GMK

All I found in a quick search is the last line in this link: http://www.tsc401k.com/employee.htm which reads, "For non-calendar year plans, the compensation thresholds are those in effect at the beginning of the Plan Year." Edit to add this link (see third bullet on page 2): http://www.lindquist.com/files/Publication...imits_Chart.pdf No cites given in either link.

That's 100110 in binary.

Ah, but notice the capital "C" which broadly (or even universally) implies reference to the particular religious denomination.

Any relation? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Feynman

Others can (and hopefully will) provide details and cites, but basically your dental premiums will also be federally tax exempt. The change to the IRC makes the dental premium federally tax-exempt (to age 26) even if PPACA doesn't require eligibility to age 26 (because it's a stand alone plan). State income taxes, if any, may be a different story for both medical and dental.

Thanks for responding, QDROphile. I see your point. Interestingly, places that post their information and forms on-line (mostly universities) state that they will continue the pre-tax premium payments and add the imputed income (the value of non-tax dependent's coverage) to the employee's taxable income. At least the one's I've looked at say that. Fortunately, imputing income not been an issue for us yet, but we expect to see it eventually here in a state that makes adult children eligible for health coverage to age 27 (and which has not yet 'federalized' adult child dependent status, but that's another story). yes, that's the plan, subject to further advice from the attorney, etc. Thanks again.

OK, I'm very interested, but I can't find what you're driving at. Would you please provide some specifics. Thanks.

For example, employee has $800 of taxable income after pre-tax deductions. Employee adds coverage for a non-tax dependent (who is not an adult child under age 26), and the value of that coverage is $100. If I take the $100 out after-tax, then no change. The employee still has a taxable income of $800. If I take the $100 pre-tax, the employee's taxable income drops to $700. But then I impute the value of the coverage ($100) to the employee, so the employee's taxable income is $800. Same as before, for the employee and the employer.

For what it's worth, we've been told (by a benefits attorney) that we have a choice. We can pre-tax the premium payments and impute the value of the taxable coverage as income to the employee, or we can split the deduction and take the taxable part out after-tax, whichever works best for the payroll department. Either way, the employee pays taxes on the value of whatever coverage isn't exempt from taxes. For us, pre-taxing the whole premium and imputing the taxable value back to the employee is the simpler approach.

Lori - One thing we found that helps in getting participants to cash these $2 distributions is to explain to them (in a call, e-mail, or letter) that it's a hassle for the Plan if they don't: extra recordkeeping, reissuing stale checks, etc. Usually, they initially take the attitude that $2 is kind of a joke, not worth bothering about, but once they understand the administrative situation, they almost always cooperate and cash the 'stupid check.' And, as JSimmons points out, cash the check or not, they are no longer participants (assuming the check was a cash out of their vested balance).

I agree. Cream it into oblivion, Bos. It's becoming an udder waste of time.

Either we've had too much calf-ene, or we're just trying to milk this for all it's worth.

OK, den. Here's one: http://media.photobucket.com/image/red%20m...r24/FireRed.jpg .. or just google 'red mustang' (what a nice way to end an otherwise also pretty nice week)

and in your locale, I assume they are the beloved fire-engine red birds? (who really aren't all that strange)

Wow. One of the rare models of Mustang. And a convertible! So, does the word 'actuary' come from the latin phrase: ".. well, um, that is, .. actually .."

Why all this speculation? Just check the plan document. meanwhile, isn't anybody gonna post a picture of the fire engine red Mustang? (woulda used a drooly face, but there isn't one)

Check what the Plan Document requires, if anything, with regard to allocating forfeitures. (Sorry if this comment is not much help, but for questions like these, the Plan Document is usually the best place to start.)

Bravo for not issuing a computer-generated SPD that doesn't give straight answers. The sentence that boils my blood is the one that goes, "If the Plan provides ..., then ..." Yikes, if the SPD can't state whether or not the plan provides something, it's a bit of a stretch to assume that the participant can figure it out. And besides, if the SPD makes it clear, then it's that much easier for me to explain the why's and wherefore's. One option is to have your ERISA attorney write an SPD for your plan. Costly, yes, but probably way better than what you're getting now. As 401king suggests, another approach is to write or edit the SPD yourself (or hire someone), assuming you understand your plan well enough. Then, have the attorney review it to ensure that the statements are correct and that all the things that should be in an SPD are in it.

Sorry, I am not convinced. I think Belgarath has it right (post 9), although I agree with masteff that the participant might not be so happy. I don't see it as a look-back option. I see it as a rule that while distributions are being made, they are RMD until the RMD is satisfied. And it seems to me that "the first $5,000" in the example explains this clearly. Why say "the first" if you mean "any" $5000? So we disagree (which is OK).

In the arena of commonly asked questions, it is not unusual for parts of such questions to be interchanged. I believe (but have no data to confirm or deny) that Andy t A meant to ask the other question about a bear. (To which there is photographic proof that the answer is 'yes.')

Does that matter? Distribution dollars in a year when an RMD is due are first treated as RMD until the required RMD amount is satisfied. Whether that's logical or reasonable or to anyone's liking is not the point.

Totally agree. What other method provides such a near perfect level of analysis accuracy? I guess when you're 7 games behind Cincinnati and with no games against the Rangers (Smith or otherwise), you gotta find something else to talk about, like the bears. I see that the (average?) Bears play the Cards (but not from St. L.) and do not play the St. L. A. Rams during the regular season this year. (very confusing to us senior citizens) But paws .. er, pause ... and reflect. This is no pic-a-nic, you know, and I sense that we're not out of the woods yet.

My understanding is that when an RMD is due, the first dollars distributed are the RMD dollars until the required RMD amount has been distributed. Amounts distributed after the RMD is satisfied can then be rolled over. But maybe I missed something along the way ... (edit) and here's a link: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=45398

... or a new car or a boat or ... While the participant in the OP was certainly not trying to game the system, the Plan Administrator might want to review plan procedures a bit to avoid future pay-outs of distributions that end up being outside the set of distributions allowed by the Plan (unless, of course, the Participant was eligible for the distribution without the hardship). Maybe confirm the approval of the hardship promptly, but delay the payment subject to confirmation of a closing date, loan approval, or the like. In this case, if I were the PA, I'd try to find a way to get the funds back in the plan.

Thanks for the link to the chart, MARYMM. It's a useful reference (and a good starting point for JM123's chart ).