david rigby

This may provide a start. http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revproc2003-44.html See Appendix A.

Fix? If the benefit is payable as an annuity, you stop the payment, assuming the plan has the (very common) provision to do so. If a lump sum has already been paid, probably no action possible. Prevent? Ahh, there's the rub. If it were simple to do so, this discussion would not exist.

See IRS Reg. 1.404(a)-14©. Sorry, have not checked to see if there is more recent guidance.

All kidding aside, it is unlikely there is a single source of such information, that is both brief and useful as a synopsis. However, there may be several useful summaries in publications/books. Possibly one or more of the "Answer Book" series. Perhaps CCH or RIA or Irwin publishes a book containing a summary. Alternatively, if you have a particular question in mind, post it here and we will attempt to help.

Blinky and mbozek both make valid points, but neither solution is complete. 56K is a lot! Neither course of action should be taken until the sponsor has exhausted all remedies for searching. Since the participant could be deceased, this means searching for relatives. But let's not assume relatives will do the searching, since they may have no evidence to suggest a search is necessary, and the creation of an IRA will be useful (to participant and/or beneficiaries) only if someone knows about it There are many avenues for such searching, some suggested above, others may be discussed at the link above. So, why not focus on something useful: mbozek, assuming there is someone conscientious enough to do this search, can the account balance be used (within reason) to pay the cost of the search?

I don't care for the phrasing in your last question, but the answer is 80K. However, methinks there may be other facts not yet in evidence. Possible?

I'm shocked! Shocked!

No.

If you have not already done so, try the Search feature. I suggest using search terms such as "lost" or "missing participant".

Just guessing, but according to the terms of the loan?

Don't overlook any required minimum distributions from the 401(k) plan.

Careful examination of actual plan provisions will be needed for an exact answer. Probably, the result is that such designation will be invalid, as if it had never been made. Most plans will have a default definition of beneficiary in such case. If that default differs from your desire (assuming you are a plan participant), then you must make a valid designation in advance.

No doubt, this is where an attorney can help you. Some relevant issues might be here: http://employerbook.hypermart.net/QATopic.html

The weight changes when (IMHO, not if) it changes from "proposed" to "final".

I will be glad to offer my services to clients of this actuary. However, as Blinky notes, it is likely some facts are not yet in evidence.

Depends on timing, doesn't it? How long ago was it "terminated"?

Depends on your procedures. The proceudre I have seen is remove this EE now, then upon later termination, you follow your procedures and put him (along with all others in similar situation) on the SSA again, as appropriate.

Well, that may be another thing for the husband and wife (and their attorneys) to consider, but it most definitely is not a consideration for the plan administrator (or TPA or anyone else associated with plan administration).

Does the Plan pay it? It should include actuarial, legal, accounting fees, etc. Check the list on page 33 of http://www.dol.gov/EBSA/PDF/2004-5500inst.pdf

Have you Googled?

3. Does the DC plan already provide a contribution that meets the TH minimum? 4. Does the DC plan observe the TH vesting schedule?

Hmmm. That is one purpose of going to the IRS. Their definition of "significant" may be different from yours.

I've seen it done both ways. Just depends on other facts, and other items being negotiated. State law may already say something about this, but it may be a guide rather than a rule. QDROphile?

Let's be careful about apples and oranges. The link to the Maryland provisions, provided just above, discusses distributions eligible for rollover. "Eligible Rollover Distributions. TG §10-908 has also been amended to require a payor to withhold from a payment to a resident payee that is an eligible rollover distribution within the meaning of §3405© of the Internal Revenue Code and is subject to mandatory withholding of federal income tax, Maryland income tax equal to the sum of 3 percent and the top marginal state income tax rate for individuals under TG §10-105(a), which is currently 4.75 percent. This provision of the Act will take effect July 1, 2005." Thus, it is not referring to monthly pension payments. The Prudential link includes discussion about both types of payments. But the practical issue for the recipient is to make sure the state does not include a tax penalty for underwithholding. Thus, most plans will do as "E" has suggested. Mbozek may be correct about pre-emption, but no plan and no individual wants to go to court for that purpose.

Somebody needs an attorney for this advice. The employer/plan/TPA should not try to give such advice.