GMK

Good catch, AndyH. You certainly demonstrate that partnering is vital in the creative phase of contemporary plan studies to ensure coverage totality and the avoidance of redundancies.

After a quick search (meaning I didn't research it): http://www.irs.gov/publications/p590/ch02.html Later withdrawals from Roth IRA. If you include the taxable part of a 2010 conversion in equal amounts over the 2-year period (2011 and 2012) and in 2010 you withdraw from the Roth IRA any amount allocable to the taxable part of the conversion, you will generally have to include in income for 2010 the part of the withdrawal made during the year that is allocable to the taxable part of the conversion. Any amount allocable to the conversion that is included in income in 2010 because of the distribution from the Roth IRA first reduces the taxable amount that is reportable in income in 2012. The taxable amount that is reportable in income in 2011 is reduced next. The most that can be included in income because of the withdrawal of a conversion amount for any one year is the total amount required to be included in income for 2011 and 2012 minus the amounts included in income in all preceding years in the period.

Mr. Poje’s game plan looks like a no-brainer, covering everything from soup to nuts. Undoubtedly, his discovery is based on profitability metrics derived from critical path objectives. In this new economy, one could reverse engineer the bingo card algorithm and downsize the free square in a seamless way. To strategize from an agnostic point of view would require a strategic design to streamline the code, which would add value to the process. With a little data mining, we can find the crucial dynamic in his plan with the concomitant scenarios prioritized in real-time. BINGO!

I think this the old What Does the Plan Say about deferral limits? If the Plan Doc allows deferrals to $16,500, that trumps the payroll system. If the Plan Doc says that deferrals are only allowed from the first $245k of compensation, then the payroll system is correct.

I don't have an answer to your OP, but I wanted to express my sympathy regarding your new tag-along "best friend." What a pain. (I'm busy updating my Ignore list.) Don't know if it's relevant, but googling 'Mask of Sanity' gave some interesting links. Sadly, there's no known cure. (I know. Now, he'll be after me, too.)

Nope. The rules in post #2 are the rules. If the equation doesn't say what you mean, add clarifying parentheses.

Based on the rules in post #2, which are correct, AtA's answer is correct (but there were no votes for 288 yet).

If not, you can post it as a "hidden" user named Tom6.

Here's a previous discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40521

Here's a similar previous thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33981 with QDROphile's suggestion using an escow account with instructions per: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=40061

Before you forfeit, check what the Plan Doc says about distributing a benefit upon the death of a participant. Make a reasonable search for Mom, if the Plan Doc indicates that she is the legit beneficiary. If she's not a beneficiary or you really can't find her, then, as Mojo suggests, put it in his estate and let the state hold it. If you forfeit, what happens if Mom shows up next year claiming her benefit?

One thing you could try is to ask the plan to segregate the specific QDRO amount for distribution to the ex when the ex files a qualified DRO, so the plan could distribute the remainder of the account to you as beneficiary now. This is a quick (not thought through) idea, so it may have flaws. In addition, the plan may not go for it. But then, it might work for you. Good luck.

ERISA Section 103(a)(2): (a) General. In accordance with section 103(a)(2) of the Act, an insurance carrier or other organization which provides benefits under the plan or holds plan assets, a bank or similar institution which holds plan assets, or a plan sponsor shall transmit and certifty such information as needed by the administrator to file the annual report under section 104(a)(1) of the Act and Sec. 2520.104a-5 or Sec. 2520.104a-6: (1) Within 9 months after the close of the plan year which begins in 1975 or September 30, 1976, whichever is later, and (2) Within 120 days after the close of any plan year which begins after December 31, 1975. I don't know if this has been amended. I do know that the only period when we got Schedule A information within 120 days was during the recent downturn, when banks and insurers were under scrutiny. Prior to that, it took repeated requests into May or June, following the initial request in early January, to get the one page of numbers. Maybe we just happened to be dealing with the world's only unresponsive insurance company. And just as reporting was getting more timely, we completed the elimination of investments that require Schedule A from our plan (yea!).

ESOP Guy - My question was not directed to you. Your reply gives very useful information. In fact, I would strongly recommend having a paper copy of 5500's on file, even if everything is filed electronically, but that's just me. My concern is more general, where people disregard the need to be able to retrieve electronically filed documents. Short term it can usually be done. Over the years, however, with the continuous "improvements" in software, retrieval becomes a bigger issue, and one that cannot be ignored. Just Me - Providing a printed copy of your electronically filed 5500 will satisfy the requirements in all cases. Providing an electronic file that the participant is fully able to display and print on her/his own also works.

Sorry for being dense, but why can't you simply print out a paper copy of your electronically filed copy and give the participant the printed copy?

I checked with our "people," because they on their way to going paperless. They implemented Sharefile which they are using as their paperless method of sending & receiving files. They then store the data electronically on their internal Network that all their employees can access. They all use dual monitors, so one can be used for viewing and the other for entries/proofing/etc. The Sharefile system can also be used as a storage system, but they have not yet utilized that function - taking it one step at a time. The site, which offers a 30 day free trial, is: http://www.sharefile.com/ Our TPA is happy with the performance and support so far. I don't use it, so I can only tell you what they told me. And, of course, there are undoubtly other choices out there.

For future reference, and just as a matter of style, it may be better to post a link to the article, rather than reproducing the article on these boards. Summary comments or relevant partial quotes might be included. A recent discussion on another topic highlighted the preference for links over complete reprints and noted the possible copyright issues with posting complete reprints, even when authors are given credit.

My understanding is that it's when the check is cut. Selling the funds in the account does not make the money available to the participant. Cutting the check does.

I 3rd it. QDRO's are never simple. Although some basic rules apply to all QDRO's, each plan has its own procedures for processing QDRO's. QDRO's are one of the things that most (all?) plans always have their own lawyers look at before paying out. To repeat: Never process a QDRO yourself. Get the attorney now.

Please read QDROphile's posts again. Pro rata does not mean that the same dollar amount comes out of each account. It means that you get the same fraction (40%, 50%, 60%, whatever) from each account. You get more dollars from the bigger accounts and less from the smaller accounts. QDROphile detailed an example for you in his second posting.

Here it is: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44484

Discussed in a previous thread, which I can't find right now. The answer was yes, you can do both the deferral and the Roth IRA.

Thanks, Austin. That's an important reminder. Yes, as we're frequently reminded on these boards, our Step One is to see what the plan document says.

I think that's right. Once a participant, always a participant, as they say. Even if everybody working less than 20 hours per week is excluded (at least prospectively), they probably couldn't be kept out if they got 1000 hours in a year. It may help in defending that the exclusion of part-timers is not based on age if in practice the positions where an employee can work less than 20 hours a week are available/offered to persons under age 40, not just older employees. In addition, employees can waive their age rights, but I'd get an attorney's advice before doing that.

Liosis - Just wanted to pop back here and thank you for starting this thread. Without very little prodding on my part, our IT people upgraded our (tiered) match calculator with your excellent suggestion. They think it's really cool, too, and it wasn't hard to do. Thanks, again.