GMK

Agreed. And ask the ESOP for its QDRO Procedures (you probably already have). The Procedures notice would indicate special conditions that are in the plan document, if any (not likely).

Agreed, but then I haven't figured out why retirement plans think they know enough about banking to provide loans at all. But it's a free country, and there are lots of ways to blow away your retirement savings if you want to.

It might pay to keep a file with notes on where forms were mailed, for your own reference in 3 or 4 years, when the computer starts sending out those letters claiming the forms weren't filed.

I agree. For the purposes of the 5-year holding period on Roth contributions, think of all of your Roth accounts as one account, and the 5-year period starts with the year of your first Roth contribution. There is a second 5-year rule for rollovers to a Roth and conversions of a traditional IRA to a Roth, and each rollover or conversion has its own 5-year period (to avoid the 10% penalty). http://www.money-zine.com/Financial-Planni...RA-5-Year-Rule/

This is true. FWIW, using both years of service and compensation as the basis for contribution allocations, you may wish to consider whether the higher paid employees are mostly the same people who have been around the longest, and more importantly, whether they are likely to continue to take the lion's share of the contributions for the next 10, 15, 20 years. Consider how that could affect testing, employee relations, and like that.

Basically it's to prevent accelerated deductions, with specific limited exceptions. For reference: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider...ArticleID=14326

More than one of us will be surprised if the Plan Document provides the participant the option to roll over or transfer the participant's account balance to another participant's account. Generally, no benefit or interest in the Plan will be subject to assignment or alienation, either voluntary or involuntary, except pursuant to a QDRO.

Our understanding that it is as soon as practicable. Here's an earlier thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38961 which links to: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=22447

I'd guess that it means that the cancellation date you specify has to be within 30 days of the date you give notice of the cancellation.

I agree that you can do the amendment, but I'd run an estimate of non-discrim tests. The biggest true up amounts are generally for those who deferral the limit before the end of the year. Usually (always?) these are HCE's. With a safe harbor plan, no contribution testing, so no problem. If not safe harbor, you may want to do some estimating to see that you still pass.

Sorry to muddy the water, but our understanding is that each covered person who does not qualify as a tax dependent is counted for imputed income. That is, for example, if the employee already has family coverage and adds coverage for a non-tax dependent, we have to compute imputed income for that non-tax dependent's coverage, even though the premium does not increase.

This one. The first moneys distributed are deemed to be RMD until the RMD amount is covered. The rest is rollover eligible.

From what I've read, it was more like 50/50 in revenue increases and benefit cuts. But I never did catch on to the new math. And their solution only makes "modest improvements" for some. It doesn't bring back the 19% "benefit loss." "The report finds that by adopting a balanced long-term revenue plan it is possible to cover the projected shortfall facing Social Security while making modest improvements in the program for three vulnerable groups – low-paid workers, the oldest beneficiaries and students who lose parental support due to death or disability. The revenue plan could include gradually lifting the cap on FICA payroll tax contributions to again cover 90 percent of earnings as Congress intended and scheduling small FICA rate increases over 20 years starting in 2015." If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet.

or maybe even the 21st century (but we don't know that yet). Either way, I agree.

We run an ESOP (private stock) and a separate 401(k), and I like it that way. All of the comments above are on point. Regarding plan document maintenance, we have a check-the-boxes 401(k), so the only real document work is the ESOP Plan Doc. And that wouldn't change with a KSOP. Although we're small, we audit the ESOP, but not the 401(k), so auditing both (with a KSOP) would likely increase audit costs. Most issues, notices, etc. are specific to the ESOP or the 401(k), and not to both, so no big advantage to putting them together for that. I don't know of any record keeping that would be reduced with a KSOP. And the issues ESOP Guy raises about distributions from a KSOP are avoided with separate plans. It is (or at least seems to me to be) more convenient to do annual statements, 5500, etc. with separate plans. When one or the other is done, it's done. And most of the data for one are different from the data in the other. I keep all my info and notes in one spreadsheet with different reports for the two plans. It might be different if the stock were daily valued.

Here's a couple previous threads: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...=25845&st=0 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47618 Good luck.

Yah, but if the participant retires or dies in the meantime, you'll be a lot happier if you have a separate account for the AP. Really, it's a lot easier for you, or whoever is in charge when the distributions start, if you create the separate account now (which among other things takes care of the earnings calcs), especially when the AP could take forever and a day to decide to take the distribution.

... the third of June, another sleepy, dusty Delta day. Maybe Billie Joe threw all his doughnuts off the Tallahatchie Bridge. http://lyrics.filestube.com/song/bcb0b4c70...Billie-Joe.html

... says the Joker. (glad to hear it)

On the (not frequent) occasions when I get the flood control message, I count to 3, maybe 4, and try again. It's usually enough. If it isn't, I wait the 15. You're right that it's usually for searches. I'll bet that if all these other people weren't using the boards so much, I wouldn't get flooded.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=48917

Are you allowed to roll over an RMD if it's a 60 day rollover? or am I missing something?

Agreed. Now, if you had an SSOP, stockholders stock ownership plan, then maybe. But I haven't seen that such an animal exists.

Humor? Really? Or is this like something from The Onion?

I believe the SH match has to go to all eligible employees (or at least to all who defer, depending on your SH arrangement): http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=119625,00.html As proposed it's not really SH, because all eligible employees (or all who defer) don't get the match.