masteff

I vote for Belgarath's answer!!! Don't Panic!!! Regarding people who answer "2", my aunt, the retired math teacher said: "That's because they were taught (not in my class!!) to write PEMDAS at the top of their papers--to which I'd have to say over and over remember "in the order in which they come" for mult and div as well as add and sub." So there's your official high school math teacher reprimand! Edit: This is funny http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wv19iAncrrQ PS: this is all over the internet today: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=+...29&nocalc=1

ILuv caught their own mistake; you complete inside the parenthesis first but then then follow the rules for completing outside them. 288 is correct. And I'd rephrase SMMoran's statement to "It depends on presentation". If components are divided vertically, then that gives you implied parenthesis. But lacking vertical separation, then you take it strictly as shown. Here's Google's answer: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&sou...mp;aql=&oq=

I also think it can be done under EPCRS http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/401k_mistakes.pdf • Hardship distributions are made to participants that don’t meet the plan document’s hardship requirements or §401(k). o Correction may involve a repayment to the plan of the amounts that did not meet the plan’s hardship requirements or §401(k). It's a bit awkward because the distribution was legit when made and only became non-qualified after subsequent events. One issue will be withholding, but if you're in the same tax year, you can probably fix that easily enough too.

Thanks for the various comments. Thanks, I need her to look in the SD box anyway... we'll check for the original POA and trust docs too.

This is a personal question... My dad has Alzheimers and my step-mother has power of attorney. While reviewing some records, I noted that Dad might have a "lost" IRA (we consolidated his several IRAs a couple years ago and may have missed one). So now my step-mother is trying to get info about the account and the investment firm is requesting she present the original POA. The estate planning binders my step-mother and I have only have copies of the POA (I presume the original is at the lawyer's office). Other financial firms have accepted the POA copy. So the question is: does the investment firm have any valid reason to insist on seeing the original POA or I am in the right to expect the POA copy be accepted? EDIT: after further discussion w/ my step-mother, it's likely that she misstated the situation. But I'd still be interested in any answers for future reference.

Here are a couple: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=35828 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42850 Useful search: +loan +default +state +law (putting a + in front of each term makes it find "all" terms rather than "any" terms)

How could the partnership deduct an expense of the corporation? I see it as a two companies in a control group plan. A member of a CG does not deduct the contributions made by some other member of the CG.

The links are more about search engine rankings. Lots of external links back to your site can boost search ranking. You might have noticed some hubbub about a month ago when Google changed it's algorithm... part of that change had to do with backlinking and how it's used in their search rankings. The idea is that by having lots of backlinks to your site, then people must like/use your site, so you get a better search ranking and therefore more traffic. http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/arti...ur_website.html Here's one guy who got arrested for gaming the system: http://www.pcworld.com/businesscenter/arti...s_arrested.html A long but interesting article: http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/business/13search.html

mbozek and belgarath - I'm declaring a cease fire between you. You're both on the same page and just not seeing it because you're on slightly different angles from the topic. Going back to the Original Post, it asks two scenarios: a) if the money is paid from P's IRA directly to S and b) if the money is transferred to S's IRA and then paid to S. The end result is that either final payment to S is taxable. mbozek expands that the transfer from P's IRA to S's IRA is non taxable. We can also verify this by looking at the instructions for Form 5329 which state in the list of reason codes for line 2: "06 Qualified retirement plan distributions made to an alternate payee under a qualified domestic relations order (does not apply to IRAs)." Thus further confirming that exception to 10% penalty on distributions resulting from divorce orders do not apply to IRAs.

I'd also review the form on which the designation was completed as its wording can be binding upon the designation. Per stirpes and per capita are the two phrases generally included when it's intended that a primary beneficiary's children inherit that bene's share.

Ah, it's right there in the code if I'd have read closer... thanks!

Are the coins being held by a custodian? If not held by a custodian then absolutely a distribution. (And I though 408(m) related to IRAs... does some section related to qualified plans cross-reference?)

Don't confuse yourself by thinking of severance as a continuation of base pay, regardless of whether it's calculated as X weeks of pay.

