Leaderboard

Just a hunch, but it's possible the original poster might be confused by some of these responses. Here's my summary (which may not be complete): In general, most plans permit a payment only upon limited circumstances: severance of employment, death, disability, etc. (The plan is not a piggy-bank; it's designed for long-term retirement needs, not short-term cash-flow.) Some plans offer the ability to make a loan to a still-employed participant, generally repaid thru payroll deductions. No plan is required to offer this feature. As stated above, it's trading one debt for another, so may not address your larger problem. Some plans offer the ability to take an in-service payment if you are still employed beyond a specific age (such as 65). It's not required. A QDRO ("qualified domestic relations order") might create the right to an "early" payment, but that may not be productive since it is for the purpose of fulfilling a domestic relations order. Most DRO's are related to divorce/separation, and a few are related to child support. Generally, a QDRO will create the ability for someone else to get a payment (ie, spouse/ex-spouse, child's guardian, etc.), rather than a payment to you. It's also possible that the plan itself could limit the timing under a QDRO (for example, not prior to the time the participant could get a benefit); if so, the QDRO is not permitted to alter this plan provision. If this is a defined benefit plan, the plan may permit a payment only in the form of an annuity (ie, monthly payments), and will not permit any type of lump sum, even with a QDRO. Declaring bankruptcy will (probably) not create any mechanism to speed up any payment to you. If this is a defined contribution plan, as stated above, the plan may have a provision that permits hardship distribution. There are tax consequences. Read your summary plan description.

BenefitsLink mavens, the third paragraph paterinick's originating query suggests some possibility that the plan might be a governmental plan. "ASRS" might refer to the Arizona State Retirement System. And the "got switched" might refer to Arizona's or another State's change from a defined-benefit pension plan to an Optional Retirement Plan for a State university's faculty and administrative employees. For a governmental plan, it might be true that an employing unit's human-resources person lacks authority. Likewise, it's not uncommon for a governmental plan to contract for an investment custodian or recordkeeper to perform almost all plan-administrator functions.

Does the plan allow for loans? I know that is swapping one kind of debt for another but the terms and interest rates might make it worth while. I would add your plan might be a bad idea from a tax point of view. If you are under 59.5 if you get the money you have to pay income taxes (could be 20% to 25% easily) plus a 10% early distribution excise tax plus state taxes (could be 0% to 9%). So you could find taxes will take 40% or more of your distribution when you get done paying all the taxes. That is an expensive source of funds. You might want to get some financial advice first. I would add if you are in real bad shape and you think bankruptcy is in your future as a general rule money in retirement plans is exempt from being taken in bankruptcy. So the only way your creditors can get that money in case of bankruptcy is if you first take the money out on your own. They can't force you to do so as a general rule. So at risk of repeating myself you might want to get some financial advice before you take money out of retirement funds.

FGC, good points and ones I had not considered. May answers and likely others were based on this being a 401(k) plan as that this the subforum it is in, but that could be a faulty assumption on my part.

This goes back to one of the basic ideas to me. Why is the payroll company telling the plan and sponsor what can and can't be done vs the plan document and the sponsor telling the payroll company what needs to be done? The sponsor and the plan are the customer for crying out loud! The plan document not the payroll company determine what can and can't be done in the plan. The sponsor is most likely paying the bills. Yes, I understand the payroll company has its ways but if the 401(k) deferral was legit the payroll company needs to find a way to make the W-2 match reality instead of people trying to get reality to match what the payroll company wants to see happen.

This is definitely something you should speak with counsel about and not go alone. There is case law all over the board regarding disclosure requirements and you need someone to carefully review the actual participant request.

I do not keep up with this issue very much so it may have changed, but I do not believe so. The regs require you provide the total cost, not the specifics that go into the calculations.