masteff

You might also re-examine what you're considering a "notice to evict/foreclose". They do not have to be in actual eviction/foreclosure, just "imminent" threat of it. Most landlords/lenders will provide a "you're past due, pay up or we may start the process to evict/foreclose" letter, especially if it means they'll get paid all the faster. See a prior post I made here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...st&p=163431

What do the plan's loan rules say? We had two payroll cycles and also allowed terms to continue payments, so we had language in our rules that explicitly allowed changing payments based on these factors. E.g., terms were automatically reamortized to pay monthly. If you have multiple pay cycles, your rules should provide for automatic reamortization. The loan note should always be made subject to plan's text and rules.

My situation is a family member retired and the reps at the large institutional firm did an excellent job of "asset retention"... meaning they convinced him to rollover to their IRA product. But the actual goal is to consolidate all of the couple's retirement funds at a different firm, so I'm trying to make sure we don't mess up the 2nd move. And I confess to being much better at QPs than IRAs. To start, I've read Pub 590 but want to clarify two points. 1) A rollover from a QP to an IRA does not require a subsequent 12-month waiting period, correct? The money could be rolled over to another IRA in less than 12-months? 2) In the world of IRAs, rollovers are different from transfers and the 12-month rule does not apply to transfers? So as long as it's done correctly as a transfer, the monies could be moved again in less than 12 months? Thanks for any help in advance.

Speaking only to this piece of the question.... A participant can leave employment while not fully vested, earn additional service as a leased employee, and thereby become vested. (Just be sure to apply the "leased employee" requirements correctly as noted above.) I had this happen in the real world.

First, I have to applaud ERISAnut for giving me my 2nd chuckle of the day. Second, I'll generally agree w/ what the others have said above. Step One is getting started by putting your money in a well diversified fund that has an investment profile appropriate for your age and risk tolerance; a target fund like either of those is a good place to begin. Step Two is gaining some general education; Motley Fool, among other sites, has some good content. Step Three is check up on your investment, but only once every year or three; mainly you want to make sure your funds haven't suddenly turned into dogs and dropped to last place in the Morningstar ratings.

Thanks for that chuckle, John. And just to emphasize a point... EGTRRA effectively eliminated the concept of "conduit" IRAs. The term "conduit IRA" can generally be left out of all contemporary discussions of rollovers aside from the words being part of the name of some IRA accounts established prior to EGTRRA.

I'll also note that much discussion was held back in 2001, when the Treasury temporarily discontinued the 30-year bond, about the need for a certain minimum amount of Federal Debt in order to provide a base of so-called "risk-free" securities in the debt market. With the budget surpluses of the time, people were actually speculating what minimum amount of the Debt should be left open to faciliate the markets. (In terms of CAPM, how could you price a security w/out a risk-free rate from which to start?)

I'll just nitpick the syntax some more.... the orginal usage was: "piece of trash" is the subject and is modified by "long history with law enforcement". This to me equates "piece of trash" with "law breaker". Nothing in the sentence can be equated back to religion race creed or national origin. Anyone w/ a documented history of 16 law violations who causes vechicular manslaughter is a piece of trash no matter how you slice it. Let's not devolve this conversation, lest a moderator should decide to lock it down to prevent tempers from flaring.

The article linked comes up with 1 in 6.5 (Damon said 1 in 3)... but that was for a healthy normal individual. We've established a history of cancer in the candidate and of higher stress and mortality associated w/ the office.... so is 1 in 3 really so far off that we shoot the messenger? (Or if we shoot him, at least make it for the right reason... can anyone say "Dogma" or "Jay and Silent Bob"?)

I'd say in population as it's a component of growth (while enforcement and control of illegal entry would be a national security issue).

Hmmm... I was going to take issue w/ #2 but when I went to census.gov to get the figures to back my statement, I had to concede the point partially. I'll throw the Federal Debt into the mix... current debt is $9.6T... current Federal Budget puts revenues at $2.5T. This means our govt owes nearly 4 times what it earns. And it projects to increase its debt to income ratio for the foreseeable future. We pass laws to mandate real minimum payments for credit card borrowers but then we don't do the same for ourselves collectively.

My thinking is the provider has more than one client so they've been down the road before and surely have their own opinion. How many companies do they offer the service to? Personally, I'd ask them to sign and if they refuse then make them put in writing why not. It's safer for the employer to have the provider sign. And US Chamber site is current and they for sure think it's an open issue. The 2006 legislation that made changes to HSA's certainly did nothing to address this.

It appears the answer depends in part on how the employer's relationship to the HSA provider is structured. The DOL says it's not an ERISA plan: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2004-1.html#section1 But the HIPAA rules might still catch it as explained here: http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publicat...EBlegal3.26.pdf On a more current note, the US Chamber is lobbying to get HSA's excluded from HIPPA: http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/health/hsa.htm What does your HSA provider say?

