, 1997, that will be unable to satisfy the 60-day continuous election period requirement. Even if employees begin making salary reduction contributions at the beginning of the year, the continuous 60-day period need not be completed by then. The 60-day period may begin any time from November 2, 1996, to January 1, 1996. SIMPLE plans scheduled to commence after January 1, 1996, will not be affected by this announcement.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1996
Compensation and benefits, Small business, Simplified employee pensions

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Senate tax cut package includes provision limiting 401(k) plan investments in employer securities

Article Abstract:

A Senate amendment in its 1998 tax reconciliation bill imposes limits on the degree to which employers can require employees to invest in employer securities through their 401k plans. The 10% ERISA limit would apply to 401(k) plans under this change. An amortization amendment in the bill would change defined benefit pension plans' full funding limit.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1997
Defined benefit plans

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Supreme Court upholds application of California notice-prejudice law to insured ERISA benefit claims

Article Abstract:

The US Supreme Court in UNUM Life Insurance Co. of America v. Ward held that ERISA did not preempt a California law requiring actual prejudice before insurers could deny disability benefit claims untimely filed. The court held that the law was a regulation of insurance and was not preempted under ERISA section 514(b)(2).

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1999
United States, States, Direct Health and Medical Insurance Carriers, Surety insurance, Income Loss Insurance, Cases, Remedies, Employee benefits, Disability insurance, Exclusive and concurrent legislative powers, Preemption (Legislative power), Insurance law

User Contributions:

Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: United States, Laws, regulations and rules, Pension funds, Salary reduction savings plans, 401K plans, Notice (Law)
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: ECJ requested to interpret merger directive in context of German requirement for double rollover of book value
  • Abstracts: How to succeed in a (still) masculine world; the main thing is to go in with no illusions and play the game hard - their way
  • Abstracts: Dead woman walking; commuted death sentence raises question whether females are treated more leniently. Peremptory-free zone; a federal judge won't allow such challenges in her courtroom
  • Abstracts: Section 404(a)(7) limits applied separately to employers in controlled group. Patterson v. Shumate: a five-year legacy
  • Abstracts: Taxpayers' appraisers in a tax court slump. Dissecting the discount for lack of marketability. The outer limits of minority discounts
This website is not affiliated with document authors or copyright owners. This page is provided for informational purposes only. Unintentional errors are possible.
Some parts © 2025 Advameg, Inc.