GMK

Here's a previous discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46594 Note that the RBD is the latest date for the RMD, not the first date of an RMD. The RMD may occur before that date.

For your further reading enjoyment: http://www.proskauer.com/publications/clie...al-regulations/ and the latest on switching insurance companies: http://www.proskauer.com/publications/clie...d-health-plans/ And there are important things in PPACA that apply now (as in, don't wait until 2014) even if you are grandfathered.

Thank you for your reply, mbozek. I understand your point, and I agree with the big emphasis on lower fees. If one can do better outside the Plan, then that is a strong argument for in service withdrawals before 70-1/2. Sometimes, even with Vanguard funds, the plan can get a better fee class than the lowly individual, mainly because the plan has a bigger pile of money to invest, so it can access the lower fee fund grades. Plans can also provide access to (non-Vanguard) lower fee institutional grade funds with consistently high returns that are not generally available to most individuals. I think it depends on what the plan provides for investment options, which of course can include properly (read 'low') priced Vanguard funds. It also depends on whether the plan really works at offering low fee funds that provide consistently good performance. One hang up I have with access at 59-1/2 is that there's no way to restrict it only to rollovers. Yes, it's their money. And why should I care if they spend it and have nothing left when they retire? Well, we set up the plan to be a retirement plan, so that employees have the opportunity to build up some savings for those golden years. And the company puts in a healthy match to encourage deferrals and to help build employee's account faster. We are very reluctant to encourage employees to lose track of the goal. But that's just us. Happy Thanksgiving. And thank you for all your posts, which are always worth reading.

My sense from the OP is that the participant does not want to rollover all or even part of the balance. He probably has access to better investment options in the plan than out in the IRA world. (Just guessing.) But I agree that amending to allow distributions at 70-1/2 makes sense. And then he could roll the RMD's to a Roth IRA.

'Tis the season for saccharine sentimentality, I guess. To you and everyone, thank you for your posts and Happy Thanksgiving.

me. It's a retirement plan for when you retire. In service withdrawals are allowed after 70-1/2. In service withdrawals eat up retirement savings, which I've been told is bad (unless you have a separate pile of money for retirement, I suppose.) But seriously, you seem pretty adamant about this, and I would like to know why allowing post 59-1/2 withdrawals is so important. Thanks.

Basically, the amendment would provide that for plan purposes (eligibility, vesting, benefit accrual ... you could include or exclude things as you wish or just say for all plan purposes), if an employee (or you could restrict this to only persons who are already participants) dies while on approved leave (or while on medical leave ...), the person is treated as if she/he returned to work the day before the death and then died. If you were to do this, think about how broadly or narrowly you want this to apply. Again, I do not know if there are any restrictions to adding this kind of clause, but someone out there does.

Is there anything to prevent a plan from adding a provision that for the purposes of vesting, etc., an employee who dies while on leave is treated as if the employee returned to work on the day before she/he died? Kinda like the USERRA clause for active duty personnel.

(Clever question.) This article says yes, too (4th paragraph under Employer Contribution Provision): http://employee-benefit.blogspot.com/2009/...ring-plans.html

OK, it's Friday... Jimmy Brown is No. 1 (they must have mistyped it) and what is the process, or do we have to do our own research?

As we used to say at Chrysler: You make that Plymouth rock, Tom! (oh, dear. no one will know what that means after Thursday when you change your avatar. And also, I never actually worked for Chrysler. It's all a lie, except that you and your answers rock, Tom.)

We treat these cases like any other rollover eligible distribution. Send the distribution form and Rollover Options notice to the participant. In the cover letter, explain that the Plan will distribute the balance using the same elections as for the previous distribution unless the participant files other instructions within 30 days. We prefer to give the participant the opportunity to make an election before we consider a forced out distribution, even for amounts less than $1000.

For the sake of discussion, isn't the loan one of the participant's "other sources" and doesn't the loan take away the "immediate" aspect of the hardship, at least until the loan comes due? Or isn't that how these things are regarded? (Just asking in general. I don't really need to know.)

From BenefitsLink Newsletters: "No news items are available today, due to the peaceful death this morning of the mother of BenefitsLink Publisher David Baker." Our prayers are with you and your family, Dave.

kinda reminds me of a favorite line from Pirates (emphasis added): Elizabeth: Wait! You have to take me to shore. According to the Code of the Order of the Brethren... Barbossa: First, your return to shore was not part of our negotiations nor our agreement so I must do nothing. And secondly, you must be a pirate for the pirate's code to apply and you're not. And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules. Welcome aboard the Black Pearl, Miss Turner.

I must have been much faster than the ladies expected, since I never saw anyone in my rear view mirror. I pretty much had to do my own chasing. (No Lord Byron / Don Juan here.) My recollection is the February 29 thing. Never heard of Sadie Hawkins Day's being on November 13 or February 13. Maybe there was no reason to tell me. It's amazing what one can learn on these boards.

After further review, I agree with your call, Austin. So, document dates of completion and keep the client and your employer, if any, informed of your concerns about filing timing issues. If the situation remains unworkable, find a way to do an 'adios, client.' Barring a miracle or extended therapy (both unlikely), nothing will change the arrogance, or maybe it's indifference, of the auditor.

Document dates of completion (yours and the auditor's), and keep your employer informed of your concerns regarding filing timing issues, as appropriate. Then, your employer may better understand why you left for another employer, when that happy day arrives. Some people see only the "on" and never the "or before" for deadlines (ever dealt with a probate lawyer?). No matter how ready you are and how many last minute pitfalls you could avoid, you are trapped by these jerks. ("Jerks" is a word my wife lets me use in place of rectal references when there are children around.)

Unless I'm missing something, no. It's too late to do anything in the 30-day period immediately preceding 2010, and the notice does not apply to 2010.

soxfan - For your reference, here's one that wasn't filed for 19 years: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=47139&hl= As you can read, it's a good idea to keep those account records.

Or maybe the alternator or voltage regulator?

... "and that's all I need. I don't need one other thing. ..... I need this! .. "

That is interesting. Do the odds include a weighting for the likelihood of last names beginning with a given letter? For example, one might expect that A is more likely than, say Q. BTW, we have most of the B's, so that explains that letter.

Earlier discussion of this topic: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46641

According to 1.7476-1(b), that's right. http://law.justia.com/us/cfr/title26/26-13...1.0.18.286.html Is there anywhere else we should be looking?