GMK

Since the plan sponsor selects the TPA, moving the plan to a new provider seems unlikely at best. Why would a TPA who is sponsoring a plan (especially this TPA) choose a different TPA for the plan. Or maybe I'm missing something.

This reads as if the plan has automatic enrollment of employees ("You will become a Participant ... on the first day ...). I wonder if the plan doc says that, or if it says that employees become eligible to participate on that entry date (but aren't enrolled until they choose to enroll). Just wondering. And what Austin just posted, too.

Looks like they're trying to say that you're in an ineligible class for the 401(k) if you don't defer. That probably helps with the totals in the denominators for testing, if you could do it.

You can request a copy of the retirement plan's QDRO procedures, which may (or may not) provide useful information. Unfortunately, it will not answer questions about how to word a QDRO, which you might want to have done by an attorney who understands QDRO's. If you get a draft from your ex, have a QDRO lawyer look it over to confirm that it does what the divorce judgement specifies. And look for wording like Lou S. suggested. That's a pretty common phrase in a QDRO. Keep in mind that if you and your ex agree to the wording presented to the judge (whether you understand it or not), the judge will probably sign it (unless it's way different from the divorce decree) . Then, what it says is what you'll get, assuming it conforms with the retirement plan's basic rules. Good luck.

The related posts with more information: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/53880-esop-and-change-in-distribution-policy-after-required-forms-signedcompletedsubmitted/ http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/54684-can-a-company-change-its-reason-for-a-denying-a-claim/ edits: my apologies. these links are about an ex-employee. For reference, our ESOP does not allow distributions to current employees, except for diversification distributions.

^ in some cases, yes. For example, a plan document might not allow former employees to defer the distribution of their vested account balance after they reach a certain age, like 65.

Instead of the periodic payments, it might be more palatable to the client to add 3 years to life of the Roth 401(k). Add a no-risk or low-risk fund to the Roth 401(k), park the big winnings in it for the remaining 3 years, and then take it all at once. Whatever.

Allowing only single sum distributions eases the administrative load. And these days, participants have a wide range of good options for their rollover. For small plans, this also helps minimize the number of inactive participants, which can be important if the plan is below, but near, the audit requirement.

As BG says, The plan sponsor chooses how the match will work by approving the plan document, and all participants are (intended or unintended) "victims" of the plan document. Sometimes, plan sponsors do not realize and are not advised in sufficient detail of the impact of what they have put in place, but some are open to improvements that are brought to their attention. In any case, you are correct that there is no automatic fix.

I'm confused by the last part of this sentence. Once participants defer the basic $17,500, how can additional deferrals be anything but catch-up deferrals? If the plan document says that all deferrals are matched, then you need a true-up. But the plan sponsor can choose not to match catch-up deferrals. If it was something overlooked, then amend the plan.

This may help: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/48347-ira-owner-turns-age-70-12-but-dies-before-rbd/ see post #2 (by ERISAtoolkit): "... the death RMD rules preempt the lifetime RMD rules." Under the death RMD rules, the participant did not reach her required beginning date. Item 4 of post #1 applies.

Because he retired in 2013, this participant must take an RMD for 2013, and the RMD amount for 2013 is the full $1,965.07. If the participant had waited until 2014 to retire, there would be no RMD for 2013, and the entire $50k rollover in June 2013 would have retained its status as eligible for rollover.

It's OK to enroll at 0% (unless the Plan Document forbids it, which I doubt.) Add automatic enrollment, and you'll see it now and then.

Looks like you're down to 4 states to analyze: Oregon, Colorado, Nevada, and N. Mexico. Illinois now has a same sex marriage law, and Wisconsin has a state constitutional ban against it (not even close to all-but-name status). Do the laws for domestic partnership or civil union in any of the 4 states read the same as the state's marriage law? (Just curious). Differences, even minor ones, create a distinction that could be important in court. IMO, it feels like the word "marriage" itself is important in applying Windsor, since DOMA continues to say that states define "marriage." As you say, it creates difficulties for plans covering employees in more than one state, and it could be a while before it all shakes out. It would help if states that want to recognize same-sex marriages would simply pass a law to do it.

... and to some, those are the "good old days," when the term "draft beer" had more than one meaning. for the historical records: The lottery in 1969 for induction in 1970 covered birth years of 1944 through 1950. The lotteries in 1970 and 1971, for those born in 1951 and 1952, respectively, were for inductions in 1971 and 1972. The lotteries in 1972 through 1975 were used to call for physical exams, but not for inductions. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft_lottery_(1969) edit: to add link

maybe you'll have to scale back on your fish-giving. BTW, is that a reel class? do you get the fish on line? ah, the end of the day. good evening, all.

You may be on to something. You can get a lot done after hours, when no one is around to bug you with new questions.

^ maybe they're just acting koi.

HAPPY 11/12/13 (unless you're a DD/MM/YY person and have to wait until next month). Party at 2:15 p.m. (14:15 hours). Hope it's a great day for you.

Last I heard, the exemption is in effect until further notice. Such further notice may be in the works if they decide to use W-2's for 6055 and 6056 reporting.

^ good answers. The only reason I can think of off-hand to fund a traditional IRA instead of a Roth is if you can deduct the contributions, and then it still depends on your personal situation. Otherwise, if it's all after-tax money, I'd put it in the Roth. (free advice is worth what you paid for it)

Social Security does http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/cfr20/404/404-0102.htm

One way to view it is that each year has only one January 2nd. If you started on 1/2/13, then 1/2/14 starts your second year, which means that the first year ended before 1/2/14. So, the first year of service was completed on 1/1/14. You don't need any portion, not even one picosecond, of 1/2/14 to fulfill a year of service that started on 1/2/13. Of course, the part about "next following" or "coincident with" does make a difference for the participation date.

Agreed. Ask your ERISA attorney what, if any, prohibitions may apply. And is the spouse in post #1 also deceased? (not that it matters, really)

Here's the handy link again: Find addresses and telephone numbers for the EBSA Office in your area or call toll free 1-866-444-3272 to speak with a benefits advisor.