GMK

This may help, or maybe you already have it. http://www.opm.gov/forms/pdfimage/RI84-1.pdf

Here's a link to Appleby's summary, which I saved for reference: http://www.retirementdictionary.com/sites/...MD%20100809.pdf I think the sample amendments from Notice 2009-82 (at the end of the above link) explain the options the plan can offer. In both cases, the participant can choose to receive or not receive a distribution that includes an RMD. The sample amendments define the 2 default options the plan can select for participants who do not choose. If the plan did something with RMD's in 2009 that wasn't part of the plan doc terms, then you need to amend, by the end of this month I believe. edit: typo

Without a cafeteria plan, premiums cannot be deducted pre-tax. The plan document will say whether previous 'elections' continue until changed or if they need to be "renewed" annually. Generally, they follow the insurance coverage choices. Agreed on the price of such plans, especially if you slam dunk pass non-discrim testing. But then someone has to pay for the plan doc and amendments and the testing.

Wow. Nearly 11 years from post 18 (Jan. 2001) to post 20 (Dec. 2011), and one sees almost no change in Mr. Poje's youthful appearance and glowing green complexion (until next month, I suppose). We are impressed.

Looks like your answer under HIPAA is that the premium for each of the 5 employees is $491.02. How much the employer reimburses of that amount to each employee is up to the employer, as QDROphile said. Although it doesn't matter what I would do, I would reimburse the same amount to each employee, regardless of the individual risks. Insurance is meant to be shared risk. Everyone pays the same. Then, if you need it, you're covered, but if you're lucky (in terms of not having serious health problems), you don't get a reduced premium. If the whole group is healthy, then the average premium should drop, because it's a group plan, not an individual policy.

What am I missing? Doesn't payroll do this already?

I'm thankful for BenefitsLink Message Boards and all who post here.

IMNSHO, this is all it should be ... unless the plan sponsors are already bankers. Employees can save separately for their rainy days. I'm thankful our plan is retirement only.

Does this also inhibit their deferral rate decision? Don't have your answer, but .. I don't see the logic of not having audit fees come out of rollovers. The audit looks at all the eggs in the basket, so rollovers add to the audit work, and that work should be paid for, in part at least, from the rollover balances. Said another way, why should those who do not rollover into the plan pay for the fees for auditing the rollover accounts? Of course, others may have another take on it. The audit fee is a huge drain on a 401(k), and that fee compounds into lost future earnings forever. Maybe that's the way it has to be, but it really hurts participants' earning power in the plan. Would the plan sponsor consider paying for the audit?

Point taken. We're a small ESOP. So, I guess we'll continue to bask in arctic blasts. Congrats, by the way, to your Cardinals.

Our audit costs are 3 times administration costs. Maybe it's time to migrate south to Saint Louis for cheap audits and less brutal winters.

Good points. Thanks. I agree that NUA tax treatment could be the winner for those who are allowed to hang on to the stock into retirement and who can afford to do so. We require immediate sale of the distributed stock back to the company, and that takes away the significant longer term advantages of NUA treatment that you described.

I agree that participants should always consider the option of a lump sum distribution with NUA taxation. You should not be disappointed, however, if NUA turns out to be less attractive than it first seems. Running the numbers generally shows that NUA is not the better choice unless the basis is a small percentage of the balance or if you will be in a high tax bracket forever or if you need the cash now and would take a lump sum distribution regardless of NUA. You pay taxes on the entire distribution amount, not just the NUA. The basis is taxed as ordinary income (which can put some people in a higher tax bracket), and the NUA is taxed at capital gains rates. Whatever you pay now in taxes is no longer available for investment, so the remainder available for generating future earnings is less than with a lump sum rollover. NUA may still be a good option, depending on your financial situation, but you have to look at the specifics of your own personal circumstances. If the company is an S corp, basis will be more than simply the value of the shares when the ESOP acquired them. Certain earnings of an S corp are passed through to the shareholders. The ESOP doesn't pay taxes on these pass through earnings, but the earnings are added to the basis of the shares in the ESOP. In some cases, this can result in little or no NUA in the ESOP shares. Be sure to ask the plan administrator how much NUA would be in your distribution before requesting a lump sum payment to you.

I'd be surprised if the plan could have such a limit. Not everyone is going to retire at 65. Indeed, the 55 year old may plan to work another 30 years or may want something more aggressively invested up to when she/he is say 75. Target-date doesn't depend on your age, and one date does not fit all, as nice as that would be. Since personal financial status can vary greatly as one reaches the golden years, the target-date fund should be chosen based on the flight plan that best meets the person's own needs at the expected date of retirement.

Just an opinion, based on very little research - I think it's no limits on any essential health benefits. So, you can't put a limit OT services that qualify as essential health benefits. I would think that you could put a limit on OT services that do not qualify as essential benefits, if any. (As I said, very little research.)

and Veterans Day.

Unless something changed very recently, I believe that Medicare enrollment is not automatic. People still need to sign up for Medicare. If you are still working at 65 and have coverage under your employer's plan, you sign up for Medicare A, just to be in the system. In this case, Part A doesn't cost you anything, and it doesn't pay for anything, but signing up gets you into the system in case you all of a sudden need Part B. It takes 3 months to process an enrollment, so signing up for Part A gets you past that initial paperwork delay. Or so I've read.

Since the balance is below the cashout limit, he must take the distribution. He has the option to roll it over unless the plan prohibits rollovers of less than $200. I don't know if the plan can consider the true-up as part of the original distribution in order to allow a rollover even though the amount is small. If the rollover option exists, our cover letter would say that the distribution will be rolled over the same as the previous rollover unless we hear otherwise from him on or before some date, say 30 days out.

Sounds like a hint. Thanks. Maybe if I just sit still and scratch my head. Or maybe Santa will bring me the answer if I wait a little while longer. Happy Friday.

Snap! I knew this one, but I guess I'm going down in defeet.

so, in the OP, half of the match dollars to the pre-tax and half to the Roth, yes?

I'm not. My poorly worded sentence was meant to reflect that the participant fee disclosures starting next spring will provide participants with this and other fee information on a regular schedule, all well defined. And for plans that are not required to issue the new participant fee disclosures, I'd advise to annually notify participants of the fee amounts they pay and again whenever such fees change. A reminder of applicable fees in the initial distribution paperwork gives participants information at the time they want it, and similarly for a loan or QDRO. As before, I don't know that specific fee amounts need to be in the SPD.

Thank you, ESOP Guy. You are certainly correct. I read too fast and missed this:

From this link: http://www.hhcpa.com/blogs/employee-benefi...d-a-401k-audit/ "... plans who had between 80 and 120 eligible participants at the beginning of the year and who filed as a small plan in the prior year will also qualify for the audit waiver by electing to file as a small plan in the current year." Note it says eligible participants, not just those who are deferring. Edit to add this link: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_auditwaiver.html

Advise participants of the fees at the start of the paperwork, so they don't come back later shocked and upset. The SPD should identify the fees that the participant will be paying, but the exact amounts of those fees probably do not need to be listed in the SPD. The required fee disclosures to participants that begin next spring will take care of all of these questions for us.