If it helps your analysis... the OP states it's a marital trust, which would generally imply the surviving spouse is a co-grantor. But I do agree the PLR is dated. Here are a couple newer ones: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0644028.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0724032.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-wd/0807026.pdf What seems to matter most is being co-grantor and sole beneficiary of the trust and having unrestricted right to distribute proceeds of the trust to oneself as beneficary of the trust.

jevd's post is consistent w/ several PLR's w/ similar fact patterns, for example: http://benefitslink.com/IRS/plr200242044.pdf The ideal would be to file for a PLR, however that has cost. Based on a couple articles I found, a number of PLR's have approved this transaction; however, you can't rely on PLR's issued to someone else (but it at least shows the service's general thinking). To the original question: In general in preparing tax returns w/ a situation like this, one tactic would be to attach a letter to each TIN's return explaining what occurred along w/ a copy of the two documents in question. This way when the service's computer tries to match the 1099-R to taxes paid, a human can review the file, read the letter and determine that taxes were not illegally avoided. Of course it has the risk of raising a red flag, but better than not disclosing it.

Not everyone here is a TPA. Several of us are or were in corporate benefits departments.

So I'd think the OP should go back to the custodial document and verify the parties at hand... namely I, also, think it's the Trust that should be the account holder of the custodial bank account. Even if it's not the primary holder of the assets, the trust may need its own bank account if contributions/distributions are being processed thru a bank account (ie distribution check clearing, etc.). This is necessary to avoid comingling of funds (brings back memories of hours arguing w/ our company's treasury dept when they changed banks and messed up the TIN on the pension disbursement account). Alternatively, some financial institutions maintain their own clearing account which eliminates the need for the plan to have one.

Thanks, just making sure I hadn't missed something since my last job change. (Although I admit such things were decided above my pay grade even then.) Then it makes an interesting case. Would you still take the same position if it was a normal expense they would have incurred but for whatever failure at hand? (The only weak example coming to mind is failure to maintain proper recordkeeping and having to pay a TPA for multiple years at once.)

Just to clarify... Is the paragraph I've quoted here predicated on it being an EPCRS correction (ignoring the settlor issue) or have I missed something in the last 2-3 years limiting a plan's ability to elect to use forfeitures to pay plan expenses?

An elder law website that seems helpful and touches on this subject: http://www.elderlawanswers.com/elder_info/...e.asp?id=2751#6 Keep in mind that Medicaid varies by state so an exact answer would need to come from your state's agency. I think what you're being told is generally right, but slightly misinformed as to certain technical aspects... it's the technical aspects that are tripping you up (and rightly so, until properly explained). The income still belongs to the retiree. The retiree still receives a 1099-R. However, the requirements for Medicaid eligibility are such that persons on it are typicially close to the income limits for having taxable income. And default withholding is typically enough to cover what liability might be there. As a CPA I'd encourage those people to still run the numbers to be sure of any tax due or refund. From your original post, it appears to be general practice (at least at that home) for the payment to be made directly to the nursing home... don't look at this as an assignment but as a courtesy provided by the home (and a way for the home to protect their interest in the monies). I'd bet your state's medicaid agency or an elder assistance program in a major city in your state that can confirm that this procedure is legal in your state. I agree w/ the others that I'd prefer the money go to the participant's own account and then be automatically transferred to the home, but if you're effectively destitute, it's hard to maintain an account of your own. The important thing as noted above is a properly notarized direct deposit election form instructing the funds go to that account.

See IRS Pub 590, page 25, "Waiting period between rollovers". http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf The waiting period is not optional. Their use of the word "cannot" is absolute. Without digging into the code and regs, I'd guess it makes the whole amount taxable, subject to both ordinary income tax and the early withdrawal penalty.

First - I agree completely w/ GBurns' and J Simmons' preceding posts. As noted, insurance is a regulated industry... so that should be your litmus test for if it's insurance or not. Second - Stepping back one moment to non-prescription items like bandaids and OTC products.... those are explicitly allowed as result of Revenue Rulings 2003-58 and 2003-102. It's not an analysis of how or when used... it's by definition, not by situation. And the definition can't be extended to doctors' retainer fees. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-03-58.pdf http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-03-102.pdf

It varies entirely by plan. Many plans deem that your election to defer was changed to zero and therefore you must make a new election after the end of the suspension. I'd say best place to start is reading the nuiances of your plan text and your hardship and deferral election forms. I'm 95% certain there's a thread on this in the past year. Found it, close but not exact question: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38830

Review your plan text and your beneficiary designation form to see if it makes the spousal consent irrevocable.

Actually, I'd say leevena's "nor" was a follow on to the "not allowed". This newsletter has an answer to this question which was originally published in the EBIA newsletter: http://www.fbmc-benefits.com/quarterlyreview/april2006.pdf So, in general, not allowed for FSA nor deductible by the individual, but you can look at each component of any payment to the doctor to see if it partially qualifies. Also note that the Federal FSA program does not allow physician retainer fees, aka boutique or concierge practice membership fees. https://www.fsafeds.com/forms/OPM-FSA-OVTF-10-031.pdf