GMK

My recollection is that the case was thrown out: http://www.airliners.net/aviation-forums/g...ad.main/4582894 There may be an appeal.

Good answer, ESOP Guy. The ESOP can hold the cash, or the company can keep it for buying back shares that ESOP distributes. Either way, adequate cash needs to be available. I suggest that the company find legal and tax people who understand ESOPs and discuss with them the options for setting up the ESOP and the important details in running the ESOP.

Here are a couple previous discussions: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46482 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47512 edit: And some states are in the process right now of conforming or revising their imputed tax laws.

Agreed. Ignore the stock in participants' ESOP accounts when determining their ownership %.

Speaking of sailing to America: April showers bring May flowers. So, what do May flowers bring? A: Pilgrims (dressed, I believe, like Mr. Poje does in November)

OK. I wonder if the broker made any money on the rollover. In the OP, the distribution itself was probably made correctly. The reason for taking the distribution, however, was based on faulty (or worse) advice from the plan's broker that the lady did not have the option to waive RMD's under the terms of the plan. I'm pretty sure this option isn't usually discussed on the distribution form and tax notice. But I'm just speculating here.

I'm with you all the way on that, as long as the plan informed them of their options. My point is that the plan is not a completely isolated bystander. The plan is responsible for its hiring decisions and has a responsibility to educate the hired people regarding the terms of the plan to the extent that the terms apply to what the hired people do for the plan. Now, if the plan's broker knew the rules and gave alternate advice, then it gets interesting. I wonder if the broker made any money on the rollover. Or maybe it was all just an innocent mistake.

What's not wrong about the plan broker's telling this lady that she should have been taking minimum distributions every year in clear contradition to the terms of the Plan Document? But maybe there's more to it.

Here's an earlier discussion about this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42378 and here's some more: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=38395

Here's a previous discussion of this topic: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=42566 For plain ol' distributions, I (a plan administrator) expect a small, fixed (keep it simple) fee to cover administrative costs. From a PR perspective, participants should feel good about receiving their benefits, and not disgruntled by what they, rightly or wrongly, might feel are unjustifiably high fees. Basically, I'm suggesting that you cover your distribution costs but make your profits somewhere else. Fees for loans would probably be higher when justified by additional administrative work. edit: typo

A google search on "sample qdro" gives several possibilities. Whether they're good or not depends on the couple's needs and Florida law. QDRO's are probably the last thing in a divorce that I'd do without a lawyer, but they can try. Remind them to request a copy of the Plan's QDRO Procedures. Perhaps they can get a QDRO lawyer to draft the DRO separately from their other filings.

Very helpful. Thanks for making me think, QDROphile. (Something I should do more often, of course.)

Possibly yes. Again, read the Put section of the Plan Document. You may find that if the entire account balance is distributed in one taxable year (which seems likely in your case) and if the participant puts the shares to the company, the company may have the option to spread the payments out over up to 5 (I think) years. If the account balance is not all distributed in the one year, then the company pays in something like 30 days. And your Put section will also include the clause that QDROphile has just noted of the requirement for adequate security and a reasonable interest rate on unpaid balances.

If the Plan Document says you can do these things, then you can do them. This assumes that individuals are allowed to own shares, but if they aren't, the alternatives will be detailed in the Plan Document. Check on Put Option features for distributions in shares. If a participant who receives a distribution in shares can put them to the company, then the company will have to come up with the cash, which is what you're trying to avoid. (Again, see the Plan Document for details on Puts and on the conditions and options for the timing of distribution payments.)

Hey, I forgot. (hmmm ) Anyway, I'll vote 2. As you say, and as far as I know, 1. is not an option.

Is this simply an automatic conformity clause? In other words, if a hardship reason is added to the safe harbor list, then the plan automatically includes that reason without having to amend the plan.

From this article, regarding GINA regulations, which took effect January 10, 2011, http://www.martindale.com/labor-employment...son_1216934.htm "Title I generally prohibits a health plan from discriminating against a covered individual based on genetic information, and from collecting genetic information prior to or in connection with health plan enrollment, or at any time for underwriting purposes." Genetic information includes employee and family medical history. And there's a notice the employer has to give the employees.

There's a summary for adult children eligibility in this article: http://www.moneyfunk.net/finances/health-care-reform/ In particular, marital status doesn't matter... except if the child's coverage availability is under state law and not under PPACA, then check the state's requirements. And here's info about QC and QR: http://taxes.about.com/od/dependents/a/Dependents_2.htm http://taxes.about.com/od/dependents/a/Dependents_3.htm Hope it helps.

Thanks for your post, John G. It got me thinking , and maybe a few others. I need to look into state law changes and sunsets.

I wouldn't say that 0x is wrong, although it's not the way we usually expect to see it. It's like having 12 apples from which you take 12 apples, so you are left with 0 apples. Of course, having zero apples is about the same as having zero solar systems or zero x's. They all equal 0.

Here's a recent similar discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=47337

You are absolutely correct. x is undefined. (The answer, by the way, is 42 ... not to this problem, but to the big question.)

Call them and find out if it's too late to get a proposal or an estimate. Be careful not to rush into something as important as a retirement plan. Take the time now to set up something that best meets the long term needs. Think about questions like "Is this probably the best plan we can provide for the participants at this time?" and "Will the participants and the company probably be happy with this plan 5 years from now?"

Wow. Sustainable paradigm management without exogenous dychotomies that might otherwise burden our children and grandchildren. Happy birthday, Mr. Abdul-Jabbar (April 16). Lockbox!