could be me maybe not

Very informative, thank you. Now we'll consider you to be the resident 412(Eye) guru.

Careful Blinky. In the immortal words of Moe Howard2, Sounds a bit like your friend GBurns, doesn't it? Perhaps you might wish to answer seissler and qtsh's questions?

You mean sometimes takeover plan documents are signed?

Calling Dom Firmani...........

Hmmm.

Blinky and GBurns have both been absent recently. Hmmmm.

Tracey, I strongly recommend investing $195 at the link below (no I have no connection whatsoever). I bought this a couple of years ago and it took all the mystery out. I do think you are still a bit confused about what useful language might look like as well as what some of the ancillary issues are. Reading this would resolve that. http://www.cyberisa.com/erisa_docs.htm p.s. and yes, Merlin is magical and Blinky is quotable.

Thank you, Everett. Are there any dissenting opinions out there, or are they all in my office!!??

Distribution 101 question: Assuming no state withholding is required, can a plan send a check representing 80% of a lump sum amount without offering a direct rollover option if the full benefit value is between $201 and $4,999 and the plan does not require the consent of the participant or spouse for such distribution, or MUST the plan offer t make a direct rollover and provide for a reasonable time for the participant to choose whether or not he/she prefers a direct rollover?.

But who and what decide who the frontrunner is?

http://www.weht.net/WEHT/Fawn_Hall.html Guess she's available (albeit in rehab)

Good one. Took me a couple of minutes though! Ollie

Hey Blinky, they ought to at least give you a free subscription!

What, no kudo's for discovering (via online thesauras) the word "contrapositive"? But who determines what is contrapositive?

A Hat 2, i.e. ^2 be the contrapositive of the square root. Got it?

Blinky, go home and get those notes! Geez! I sure hope you are right.

Thanks WDIK The silence implies agreement. Everybody agrees with GBurns, right?

OK. We shall wait.

Hey Georgie: Are you going to admit to a blanket misstatement or are you going to try and squirm out of this one? I'd suggest the former. We can all make misstatements, so a retraction would be fine IMHO, but if you are going to both annoy people and spout false information then it would outweigh your entertainment value.

Since we seem to be back to civility, I would like to know what flogger and GBurns were getting at with the discussion of "simplified issue" or "guaranteed issue" and participant counts and various policy types. What were the points that were being made? I will admit I have no clue what the significance of these policy differences are and how they relate to AC's question. Care to explain?

done likewise. no offense intended.

It could be that I was wrong and that Effen and fish were right. Hmm. Guess that's what theez Boards are for. I actually haven't handled any new ones in quite a while. Good thing. Thx.

Mr. Burns, is there something that you are not an expert on? Had I been SoCal, I would have whacked you rather than conversed. But then again, that is what you wanted so I suppose he wins.

Effen, you mean the variable portion of the premium, right? There is still the fixed rate portion. I didn't know you could prorate the first year. These rules are incredibly convoluted.

Need to specify which year you need to be employed in perhaps.