I can't help wondering how much money did they settle the lawsuit for that resulted in their excessive focus on being indemnified. And if it truly was a result of some legal action, then don't hold your breath on getting them to change their ways any time soon. It'd take senior management getting involved to override the legal department. Edit: changed "And it" to "And if it"... makes a moderate difference in meaning.

Sorry, I was thinking type of expense. Sieve, I'd agree w/ you that to the extent you know it's been reimbursed by an FSA/HRA then it would NOT be hardship eligible. But... given HIPPA privacy rules, an administrator needs to be very careful about what's known and how it's known.

Before the changes, what, 7 years, 10 years, ago that expanded what's allowable under an FSA, we'd always look to what's allowable as a medical expense on Form 1040 Schedule A. IRS Pub 502 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p502.pdf It basically is the same as what you're proposing but been in place longer and less likely to change abruptly (e.g., the recent exclusion of non-prescription medications from FSAs). (Actually, the change some years ago to the FSA rules was to effectively expand FSAs to cover anything that's allowable on 1040 Sch A; seems like it was a tax court ruling but I'm too lazy to look it up right now .)

Of course, if the CP doesn't have any plans then there isn't any testing to be done. I think you're getting answers from two different angles and it might help if you clarify your concern. Seems to me the two issues are 1) does the CP have to provide its own plans or can the employees simply be covered by XYZ, and 2) what is the impact on the CP of having the leased employees. As for #1, generally speaking, no, the CP doesn't have to have it own plans, especially since they're all covered under XYZ's plans (there may be some nuiance of federal or state law that I'm missing but for the cost of an hour or two, a competent employment lawyer in your area can confirm that for you, which I strongly encourage you to do). As for #2, since the CP doesn't need any plans of it's own, there is zero impact on the CP (section 414(n) and "leased employees" and testing only matter if the CP has plans).

Another question is if the company is subject to FMLA. Does the plan document have section on leaves of absence?

Unless of course they advise the EE to get a proper receipt and acknowledgement, which even if drafted by an atty would be cheaper/faster than having the atty draft a qdro. Note: to state it a bit more clearly than above, the biggest incentive to the ee for doing an account split via a qdro vs a plan loan as proposed is that a qdro shifts the tax burden to the alternate payee. With a plan loan, the ee ultimately bears the tax burden.

I didn't even think about joint as in marital.... I was thinking pooled. If it's a marital asset question, then the answer is that a couple is still two separate taxpayers and the tax deferral benefits are accorded on a taxpayer basis and not a couple basis. (Section 402 jumps to mind as referring to "the distributee" and "the individual". And 401(k) refers to "the employee" several times.) If by joint, you really mean why can't all the company's 401(k) money go into one single account, the answer is that can be done, it's referred to as a pooled 401(k).

As said by several above... get legal counsel (or actually, have the client get their legal counsel) to review the POA and determine if it's sufficient under the relevant state's laws. A few POAs are poorly written and might be refused. I recall the State of Illinois provides a standardized POA "short form" that is absolutely wonderful (from a plan administrator's perspective) as it explicitly lists "retirement plan transactions" as one of the actions permitted. (If anyone is curious, here's a link to one version of it: http://dnr.state.il.us/mines/dog/Forms/Pow...rney%20Form.pdf )

Many plans do not permit beneficiaries to have loans (and consequently to make payments on outstanding loans), so such loans would get defaulted upon death of the participant. Need to look at what your plan allows re: loans and beneficiaries.

Thus underlining the danger of relying on anecdotal evidence from one single audit. One anecdotal audit does not make IRS policy. I still say use Microsoft to say the person gets service immediately upon entry after changing from an ineligible to eligible class. That was after all the whole jist of the Microsoft case and precisely why the plan has language relating to that class of person.

What reason has been given by the Trustee for refusing the sign the paperwork? (not that their reason is valid but at least it gives some idea of how to explain why they're in the wrong)

And John G's posts in the IRA subforum are generally excellent and packed w/ good tidbits of advice.