The new notice suggests, "You may wish to consult with the Plan administrator . . . before taking a payment from the Plan."


By Plan admnistrator, do you think the notice had in mind the 19 year old or the 25 year old?

I'm not sure about the answer to Andy the Actuary's question.

But I am reassured that the new Explanation, with the following stated mission: "A principal purpose of the changes in the safe harbor explanations in this notice is to simplify the presentation and description of the participant’s options upon receiving an eligible rollover distribution."

is 8 pages long.

Disagree vehemently. Very simple to read -- if you have a JD and habitually read the telephone directory.

Remember in 86 when these same folks "simplified" the tax code? Be glad it's only 2 page longer than before!

I vehemently disagree with ATA. The reading is simple, JD or not--it's just the understanding that's difficult.

We are talking about semantics and I contend that you are antisemantic. Also, you're a JD* and you would certainly disagree because this was written by JDs. Little doubt that if you computed the Flesch index, you would find that this would not pass the "everyman" SPD requirement let alone be readable by the average Senator.





*We are speaking of the present so JD does not refer to "juvenile delinquent". I would not engage in such mud-slinging

Now, wait just a minute. "Readable by the average Senator?" Sally, Dick, and Jane are too complex for the average Senator. All they know how to do is recite scripts written for them by their staffers, who, however misguided their thinking may be, are generally far more intelligent than the Senators. They are probably mostly JD's....

Come on, ATA, what is it in this sentence that is unreadable: "This notice does not describe any State or local income tax rules (including withholding rules)." Or in this one: "You will be taxed on a payment from the Plan if you do not roll it over." Or in this one: "There are two ways to do a rollover."

Or in this one: "You may roll over to an employer plan all of a payment that includes after-tax contributions, but only through a direct rollover (and only if the receiving plan separately accounts for after-tax contributions and is not a governmental section 457(b) plan). You can do a 60-day rollover to an employer plan of part of a payment that includes after-tax contributions, but only up to the amount of the payment that would be taxable if not rolled over."

Or this: "If the Plan is a governmental plan, you retired as a public safety officer, and your retirement was by reason of disability or was after normal retirement age, you can exclude from your taxable income plan payments paid directly as premiums to an accident or health plan (or a qualified long-term care insurance contract) that your employer maintains for you, your spouse, or your dependents, up to a maximum of $3,000 annually."

Or this: "E=MC²."