jlf

Mike, I appreciate your excellent applification. Additionally, a 90-24 transfer is NOT a statutory right. The Plan Document is the controlling authority. The Plan Sponsor, therefore, through the Plan Document may allow or disallow 90-24 transfers whether or not the 403(B) arrangement is an ERISA plan. ------------------

THE "CONSULTANT" IS WRONG!! THE TRANSFEREE CUSTODIAN DOES NOT HAVE TO BE ON THE PLAN'S MENU OF CHOICES!!

I invite all to view my handiwork at the 401(k) message board under topics: transfer/rollovers and transfers/roloversII. jlf ------------------

LarryM: Please communicate with me after you review the message. jlf ------------------

LCarusi, Thanks for your reply. The statutory definition of an "eligible rollover distribution" from a 403(B) arrangement is IDENTICAL to an "eligible rollover distribution" from a qualified plan. See sections 403(8) and 402©4. Is it possible the Court of Appeals misapprehended and misapplied 403(b)11 to govern "eligible rollover distributions" of post-1988 salary reduction amounts from 403(B) arrangements? When you have a moment check out my message of 8-27-99 on this message board; topic: transfer/rollovers. [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-30-1999).] [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-30-1999).]

Have you seen my message as posted in the 401(k) message board on 8-27-99 under topic: transfer/rollovers? ------------------

Have you seen my handiwork of 8-27-99 posted on the 401(k)message board under topic: "transfers/rollovers"? ------------------

Kathy, Your definition of an "eligible rollover distribution" does not conform with the statutory definition at IRC section 402©(2),(4). Reg. Section 1.402©-2T,Q&A 3-9. You are using the triggering events upon which one may effectuate an early or premature distribution (taxable events) to also govern rollover eligibility. The restrictions and distributable events, however, upon which one may effectuate a rollover were repealed effective January 1, 1993. See section 402(a)(5)© prior to January 1, 1993. Unemployment Compensation Amendments of 1992. "Observation. Generally the post-1992 rollover requirements are easier to satisfy. Unlike the pre-1993 rules, the post-1992 rules are not limited to those cases in which the distribution would be treated as a lump sum distribution. (The entire account balance received within a single tax year and be triggered by: termination of employment, turning 59.5, termination of the plan, or death of he participant.) If a partial distribution is made from a qualified trust, there is no requirement that at least 50% of the employee's balance be distributed nor is the rollover limited to distributions that are made on account of the employee's death, his separation from service, or disability. Furthermore, unlike the pre-1993 law, a partial distribution to an employee doesn't have to be rolled over into an individual retirement account or annuity." SOURCE: RIA, UNITED STATES TAX GUIDE, VOLUME 1, TAXATION OF EMPLOYEE BENEFITS (IRC SECTION 402) PARAGRAPH 402.04, P.12,037. ISSUED MAY 3, 1993. ------------------ [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-28-1999).] [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 09-03-1999).]

LCarusi, I trust you did not forget my post of 8-24-99 I look forward to your reply. ------------------ [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-26-1999).]

Multiple beneficiaries of an IRA may use their own individual life expectancies in calculating their MRD, notwithstanding the fact that the IRA owner passed the IRA's RBD. See letter rulings: 1999-31048, 1999-26189, 1999-25572. ------------------

The "required minimum distribution rules" work just fine in a non-tax deferred account. Do you agree Scott Burns? ------------------

LCarusi, I agree with you. The Court of Appeals, however, in FRANK V AARONSON, CA 2ND 96-9456, ruled that post 1988 elective deferrals from TSAs are only "eligible rollover distributions" AFTER an early distribution triggering event under 403(b)11 is met. Why don't the same restrictions apply to 401(k)s? [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-24-1999).]

David Rigby; Under the statutory definition of an "eliglible rollover distribution" there is no mention that a distributable event must be satisfied; i.e.; 59.5, separation from service, death, disability. See 402©4. Why was such a MATERIAL part of the definition omitted? ------------------ [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-26-1999).] [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-27-1999).]

