GMK

Not being a lawyer, I'll ask if the amendment to extend the QEP is limited to only covering future diversification distributions, or if it is permitted that the amendment could be retroactively effective to cover the distributions that have already been made beyond the 6-year period.

If the plan allows for it, then ESOP Guy's point about not favoring HCE's is probably the main issue. When our ESOP started doing diversifications, someone got the timing wrong, and some people got a diversification distribution a year ahead of schedule. We later fixed it with a VCP. Since no one got more than they should have (just got it a little early), no one had to give any money back (whew). If your plan says the QEP is for 6 years only, then you might want to consider fixing it and checking whether anyone got more than they were entitled.

Rule No. 2 says that you have to do what the Plan Document says you have to do, yes? If it were my plan, I'd change the process, so that enrollment happens (with default elections if applicable) on the participant's entry date. For those who do not want to start deferring right away, I'd provide a election form as part of their first-day paperwork.

Never go anywhere without your towel. http://www.wikihow.com/Celebrate-Towel-Day

BenefitsLink is a gem. Better than grad school. Thanks to everyone. I've learned a lot here. I had figured to hang around another year even without the promise of beer.

A plan with participant loans! Ugh!

kc - Mr. Preston knows what he's talking about. Too bad you chose to listen to yourself instead of to him. We all could have learned something.

Maybe I don't get it, but shouldn't whoever picks the force-out IRA provider know the provider's fee and be able to tell you? Or if you pick the provider, then can you tell the providers to keep you up to date on their fees or you'll drop them from your list of possible force-out IRA choices?

I have no idea if listing the fees is required. I just like to avoid future calls from irate people telling me that they'd have done things differently if someone had told them how much it was going to cost them. Tell them up front, so the ball's in their court.

For distributions, we inform the participant of all the applicable fees (that we know about) that will charged to the participant's account by the plan or others.

The cafeteria plan allows the employee to forego some of her pay in exchange for the benefit (medical coverage). If the leave is unpaid, there's no pay to forego. If the company allows her to use her CTO to receive some pay during her leave (even if it's only a portion of her full time pay), then the CTO pay likely can be run thru the cafeteria plan for the medical benefit. I think it's a question of whether the company is equipped to handle and wants to allow a-little-bit-paid leaves.

^I think there's a "not" missing from your last sentence. I agree that those first dollars are not eligible for rollover.

page 6-32 and 6-33 of this useful link: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd603.pdf

There are timing differences when you choose to satisfy the RMD with an annuity, rather than taking individual RMD distributions each year.

^Doesn't that bring some FLSA proubles, Tom?

This looks messy with fixed entry dates. Maybe they could send conditional enrollment letters that say we will know in June if you met the 1000 hour requirement for eligibility, and if you meet it, then you will be automatically enrolled in the plan as of July 1 with the default elections unless you file an election form with your own election choices. That would give the 30 day notice. Follow-up letters in June would confirm whether or not the employees met the 1000 hours requirement. Otherwise, I don't see how you do it, except to have a strange, but applicable policy that new hires cannot start working in June or December. No law against that, is there?

I'm with Bird. For example, compare it to health coverage. If he was covered under the group medical plan for December, his COBRA notice would say that his last day of coverage is December 31, 2014, and that he is eligible for continuation coverage starting on January 1, 2015. He is not an employee in 2015. His last year of employment is 2014. His RBD is 4/1/15. Administration Simplification Rule #8: The employment status change office is closed on the last day of the month.

Lay on, Macduff, and thanks for the reminder. Using the tune of "Jennifer Juniper" just wasn't working for me.

and I don't know is the shortstop, right?

Tom, I get 31 ... number of days in March?, Money and Finance title of the U.S. Code?, withholding section of IRC?, ... no, no, I get it now. 31 is the reverse of 13. You sly fox, Tom. Have an extra piece of pi tomorrow. "Today's word" is in fact two words. The first word is the ever popular: Triskaidekaphobia (fear of the number 13) The second is the less widely known: Paraskavedekatriaphobia (fear of Friday the 13th) Use them in your casual conversation today.

can't remember the tune for this , but someone once wrote: Good bye, copyright law. Who can put some teeth in you? If you go and steal their music, Maybe they will sue you.

Finally, a justification for a retirement plan to offer loans (assuming the plan has the expertise to administer loans).

Proper rounding would indicate that you should wait until 9:26:54 (i.e., 53.59), although I can see no objection to celebrating during the entire second. Either way, it's a good day to occu-pi a bakery.

If the loan in the OP should be deemed, but isn't deemed, is the plan in trouble or the participant? Just curious.

This link: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/401(k)-Plan-Fix-It-Guide-Participant-loans-do-not-conform-to-the-requirements-of-the-plan-document-and-IRC-section-72(p). says that the loan must be used to purchase a main home in order for the loan to go for more than 5 years. Since it says "used" and does not say "intended to be used" to purchase a main home, I'd suggest that the participant rework the loan to the 5 year limit, or buy another house soon. As Searchlight said, the loan documents may say what happens in this case. Since the Plan has enough banking experience (in house or on call) to think that they can offer and process loans, surely they put wording into the plan or the loan document to address a potential situation as obvious as this.