masteff

I agree w/ Bird. I'd be curious to hear what the attys on here say but I'd even be reluctant to give it to the executor of the estate. Several threads exist on topic of nullification of existing bene designation upon remarriage, here's one: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44073 You might also google a case called Cajun Industries, LLC vs. Robert Kidder.

In slightly different words: a monthly statement is not a tax form, don't over construe words on a monthly statement, especially on tax-deferred accounts like IRAs and Roth IRAs. Most likely, your brokerage just uses standard terminology for both regular and IRA-type accounts, resulting in IRA-type accounts having less than correct terms used.

So what do you mean by "missed"? What this a new enrollment or was it being deducted and suddenly on one payroll it failed to come out? I strongly believe in boilerplate language that enrollments and election changes may take 1 to 2 payperiods to take effect. It covers a multitude of unforeseen mess ups. Since you don't have the bad luck of the error being on the last paycheck of the year, I know that I would deduct the amount from the next paycheck and then do a manual correction for any missed employer match. As to the "deferrals being made proportionally" language... that simply means you're not taking a huge lump deduction starting on January 1st based on annual comp. I wouldn't overthink it.

I have fond memories from my previous job of sitting in a supervisor's cubicle or manager's officer and having conversations that bounced between "why the heck is our plan designed this way" and "so what do we do right now".

Took me several minutes of googling... Found this thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=35213 Which lead me to find this document, see Q-19: http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba...uthcheckdam.pdf

Given that payrolls are generally run 3-5 days prior to the actual paydate, it's perfectly reasonable to not start the suspension until the following pay period given your fact pattern. Many corporations who get data electronically from their TPAs often only receive a file once a week or even less often; many of them would not have received this change in time. I'd worry that doing something retroactively on this would create an undesirable precedent about how quickly the company implements deferral changes in the payroll system.

So are you suggesting instead that plans should have stayed on a longer suspension because longer suspension does more to discourage using retirement money for non-retirement purposes or are you in disagreement with suspension in general?

I took it as classic QDROphile dry humor

Was this merely the first paycheck following the withdrawal, such that it's really just a timing issue? Or did they continue taking it out of multiple paychecks? If it's just the very first paycheck following the w/drwl, then I'd call it an issue of administrative convenience (ie the timing for the procedure of entering deferral changes into the payroll system). This is why I always tell people it can take 1 to 2 pay periods for changes to take effect even if I'm 99% certain it will be on the very next payroll. You start the 6 month clock from when you actually get the deduction shutoff. If it was multiple paychecks then you need to return the deferrals. If it was all in 2012 then you can do it via the payroll system (just process a negative deduction)... or at least that's how I'd do it.

Chapter 9 of IRS Publication 970 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p970.pdf Instructions for Form 5329 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/i5329.pdf (most importantly, to paraphrase: for purposes of this form, a traditional IRA includes an SEP)

The renter makes it tricky but the short duration (in my opinion) weighs in his favor. If we look at some of the code and regs discussed in this thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38818 then we might choose to consider reg section 1.121-1©(2)(i) which says: "(i) In establishing whether a taxpayer has satisfied the 2-year use requirement, occupancy of the residence is required. However, short temporary absences, such as for vacation or other seasonal absence (although accompanied with rental of the residence), are counted as periods of use." {emphasis added} If you are willing to make the slight stretch of using Sec 121 for guidance (which has been suggested by other persons on this board as well as myself), then I believe you could permit the withdrawal. One thing I didn't think to ask is what term of lease did the current renter sign and has the owner given notice to the renter to vacate? My thought being that toward the point of a "short temporary absence", you need to document that the current rental situation is ending soon. That said... the conservative position is to say he can't have the withdrawal until the day the renter has vacated and the owner reestablishes a right to reside in the home.

The reg says: "(2) Costs directly related to the purchase of a principal residence for the employee (excluding mortgage payments);" For a previous discussion on what might qualify as a principal residence, see these prior thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38818 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46172 My opinion is that yes, I'd allow it, but not for anything related to the removal of the other trailer.

The reg says: "(4) Payments necessary to prevent the eviction of the employee from the employee's principal residence or foreclosure on the mortgage on that residence;" My initial opinion is he cannot take the hardship until the day he moves back in. In which case he needs to stall the mortgage company for time. How long was he in Alabama (are we talking weeks, months, years)? And is the house currently occupied by a renter?

Since no one else has answered, my one thought is.... Go back and review your enrollment screens (you mention electronic log so I'm presuming it's online). See if it's reasonable that a person might have misunderstood the screen. And try to look at it with fresh eyes (or even recruit someone else) to see if your screen might be potentially confusing (and thus result in accidental disenrollment).

You may be crisscrossing two separate things.... 1) qualifying reasons to take an in-service withdrawal and 2) exceptions to paying the 10% early withdrawal penalty. First time homebuyer w/drwl from an IRA is a 10% penalty exception.

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c112:H.R.3765:

Furthermore, angelf, you are deliberately trying to cite out of context of the full regulations. While Q&A-18 defines the type of annuity to be paid. Q&A-22 defines when it is paid. "Q–22: When must distributions to a surviving spouse under a QPSA commence? A–22: (a) In the case of a defined benefit plan, the plan must permit the surviving spouse to direct the commencement of payments under QPSA no later than the month in which the participant would have attained the earliest retirement age. However, a plan may permit the commencement of payments at an earlier date." {emphasis added} As to Q&A-18, the term "immediate annuity" is a specific type of annuity. It is standard jargon in our industry. You cannot construe the word "immediate" separately from the word "annuity". My last word on the subject is: If Congress felt its intent in REA was not being followed, they've had 27 years to fix it. Write them letters if you're so concerned about it.