Under current law only early/premature distributions under sections 403(B)(7)(A)(ii) and 403(b)11 are "eligible rollover distributions" within the meaning of sections 403(B)8 and 402©4. Does HR 2488 make "eligible rollover distributions" from TSAs NO LONGER subject to the early distribution triggering events of code sections 403(B)(7)(A)(ii) and 403(b)11? ------------------

How does the Jarrett Study impact the "minimum required distributions" requirement of tax-deferred retirement accounts? [This message has been edited by Dave Baker (edited 08-11-1999).]

The ASPA SAYS THAT THE PENSION BILL RECENTLY PASSED BY THE CONGRESS PERMITS ROLLOVERS AMONG VARIOUS TYPES OF DC PLANS "WITHOUT RESTRICTION". DOES THIS MEAN THAT ROLLOVERS TO AND FROM 403(b)PLANS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EARLY DISTRIBUTION TRIGGERING EVENTS OF 403(B)(7)(A)(ii) and or 403(b)11? ------------------

The ASPA SAYS THAT THE PENSION BILL RECENTLY PASSED BY THE CONGRESS PERMITS ROLLOVERS AMONG VARIOUS TYPES OF DC PLANS "WITHOUT RESTRICTION". DOES THIS MEAN THAT ROLLOVERS TO AND FROM 403(b)PLANS ARE NOT SUBJECT TO THE EARLY DISTRIBUTION TRIGGERING EVENTS OF 403(B)(7)(A)(ii) and or 403(b)11? ------------------

THE SERVICE STATES AT IX A (3) ROLLOVERS THAT: "UNLIKE TRANSFERS, THERE MUST BE A DISTRIBUTABLE EVENT UNDER THE PLAN OR CONTRACT TO HAVE AN ELIGIBLE ROLLOVER DISTRIBUTION." WHAT TYPE OF EVENTS ARE THEY REFERRING TO OTHER THAN THE TRIGGERING EVENTS FOR EARLY DISTRIBUTIONS ENUMERATED IN SECTIONS 403(B)(7)(A)(ii) and 403(b)11? RECOGNIZING THEIR OWN INFORMATION LETTER OF MAY,1995, WHERE THEY TOOK THE POSITION THAT POST-1988 SALARY REDUCTION AMOUNTS TO A 403(B)1 contract are subject to the events of 403(b)11 in order to be an eligible rollover distribution UNDER 403(B)8 and 402©4; don't you find it strange that they don't re-state their position and that of the ruling in FRANK V ARRONSSON; COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE 2ND CIRCUIT; 96-9456? ------------------ [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-05-99).]

I now recognize that the money has been received by the IRA custodian. See if the 457 plan will accept a return check. Hopefully they will and the transaction will be reversed. Do this ASAP. Any gain accrued while in the IRA will be taxable and probably subject to the 10% penalty. It seems to me that both trustees, the 457 Plan Administrator and the IRA Custodian, were out to lunch on this one. Your compliance procedures should be reviewed forthwith. Let's hope that the IRS does not view this transaction as a TAXABLE DISTRIBUTION. [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-04-99).]

Was this a "direct rollover distribution", trustee-to-trustee? Or did you guys cut a check payable to the participant? [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-04-99).] [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 08-04-99).]

The overfunded amount is simply factored into the actuarial calculation in computing the sponsor's annual contribution. In many instances the computation results in a very small or zero appropriation. ------------------

Distributions generate a 1099. If she elects to directly rollover an eligible rollover distribution to a qualified plan she will defer her tax liability until such time as she withdraws her money. A 1099 will still be generated but it will be coded as a "direct rollover distribution"; a non-taxable event. Her ethnic heritage and place of residence are not factors. ------------------

More than 4% withdrawals is dangerous? I don't get it. The NYSE has returned about 11% since 1926. Surely a portfolio of S&P500/Investment grade bonds has returned in excess of 4% since 1926. Mr. Burn's position results in an account balance greater at death than when withdrawals started. ------------------ [This message has been edited by jlf (edited 09-09-1999).]

DOESN'T A STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS KICK IN AFTER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PAYMENTS? AFTERALL, WHY SHOULD A RETIREE/BENEFICIARY SUFFER A FINANCIAL HARDSHIP BECAUSE THE PLAN ADMINISTRATOR WAS "OUT TO LUNCH"? ------------------

I don't feel you need an attorney at this point. Let the process take its course. ERISA IS PROTECTING YOU. IT IS DOING WHAT IT WAS DESIGNED TO DO. BE PATIENT. ------------------