GMK

If the plan allows RMD's while the participant is still employed, I'd say it's an RMD. More common though is that RMD's are not required while the participant is employed by the plan sponsor. So, I'd check the Plan Document to see what applies.

Not sure it will help for Susie Q's case. The daily equivalency is 10 hours if she works at least an hour during the day. Weekly, it's 45 hours if she works during the week. But maybe she works only one day a week, so the 10 hours is OK. You've presented a puzzler here, Austin. Good luck. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/21728-calculation-of-hours-of-service-when-employees-are-not-paid-by-the-hour/#.VNKa7-l0xaQ http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p6388.pdf

For the specific case of a spouse who is the sole beneficiary, if the participant died prior to the participant's RBD, for beneficiary distributions from a qualified plan, does the spouse beneficiary ever have the option to use the longer of the life expectancies of the beneficiary and participant? If you have a cite or reference in response, please post it here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/56829-rmd-for-spouse-sole-beneficiary/#.VNKJFOl0xaQ Thanks.

Not according to this: http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plans-FAQs-on-Designated-Roth-Accounts#13

Agreed that this is not the plan's concern. Apart from the plan, individuals may be concerned about their co-worker friends and try to help them. It's not clear if Ms. Controller is now asking for advice about a 60 day rollover, but if she is, Lou S.'s ideas are a good start. Not to be callous but where was the financial advisor with his medical advice before the distribution to his 82 year old client? I don't know if he would have received a commission if there was a rollover, so I won't speculate on that.

Anyone out there have a contact at McKay Hochman who could give a cite or reference? I wrote to M-H, but heartbreakingly, got no reply.

That makes sense to me (not sure what the regs say). You could send an abbreviated notice (which might actually be a useful reminder to the participant): Your Rollover Options None.

I agree you'd have that risk depending on her hourly rate of pay, but why does it matter how much she defers? (just curious)

There are some drawbacks if the trust is not a "see-through" trust. Do a google search. Off hand, a trust as beneficiary might be advisable while the kids are young. Hire a lawyer who is familiar with trusts as beneficiaries.

Thanks for your replies, Tom. This is the last (I hope) unknown in my notes on RMD's for beneficiaries. It's like M-H got the before and after RBD cases reversed in the articles, which seems highly unlikely. I don't find any option to use the participant's life expectancy in the before-RBD case in our plan documents, so I will stick with using only the spouse's life expectancy if anyone asks. Until someone posts a cite or explanation (or I find one), the mystery lives on.

Not so. If he had read the notice, there would be no assuming. He would have known what was happening with his fund and what options he had. But (and with apologies for being grumpy) if we must find some else to blame, why not his fellow partners for not holding his hand through the changes, or the USPS for allowing too much junk mail, or maybe society.

My notes are the same, Tom, but the question is not when payments start, but whose life expectancy to use to determine the payment amounts. My notes and references like pages 18 and 22 of this: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd603.pdf say that if the spouse is the sole beneficiary, "the distribution period is based on the spouse's life expectancy" if the participant dies before the RBD and with no mention of the participant's life expectancy (page 18), but if the participant dies on or after the RBD, the longer of the spouse's and participant's life expectancy is used (page 22). Is there a cite or other references that confirm that the spouse can use the participant's life expectancy (if longer) when the participant dies before the RBD?

Is this an option that can be written into a Plan Document? Is it required to be in the Plan Document?

I agree entirely, Lou S., but the question is whether the spouse who is the sole beneficiary has the option to take distributions from the qualified plan based on the deceased participant's (longer) life expectancy if the participant died before the RBD. This option of using the deceased participant's life expectancy when it is longer than the beneficiary's life expectancy is available when the participant dies on or after the RBD (for both spouses and non-spouses), but is it also available to a spouse who is the sole beneficiary in the "before RBD" case?

For the specific case of a spouse who is the sole beneficiary, if the participant died prior to the participant's RBD, for beneficiary distributions from a qualified plan, does the spouse beneficiary have the option to use the longer of the life expectancies of the beneficiary and participant? These articles seem to say the spouse beneficiary has that option: http://www.mhco.com/BreakingNews/ABene_Spouse_041014.html http://www.mhco.com/BreakingNews/A_SpouseBenef_011008.html but I have generally read that that option is available when the participant dies on or after (not prior to) the RBD. But maybe the spouse who is the sole beneficiary gets this option no matter when the participant died. And is this different for IRA's and qualified plans? Thanks for any clarification.

Side comments: 1. You could ask the 401(k) to add your mining fund to their list. We know that some 401(k)'s avoid such funds, but it's worth asking. 2. Open the junk mail that you do not recognize, just to check. Once a year or so, I get the surprise that it is something useful or important to me. This doesn't help with the current problem, but it may avoid a future one.

If they mailed you the notice, see WCC's post, above.

^than a gob of butter melting on a stack of flapjacks! Speaking of green, this from the OP: brought to mind a brochure with images of a lush, green paradise for BenefitsLink posters when their working days are behind them. The BLRC will have an assisted living section, won't it, Dave?

For reference: http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/29/2530.200b-3

I like paper for several reasons, including those Austin mentioned. I also like some features of electronic documents, and I'm (slowly) updating my generational deficiencies at using e-files and reading on a monitor. My concern with paperless is whether I (or my successor) will be able to read and print the files in 15 or 20 years, when some auditor wants to see a boatload of documents from past years, or someone who resigned young thinks they have a benefit coming now that their are old. I'm not sure current software can read some files from 15 years ago, and I don't see a trend that ensures that new software can always read the historical documents. So, if I think it may be needed or important down the road, I print it and put it in a file cabinet. And at other times, when I'm checking things off a list or table and comparing, I usually do it on paper.

You can maybe estimate it as follows: For example, if he works 1000 hours and 85% of that time he is driving, and his overall average speed is 50 miles an hour when he's driving, then at 25 cents a mile, he would make 1000 hrs * 0.85 * 50 mph * $0.25 = $10,625. If he made more than this, then he had more than 1000 hours, if the other assumptions apply. So, plug in your estimates of the percent of his work hours he's driving and his average speed while driving (big difference city and highway), and you'll have a first order estimate. A quicker calculation would be something like: 1000 hrs * 90 mpg * $0.25 = $22,500 so if he made more than about $22,500, he was either driving over 90 mph all the time or had more than 1000 hours.

^if you're serious, google: Borzi

In the OP, the plan requires proof of marriage as a standard, uniformly applied practice. Probably a good idea for others, for example, for the reasons in post #14. So the question is how to prove a common law marriage. K2retire - no rush, but look for the license. Eventually, as in a long, long time from now in a galaxy not so far away, you may (or may not) need it when you and your spouse apply for Social Security.

Check with the plan's ERISA counsel, but I think that the plan could rely on their tax filing status as "proof" of whether or not they are married. The 1040 instructions for lines 1, 2, ... are pretty clear that you have to be married to file under a 'married' category, and that you cannot file as 'single' if you are married.

Read post #4 and check the plan's QDRO Procedures. The plan is not required to hold back distribution to the participant except when the plan receives the domestic relations order signed by the judge or if the plan's QDRO procedure has other (self-imposed) restrictions on distributions.