GMK

Just a reminder for tomorrow (Saturday). Q: Why was there only one Avogadro? A: When they made him, they broke the Moled. Q: Avogadro loved to watch MASH. Which character did he like most? A: Father Molecahy. (more groans!)

Out of curiosity Do banks view a loan from a plan as an increase in debt or a reduction in assets? For example, loan payments would be considered in monthly cash flow, but unlike a loan from a 3rd party, the borrower's obligation for failing to make the payments is only the tax on the deemed distribution, yes? Point being that the tax may be substantial, but it is much less than the amount borrowed. Do the firms who calculate credit rating scores take into account a loan from a plan? We don't do plan loans (philosophical and administrative reasons), so for me these are just academic questions. If anyone has the time to answer, thanks.

This article: http://www.investopedia.com/articles/retir...94602&close (see Ineligible Conversions section) indicates that a Roth coversion is "technically a distribution and a rollover contribution," and since an RMD cannot be rolled over, it cannot be rolled over or converted to a Roth. Gotta take the distribution and put it in a Roth IRA, subject to contribution limits.

Sounds right to me, assuming the participant was eligible to take the distribution whether or not she/he decided to roll it into the Plan's Roth 401(k). Of course, the tax rates in 2011 and 2012 may be higher than in 2010, so one should run the numbers on the taxes.

... and I would include new participants even if they do not yet have anything in their account balance.

Seems to me that generally, if you have 5 or more consecutive one-year breaks in service, then the years of service after the rehire (after the 5 or more one-year breaks) do not count for vesting during the first employment (before the breaks), but the years of service before the breaks do count for vesting after the rehire. (And a special rule applies if you were 0% vested during the break years.) In this case, she will forever be 20% vested in $0 for the pre-break period, and she will start at least 20% vested when rehired. (or am I missing something?)

The husband should be advised that this will never just go away. It may hang over him for years and years, unless it says otherwise in the separation agreement. One concern with letting it go indefinitely is how the ex's benefit is determined. Is it 50% of the balance on the date the divorce is final, or maybe 50% of the balance on the day the ex gets her half, or something else. If the separation agreement does not specify a date for determining that balance, then the QDRO will specify it, and the result could be that she receives 50% of the benefits the husband received after the marriage was over. Unless the date is already set in writing, the husband may want to contact Attorney x soon and get the ball rolling. Just saying. And tell the husband to hang on to his account statements for reference when the DRO is finally prepared.

..which I'm guessing explains why you refuse to reveal your middle name.

Yah, I know it's spam, but I agree. There's no need to save pounds early. It's very easy to put on pounds later in life.

I'm not seeing something here. In my experience, except in some rare cases, the only people who end up getting a sizeable true up are those who hit the 402(g) limit. Everybody else gets properly matched each pay period, and it all adds up, and there's no more match required. (Yes, if the match is say 100% on 3% and 50% on the next 2%, and a person changes deferral from 5% to 0% in the 4th quarter, the net annual deferral rate may require a true up, but not a big one.) Apparently you have calculated to see that the under-the-402(g)-limit people actually would be due a "boatload" of true ups. Does that mean they were not properly matched at pay dates? or maybe it's simply a big number of people who are due $20 each. In any case, I agree with 12AX7.

I'm pretty sure that this is not relevant to eligibility considerations. And it doesn't matte whether or not they might defer. For example, even part timers who happen to get to 1000 hours of service are eligible.

IMHO, this is a lovely time for a two week trip to Europe.

Great example, jpod. For general reference, it's good form and sometimes necessary to include a boilerplate or specific authorization statement in any resolution (board, trustee, etc.).

Obviously I don't know the details, but in general I would not rely on a resolution alone to amend a plan document. I prefer a resolution that gives all the Whereas's and includes a Therefore that states that the Board approves the attached amendment. The resolution is formal notice that the Board approves the change, and the amendment specifies what wording is changed in the plan document.

It's the timing, not the form, of the later payout that's at issue. For example, where we offer participants the choice to start RMD's at 70-1/2 or defer them while still employed, almost all employees defer their RMDs. They have income now and don't want to use up plan funds before they retire. I think that the biggest advantage most (not all) of them see in deferring RMDs is that their tax rate on the RMDs will be less after they retire than while they are still employed. So, if we took away the 'no RMDs until you terminate (after age 70-1/2)' option, our people would see it as a benefit reduction.

This article (bottom of page 20, top of page 21): http://bingaman.senate.gov/policy/crs_privhins.pdf indicates that cost-sharing is deductibles and co-pays. Hmmm.

Here are a couple of articles on the subject: http://www.esoplawblog.com/2008/03/article...gations-part-i/ http://www.esoplawblog.com/2008/04/article...ations-part-ii/ It appears that you need the valuation as of the date of the sale, and the plan has to consider other fiduciary concerns, such as, is it in the best interest of the participants to sell the stock rather than distribute it? You only need to know the basis if the participant takes a lump sum payment to her. If she rolls it over to an IRA, NUA is not a factor. As noted before, after some number of years a rollover is the better choice, but you have to run the numbers in each case to see how long that takes. Going back through the records, even if you have them, to calculate basis is a big job, especially if there were forfeitures credited to her account along the way. Good luck.

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=46803&hl=

First, I'd check if the plan administrator/sponsor asked the auditor how much time the auditor would need to complete the audit after receiving all the information, and if the PA provided all the necessary information timely. There may be lazy auditors who don't make meeting plan filing deadlines a priority, but I haven't met them (quite the opposite). (No, I'm not an auditor.)

This article (3rd point under Qualified Plans): http://benefitslink.com/articles/guests/washbull091027.html suggests that deferrals are to be made on imputed income. The compensation used to calculate deferral amounts is distinguished from the compensation from which deferrals are taken. And I'd sure like to hear a few more details from Mr. QDROphile. Edit to add this reference to the IRS's answer (item 12 on pages 11-12): http://www.abanet.org/jceb/2009/IRS2009.pdf

To my (totally unfamiliar with this) mind, this says 2 1/2 percent for each full year and 2 1/2 percent for each fractional year. But I'm just reading what it says.

the usual starting point: check the Plan Document. I'm used to seeing that: Forfeiture occurs either: a) when the participant takes a distribution of her/his vested balance, or b) after five one-year breaks in service, whichever happens first. If the participant is rehired BEFORE five one-year breaks in service, the participant has the option to pay back to the plan the amount distributed to her/him, and if the participant does repay that amount, then the employer must restore the previously forfeited amount to the participant's account. If the participant is rehired AFTER five one-year breaks in service, the participant does not have the option to repay the previously distributed amount, if any, and the forfeited amount is not restored regardless of whether the participant previously took a distribution.

Here's some movies scheduled to come out that day: http://www.themovieinsider.com/movies/november/2011/11/ Hope this helps (as Mr. Lesser would say).

Looks like Cincinnati doesn't stand a chance in their division this year, .. unless maybe there's a disconnect between who's on your payroll and who's available to play for you.

True that. Let's just hope you haven't stumbled across "The Question." (What is the decimal value of ...) In any case, Don't Panic ... but maybe grab a towel.