GMK

Maybe this helps: http://www.abs125.com/news/

For my general education, did the 100% withholding (which looks like a great option in most cases) go away, because the IRS didn't want to deal with receiving withholding for a person who it turns out has been dead for years, or some other reason? Thanks.

And, for example, you can look for Mr. Poje's estimates here at BenefitsLink: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/59532-new-limits/

jireh87 - Welcome. The best suggestion I can give you is that you read practically everything that's posted on BenefitsLink (except maybe not when they get into deep details about something about which you have no need or interest to know). This site has a boat load of experts who provide a wealth of useful, documented information.

This link may also be helpful: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd603.pdf As Lou S. said, you still have to check the plan doc/adoption agreement to find out what beneficiary distribution options the plan has selected.

Check what your Plan Document says about Catch-Up Contributions. In the Plan Doc for our 401(k), Catch-Up Contributions are defined in the Definitions section and in the Employee Contributions section. These sections say the usual things about catchups, namely, that they are elective deferrals made to the Plan that are in excess of any otherwise applicable Plan limit and that are made by Participants who are age 50 or older. The standard set of 'otherwise applicable limits' is listed in both sections. There is no mention of a need for a separate election to make catchup contributions. Unless your Plan document prohibits Participants from making catchup contributions unless they separately elect to make catchup contributions, take your Plan Doc to the vendor and ask them to show you where it says that this person is capped at $18k. Personally, I would ask the vendor if they really want to be making a fiduciary decision to limit Participant contributions (unless the limitation is in the Plan Doc or is an instruction from the Plan Administrator). And then I'd start looking for a better vendor. I'm a little peeved about this, because the change of deferral election form from our plan vendor has a section for electing catch-ups. We stamped "VOID" on the form and made our own deferral election change form. [Oops. I guess my previous post wasn't the end of my rant. My apologies.]

From what we are seeing on the TV, Matthew made some pretty bad messes in NC. Hope you and Dave are A-OK.

What rcline46 said! But there are still "standard" forms out there that suggest that you can sign up for catch-up contributions. Come on, you document providers. Isn't life complicated enough without adding non-existent options for participants? [end of rant. sorry I blew up]

It happens.

^ You meant "Without filing it, ..." Right?

^ In some cases, BG, that is true.

Out of curiosity, does a plan that accepts direct rollovers have the option to refuse "60-day" rollovers?

If you have automatic enrollment, it's the Plan Administrator's responsibility to designate the default deferral rate and the default investment election for those who do not make those elections themselves. You 'splain to the newly-eligible persons clearly and precisely what happens if they do not make the elections themselves. The PA's choices of deferral rate and default investment are fiduciary functions, the same as if the PA designated target-date funds or a balanced fund or whatever as the default. The assumptions on which the choices are based may not fit everybody's circumstances, but that's OK if the defaults provide a reasonable starting point for participation in the Plan.

There are some answers at your other posting of this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php/topic/59569-entry-date/#entry263689

^You're right. Anyway, are there any court decisions one way or another on this?

Are there any court cases on this topic? From the posts above, I assume there are no IRS pronouncements that apply.

From what I've read, 7% would be considered a discriminatory factor in favor of the highly compensated. It could be interpreted as being too large a hurdle for lower paid employees and, therefore, a barrier to participation. Now, if it's a company where everyone makes tons of money, it's probably not an issue.

Here's Vanguard's sample IPS: https://institutional.vanguard.com/iam/pdf/IAMIPS.pdf It may not match your needs, but it gives an example of things to include in your IPS. You can see other samples by googling: investment policy statement template

Happy 9 / 9 / 16 Are all these same-month-and-day-number days going to have a big slow down in postings at benefitslink? Anyway, the answer is still one-sixteenth. Have a fun weekend.

If the ESOP money is all pre-tax (don't know why it wouldn't be) and the participant is allowed to take the distribution from the ESOP, then it should be fine. Two issues with rolling over after-tax money are that the 401(k) would have to allow it, and you'd have to track it separately from the pre-tax moneys (which is some extra work unless you're already set up for it). If his former employer is about to make huge profits and raise the value of its stock through the roof, then he'd be better off leaving it in the ESOP until the share price is way up. If he simply wants to consolidate his retirement funds and/or wants to maybe reduce the risk of being invested in his former employer, then he may be better off (more comfortable, less worried, even if not necessarily richer, but maybe richer, too) doing the rollover. It kind of depends on why he's considering doing the rollover.

BG - I think he has 40k and is short the 10k to pay off the loan. edit: I should have said that he or she is short the 10k

It might be useful to those of us who need to select service providers for the plans we sponsor to know who this TPA is ... if you'd care to tell us. Thanks.

For example, page 6-25 (page 25 of the pdf), here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd603.pdf

Well said, Flyboyjohn.

If the sponsor/administrator doesn't feel adequate to meet the responsibilities of selecting suitable-for-a-retirement-plan investment options (and there's no shame in that), then RatherBeGolfing's suggestion of making the plan trustee directed is the way to go.