Abstracts - faqs.org

Abstracts

Law

Search abstracts:
Abstracts » Law

Update on DOL enforcement of annual filing requirement

Article Abstract:

The Labor Department (DOL) in 1988 gained the enforcement authority to levy penalties of as much as $1,000 a day on plan administrators failing to file annual Form 5500 reports. In early 1992 an amnesty program was instituted giving derelict plans until Sep 30, 1992 to file reports and receive reduced penalties. There were 233 filings under the amnesty program and $189,000 in penalties collected as of Jul 1, 1992. The amnesty program has also been applied to top-hat lans that have not filed registration statements under DOL Regs. 2520.104-23.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1992
Powers and duties, United States. Department of Labor

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


PBGC proposes annual financial and actuarial information reporting regulations

Article Abstract:

The US Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation has released proposed regulations regarding annual actuarial and financial reporting required for plans with significant underfunding. The regulations would establish an information year concept to be used in the filing of required information. The proposed regulations also identify filing dates, nonfiling penalties and exemptions from filing.

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1995
United States

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


ERISA S204(h) notification requirement applied in case of first impression

Article Abstract:

ERISA section 204(h) was interpreted by the Seventh Circuit so that an employer who changes a pension plan to remove stock option income must give prior notice to plan participants. The employer did not do so in Davidson vs Canteen Corp and claimed that 204(h) did not apply. This case of first impression shows that courts have wide latitude to interpret 204(h).

Publisher: Bureau of National Affairs, Inc.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1992
Notice (Law)

User Contributions:

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

CAPTCHA


Subjects list: Laws, regulations and rules, Pension funds
Similar abstracts:
  • Abstracts: Beware downturn doomsayers; stock returns, not election returns, are better predictors of market trends. Class distinctions: mutual fund groupings can be helpful investment guides - if they're legitimate
  • Abstracts: The Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and fear of foreign prosecution. In through the out door? Retaining judicial review for deported lawful permanent resident aliens
  • Abstracts: The Department of Labor's glass ceiling initiative: a new approach to an old problem. Discrimination litigation relating to employee benefits
  • Abstracts: The Department of Labor's glass ceiling initiative: a new approach to an old problem. part 2 The Civil Rights Act of 1991: did it really overturn Wards Cove?
  • Abstracts: Guidelines related to disparate impact, burden of proof, and the 1991 Civil Rights Act: analysis of federal court cases up to Wards Cove
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.