GMK

well, there's an unsettling image that I didn't really need to start this week.

Agreed. And if it were my notice, I'd include your statements about the two plans: as a clarification to participants.

Tom, I think the answer is found near the end of this link http://www.glondon.co.za/humour.htm ... something about accounting ... or maybe it's just that: Old actuaries never die - they just get broken down by age and sex.

The employer has the responsibility of verifying employees' authorization to work in the US (I-9). The employer is also responsible for securing the privacy of personal information on the form. In a quick search I found this, which may or may not answer your question: http://www.visalaw.com/compliance/i9.html "What privacy protections are accorded employees when they complete Form I-9? DHS regulations state that information contained on the Form I-9 may only be used to verify an individual’s identity and employment eligibility and to enforce immigration law. Presumably this bars both the government as well as employers for using I-9 information for any other purposes. Employers with electronic I-9 systems are also required to implement a records security program that ensures that only authorized personnel have access to electronic records, that such records are backed up, that employees are trained to minimize the risk of records being altered and that whenever a record is created, accessed, viewed, updated, or corrected, a secure and permanent record is created establishing who accessed the record." I would balk at sending the I-9 to the health plan. Instead, I would agree to certifying to the health plan that I have a completed I-9 on file for the person, explaining the personal information privacy issue. For example, the health plan is using the information to confirm 'legality' under immigration law, not to enforce immigration law. But others may have a more learned answer. The employer can use E-Verify to confirm the information on the I-9. If you use E-Verify, you could certify to health plan that the person was OKed by E-Verify and that you have the case report on file.

I agree with you about giving participants notice of down side factors. One way is to make up a general cover letter for hardships that explains that it's not rollover eligible but brings attention to the relevant parts of the rollover notice, like the 10% penalty section. Then again, if all you want mention is the 10% penalty, copy that section into the hardship form letter and skip the Rollover Options notice.

... or in some cases, it's darn difficult even when it is required. (my apologies for ranting)

I think your reasoning is correct (vesting was accelerated, check the box, and no downside). I do not, however, have the experience or expertise that others on this board have in this matter, so I too listened to the crickets while waiting to see if anyone posted.

Submit a WRITTEN request for FMLA leave to the Human Resources department, summarizing when and why you need the leave. Sometimes FMLA doesn't apply (< 50 employees?). Sometimes employers require a written request. Sometimes supervisors don't know the in's and out's of FMLA. Sometimes it isn't a serious medical condition as defined in FMLA. etc. etc. etc. For general reference: http://www.dol.gov/compliance/guide/fmla.htm

Biggest concern for me would be that not operating the plan according to the plan document can have severe consequences. One could argue (unsuccessfully, I think) that the restatement had been approved by the employer by the time the employee was rehired (if it had), so the new rules were acceptable to the employer at that time. And if no one else was rehired about that time, then the employer could be generous to this one person. You'd also have to consider, however, if making the rehired person immediately eligible was fair to the other participants. All in all, I'd stick with following the plan document in effect at the time of the rehire.

If memory serves, before the 7 day safe harbor, deposits had to be made as soon as practicable and within 15 days max. For example, if you usually made deposits in 2 days, then 3 days was late. I think you're still supposed to make deposits as soon as practicable and within 15 days. They just don't fuss at you if you're within 7 days.

My understanding is that the bank is probably not a CSP unless it provides funds for the plan investments or provides investment advice. Otherwise, payments from the plan and from the sponsor (employer) are direct compensation. For your reading enjoyment: http://www.ssdlaw.com/learning-center/new-...etirement-plans http://www.mcguirewoods.com/news-resources...m.asp?item=6038

And google gives us this: http://www.benefitscanada.com/ which you've probably already found. Good luck in your new job.

Look at in terms of what you would have done had the person not been absent for qualified military service. In your case, he would have deferred 16,500 early in the year, had compensation of 120,000 for the year, and been trued up for a match of 12,000. He can't make additional deferrals, because he's already at 16,500, and he doesn't need to make additional deferrals to get the full match. If he had not already deferred 16,500 for the year, he would get the opportunity to make additional deferrals, but such deferrals are not required for his getting the full match once he's deferred 10% of his annual compensation.

FWIW, I agree with ESOP Guy. If the absence was because of qualified military service, you consider his compensation to be what it would have been if he had not been absent. Since you consider his compensation to be 120,000 for the year, and since he deferred more than 12,000 during the year, his match for the year is the full 10% (12,000).

which we knew and which is why they are useful.

What are the odds that the folks in Washington will agree to do anything in the coming months other than talk big and posture for their own re-elections? Of course, past (lack of) performance is not a guarantee of future results. On the happy side, I look for and appreciate your estimates, Tom.

JennKW - First check Sieve's comments in post #4, above. If the Misc provisions of the plan specify how inactive participants are affected or not affected by amendments, then you'll want to follow the plan. Otherwise, as noted by others, the amendment shoulda said whether or not vesting changes apply to former employees. Seems like a thing about which the plan administrator has to make a reasonable decision. Perhaps there is documentation of discussions at the time of the amendment regarding the intended effect on inactives. Our amendment to shorten the vesting schedule kept former employees on their original vesting schedule. Since we have forfeiture after five one-year breaks in service, former employees eventually become 100% vested in their non-forfeited balance, and the whole issue becomes academic.

The QDRO can require a single lump sum distribution if the Plan allows single lump sum distributions. If the DRO requires something that the Plan did not already allow, then the DRO is not qualified.

Not a time limit, but rather, a completion of the processes required by the QDRO. If the QDRO says to split the account, giving part to the AP, then when the split has been completed, the requirements specified in the QDRO have been met. What happens after that is not controlled by the QDRO, but by the terms of the plan.

RMD's are not eligible to be rolled over, not even to a Roth IRA. Here's a good summary of the main RMD rules: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retir...p#axzz1WiC0E8yl

That was my first take. Are we talking COBRA, or maybe some other kind of employer-sponsored family health coverage continuation following the death of an employee?

I agree that the RMDs should have been done before the rollover. In a year in which an RMD is required, the first moneys distributed are deemed to be the RMD (and cannot be rolled over). If memory serves, a previous thread discussed telling the IRA that part of the rollover was RMD money in order to get that money back from the IRA and distribute it to the participant. edit to add previous threads: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46594 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47337 Hope it helps.

Same here. Accruals are based on paid hours, and unpaid hours are disregarded.

ESOP Guy - Just an aside that COBRA notices go out to those who lose their coverage due to a reduction in hours, so receiving a COBRA notice doesn't always indicate that someone is no longer an employee. I agree with you that the COBRA notice is a useful test point. AKconsult - If each time the person on the come and go schedule leaves, she/he goes through the same treatment as a person who resigns, retires, etc., and goes through the hiring process each time she/he comes back, then she/he is not an employee during the period of absence. As long as he's on the payroll, however, it's hard to say he's terminated.

Long live the King.