First, to be clear, we have two 5-year rules. The first applying to the rollover itself which starts from the year the rollover occurred. The second applies to when a "qualified distribution" occurs. The concern that ebgroup is raising is about the second (which is why it took me a bit to catch up with him). Next we have to distinguish three terms: "designated Roth contribution", "a rollover from a designated Roth account" and "an in-plan Roth rollover". It really depends on how to interpret 402A©(4)© which says in-plan rollovers "shall not be taken into account for purposes of paragraph (1)", which is the paragraph that defines "designated Roth contribution". Note that ©(3)(B) (relating to "rollovers from a designated Roth account") also points to paragraph (1), so the two references are consistent. In it's most literal form, they are saying that rollovers are not "designated Roth contributions". In 402A(d)(2)(B) it says the 5-taxable-years for "qualified distributions" begins on the earlier of (i) first "designated Roth contribution" or (ii) the taxable year attributable to "a rollover contribution ... from a designated Roth account". If you read ©(4)© to mean the in-plan rollover is not a "designated Roth contribution", then you never trigger the 5-year rule (because you fail to meet either (d)(2)(B)(i) or (ii)). As to Q&A-5, it's a question of whether the broader terminology of "distributee’s first contribution" is merely a weak interpretation of (d)(2)(B) or if it really suggests the Service holds that broader view that any contribution, including a rollover contribution, triggers the 5-year clock. So how does anyone else interpret ©(4)©? And what is it's impact on (d)(2)(B)? http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/usc_sec_...02---A000-.html

Ah, yes, it's a bit messy that the 5-year rule for in-plan rollovers is in © while designated Roth contributions and rollovers from other designated Roth accounts is in (d). I interpret that the impact is that in-plan rollovers have a 5 year period which runs separately from any 5 year period applying to designated Roth contributions and rollovers from other designated Roth accounts. The IRS provided guidance in the form of Notice 10-84, specifically Q&A-12. Q&A-12 is unambiguous that the in-plan rollover has a 5 year period beginning with the first day of the year of the rollover. In-plan rollovers are still subject to the other provisions in 402A, such as the definition of a qualified distribution in (d)(2). You might read the model 402(f) language provided in Q&A-5 of Notice 10-84. EDIT: See the bottom of page 32 here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p575.pdf EDIT 2: Okay, I finally get your point. In 402A(d)(2)(B), an in-plan rollover does not start the separate 5 year clock for distributions from the designated Roth account. So if the only money a person had in their designated Roth account was an in-plan rollover, then any distribution would NOT be qualified. Yes, I agree it might be a hole. Of course how many people are going to do an in-plan rollover and not make any designated Roth contributions?

That Q&A gave the roadmap to your answer... 402A explicitly crossreferences part of 408A. 402A©(4)(D): "Other rules - The rules of subparagraphs (D), (E), and (F) of section 408A (d)(3) (as in effect for taxable years beginning after 2009) shall apply for purposes of this paragraph." 408A(d)(3)(F) specifically addresses the 5 year rule for rollovers. Thus, the same 5 year rule for rollovers to a Roth IRA count for rollovers to a designated Roth account. And don't overconstrue the word "contribution". It's still a rollover contribution regardless of whether it's a "designated Roth contribution".

It's allowed. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,i...1413,00.html#6r "How can I recharacterize an amount rolled over to a Roth IRA from an employer-sponsored retirement plan? You can only recharacterize amounts rolled into a Roth IRA from an employer-sponsored retirement plan by transferring them to a new or existing traditional IRA, and not back into the plan from which they were distributed."

As per the "Reasons for Change" on the 2nd page in the pdf that angelf provided above for the legislative history, Congress did NOT find the earliest retirement date to be inequitable, rather the inequity was that some spouses received no spouse benefit at all without having given prior consent.

"The legislation also helps assure that when a vested employee dies before retirement, the employee's surviving spouse will benefit from the pension credits the employee has earned, and it restricts considerably the latitude now allowed pension plans to impose additional conditions on survivors' benefits. Survivors' benefits will be paid automatically in more instances than now." http://www.reagan.utexas.edu/archives/spee...1984/82384b.htm Also see the 4th page of this document: http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/ssb/v48n5/v48n5p38.pdf

See Q&A-12 here: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-10-84.pdf

You should read the footnote to the case you cited, "Section 1055 was amended in 1984 by Sec. 103(a) of the Equity Retirement Act of 1984, Pub.L. No. 98-397, 98 Stat. 1429. However, both parties agree that the present case is governed by the pre-amendment version", as it effects the context of what you quoted. Apparently the issue of this thread is the "qualified preretirement survivor annuity" in Title 29 Section 1055. ETK is correct. It doesn't say "not until" but does say "not later than". 29 1055(e)(1)(B) (B) under the plan, the earliest period for which the surviving spouse may receive a payment under such annuity is not later than the month in which the participant would have attained the earliest retirement age under the plan. Congress has had the better part of 27 years to change the law if it really wasn't following their intent.