J Simmons

A strict reading and application of your document would lead to $25,000 lump sum or nothing. I would not vary from that without an opinion of counsel that the extraordinary circumstances of a one-year suspension of the RMD rules permit you to make what would have been the RMD but for the one-year suspension. Of course, the employee could take the $25,000, roll it to an IRA, and take it out as he pleases.

Is the holding account titled in the name of the plan/plan trustees or is it simply titled in the name of the employer? If just the name of the employer, no indication of the plan or plan trust, then you should be okay (provided you've also not included any balances in that account when reporting financial information about the plan on Forms 5500). If otherwise and the holding account is or had indicia of being a 'plan' account, you probably cannot withdraw. See http://benefitslink.com/boards/lofiversion...php/t14199.html and the three-part series, http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=...ects&id=142, http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=...ects&id=141 and http://benefitslink.com/modperl/qa.cgi?db=...ects&id=143

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops "Away above the chimney tops "That's where you'll find me"--and Bill I live in Kansas, why does that sound so familiar? Is it from the Jayhawks basketball fightsong?

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops "Away above the chimney tops "That's where you'll find me"--and Bill

Must be living, thinking in the past--Bill Clinton's first term, that is! Don't ask, don't tell.

You provide the underlying service to the employees, rather than what I and maybe some of the other responders assumed was services to the employer to process claims and keep track of dollar amounts accrued or used. In that case, I know of nothing in ERISA that would be violated by the plan taking 120 days to pay given the time tables that insurance companies, Medicare and state Medicaid programs take to pay.

No, that $200/mo would not restrict the amount you can contribute to your HSA, unless you used that $200/mo to pay for premiums of health insurance that did not qualify as HDHP for HSA contribution purposes.

I have only a passing familiarity with Corbel's documents, but have a question involving a plan using such documents at this time. On Monday, the Supreme Court issued its decision in Kennedy v Plan Administrator of the DuPont Sav. and Investment Plan, Docket #07-636, settling a Circuit dispute as to whether a waiver of benefits violates the anti-alienation rule. The Court said no, it does not, provided that the plan document permits it, the waiver is made per the plan procedures, and the waiver does not designate who the successor beneficiary will be. In my brief review of the Corbel document identified, I have found no spot where there is provision for waivers of benefits. Does anyone know definitively if there is or is not?

Thanks, Tom, I was not aware that the IRS has so said.

Tom, Wouldn't Treas Reg § 1.401(a)(4)-12 Testing Age (3) make it simply 65 where the 65/5 results in different NRAs for different EEs, some age 65, other ages 66, 67, 68, or 69 (but then Treas Reg § 1.401(a)(4)-12 Testing Age (4) make it actual age for those over 65)?

Who is expecting the average person to understand all this? Unfortunately, if it is Congress or the IRS they're delusional.

Correct. But before you dump the grandfathered 401k make sure that's what is truly wanted, because it cannot be re-started later. Compared to a 403b plan, with a 401k plan you have (a) much better developed regulations and rules than those funky new 403b regs, and (b) much greater skill/knowledge level among TPAs and CPAs for assistance in administration. Both give the ER a greater level of assurance that the plan's operations are complying with the applicable regulations.

The new documentation needs EGTRRA provisions. The prototype documents (and the EGTRRA good-faith adopted to go along with it) are being displaced, and will not apply once the IDP cash balance document is signed. The plan needs EGTRRA provisions. So if EGTRRA provisions are not integrated into the main IDP document, you'll need to adopt an EGTRRA good-faith amendment that refers to it applying to the IDP cash balance document. All such documents dating back to plan's inception, or most recent favorable determination letter (if the plan has one).

It seems, in trying to harmonize and make sense of what the courts have said on this topic, is that legal obligations of the ER to provide notices regarding an ERISA benefit are only as set forth in ERISA and any state law that attempts to define those notice obligations is preempted. Aucoin v RSW Holdings LLC, 476 FSupp2d 608, 615 (MD La 2007) and Howard v. Gleason Corporation, 901 F2d 1145 (2d Cir 1990). (As mjb pointed out, this is consistent with the notion of Engelhoff v Egelhoff, 121 S.Ct 1322, to promote uniform administration of multi-state plans.) However, another court (the 9th Circuit in Miller v Rite Aid, 504 F3d 1102 (9th Cir 2007)) first concluded that an individual conversion right incident to a group (ERISA) policy is not itself an ERISA benefit. Therefore, ERISA did not preempt the state law that dictated what notice rights must be given to the individual regarding those conversion rights. I don't recall whether it was raised or separately discussed as an issue in Aucoin or Gleason whether the individual conversion right under the group policy was or was not an ERISA benefit--those courts might simply have assumed that the individual conversion rights were ERISA benefits and thus not analyzed for whether they are or are not.

Spot-check type enforcement by the DoL? To date, I think QDROphile's observation is correct. When EEs complain to the DoL that promised health benefits are not being provided, the DoL often relies on this policy as part of its enforcement actions against the ER and its functionaries.

Here's a link to the reg for you to read about COBRA see sections 54.4980b-0 thru -10

clarence, Where in your situation does an IRA or retirement plan benefit come into play? This is board about estate planning aspects of IRAs and Retirement Plan Benefits, so I assume you only posted your concern here because there is an IRA or retirement plan benefits somehow involved. If not, you probably want to consult a California estate planning attorney.

If the 2nd 12 month period, the one during which the payouts must occur, straddles the end of one and the beginning of another calendar year, then I would specify X date for payout rather than just describe the dates of that 2nd 12 month window for payout. That way, it reduces the chance for an employee to have discretion over which of the two calendar years his payout will occur in. Just a precaution, but discretion over the year of payout is what 409A aims to end.

moto, do you wait until receiving funds from the ER before paying any EE claims? or is your firm paying those claims out of its own funds, to then be reimbursed by the ER within 120 days?

The reason I ask 'compliant with what?' is that only need to comply with 125 if you present an employee with a choice between a taxable benefit (like cash) and certain tax-free ones. So if your question is refined to whether you need for Options 1 and 2 to comply with 125, the answer to both would be yes. Whether or not the arrangement meets all the compliance aspects of a 125 plan, that cannot be determined from just the positing of what choice the employees are given.

Yes. The HDHP coverage requirement only applies for being able to contribute to the HSA. To withdraw from the HSA without taxation simply requires you have medical expenses. For future years, if your ER offers an FSA that limits use to preventive, dental, supplemental or specific illness expenses, or is general use but imposes a deductible that is the amount required for HDHP, then you can get extra dollars through such an FSA and have your HSA contrbutions too.

Exhaust the $1,200 general-use FSA as quickly as you can. For months after that, you will again be eligible for tax-free contributions to your HSA. For example, if you and your husband use all that $1,200 FSA by the end of February, you are then are eligible to make contributions to the HSA for March and later months.

Hey, Larry, your post #9 makes a compelling, succinct case for why a 204h notice ought to be required anytime a fixed match is to be reduced or removed, more so than when a DB or money purchase pension future benefit accrual is. Any idea why Congress/DoL have not extended the 204h notice to fixed match reductions?

That's so

I don't think you've missed anything.