GMK

Here's to Doug Adams. and remember, Don't Panic.

Check what your plan says about the match. Generally, the term "match" means how much the employer contributes to match what you defer, not to match how much you make. For example, if the match is 50% and you defer 4% of your compensation, the employer will contribute a matching amount of 2% (up to the limits imposed by the plan and the law). If you do not defer any of your compensation to the plan, then the employer will match your deferral by contributing nothing also (4% of nothing = nothing).

Below Ground - I was just throwing my one and half cents in. I appreciate your comments here very much. I believe they were enlightening to all of us. They were to me. (BTW, it's been good to see you on wheels again ... but I don't have an answer about the coverage testing. )

Took a while, but I think the point is that in the community property case, the son is deemed to own 89%, which is his directly owned 78% plus the half of step-Father's 22% that was deemed to Mother, who directly owns 0%. Without half of Father's 22% being deemed to Mother, the son would only have 78%.

OK for withholding, but I vote for Belgarath's approach for distributions in such cases:

Agreed. What you sent in December was a draft DRO (domestic relations order). The plan told you that they didn't see anything wrong with it (which does not mean they approved it as a QDRO). As QDROphile notes, when the judge signed it, it became a DRO, and the plan's "board" will now review the DRO to see if it actually is qualified. If the board determines that it is qualified, the DRO becomes a QDRO (Qualified DRO). If they determine that it is not qualified (which shouldn't happen since you sent the draft for review, but it could), they have to tell you in writing what's wrong with it. We can see why you are frustrated, but the plan is within its rights to take several months if that constitutes a "reasonable time" for the review. The plan has a serious obligation to thoroughly review each DRO in determining whether it is qualified, and that can take some time. In my opinion (for what that's worth), however, they should give some priority to getting the reviews done promptly, and they could give some priority to DRO's that were previously reviewed as drafts (but they don't have to).

See post #24

Maybe this helps: http://www.ehtc.com/ehtc/brochures/SALTArt...Attribution.pdf It suggests not counted without a legal adoption.

An IRS calendar year starts on January 1. The last day of a calendar year is December 31. for example, see: http://www.irs.gov/businesses/small/articl...d=98673,00.html

For example, from IRS Topic 412: "A lump-sum distribution is the distribution or payment, within a single tax year, of a plan participant's entire balance from all of the employer's qualified pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plans. All the participant's accounts under the employer's qualified pension, profit-sharing, or stock bonus plans must be distributed in order to be a lump-sum distribution." (emphasis added)

For the current discussion, I agree ... but does that also mean you won't sign my autograph book?

two cents from a plan administrator I wouldn't allow distributions without the plan administrator's approval (or e-approval), and I wouldn't grant such approval until I'd seen sufficient written supporting documentation. But others may have a better way to do it.

for what it's worth (there are no dumb questions)

It appears that, with all of the new stuff, they can't keep track of the old stuff and have forgotten the first rule of the universe, which is: DON'T PANIC!

Like a 3-foot high flame, this really burns ... well, never mind.

Unless the plan's QDRO Procedure says otherwise, I think the boat has sailed (assuming the sponsor had no clue that this DRO was coming). If the sponsor wishes to pursue it, maybe the annuity contract provider would agree to replace the participant's contract with two contracts, but I don't think that there is any requirement to do so. Might be worth reviewing this with the plan's attorney. edit: I agree with jpod, whose post I didn't see before entering my reply.

Whoa. How risky do you think we are?

Just to be a little careful with words, unless you elect to waive participation, you become a participant (are allowed to participate) when you meet the eligibility requirements, which usually do not depend on whether or how much you contribute ... which appears to be what you meant.

Well said, Tom, and for Ernie, well deserved. I grew up listening to Earl Gillespie, so I know the great memories of announcers who focused on and really brought you into the games. If it's an important (to me) game, I watch the TV and listen to the radio. Too often today's TV announcers are so lost in themselves that they forget there even is a game.

Great. Again, thanks for the update. As Mr. Preston pointed out, we do like to see how things happen in the real world. As to the hardship distribution, it is standard operating procedure for the PA to take the steps that the PA feels are necessary to ensure that any distribution is in accordance with the terms in the plan document, with respect to both the reason and the amount. It is more than a formality. It is a duty the PA has to the plan and the participants. Work with the PA as needed to give the PA the assurances the PA is looking for.

Don't know about the 401(a) and MPPP questions, but this article: http://www.allbusiness.com/human-resources...s/854593-1.html suggests that DROP plans can be winners or losers depending on one's circumstances, and that they need some careful designing to avoid poor returns and/or high costs.

check out AE-28 here: http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=205364,00.html employee hired for a limited period, such as a seasonal worker. At end of term, if employee would continue working, but the employer says there's no more work, it's involuntary.

Just a reminder: If Dad is subject to state income tax, Dad and Dad's employer need to check whether the coverage for the adult child results in imputed income for state income tax and withholding purposes. The new federal law does not require that the child be a "tax dependent" for federal "tax free" coverage to age 26, but not all states are with the federals on that. If your state is not yet with the feds, then the value of the coverage for an adult child who is not a tax dependent for state income tax purposes very well may be imputed income for state tax purposes for Dad, even though it is not for federal tax purposes.

Of course, keep in mind that we are strangers, and you don't know if we know what we're talking about. After further review, it seems odd that you didn't ask the experts at this company: http://bbrserviceslp.com/expertise.html I don't know this company, but you might, and they list qualified retirement plans as an area of expertise. (No need to reply. It doesn't really matter to me.)

And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this: refers to the surviving spouse choosing to do a rollover to an IRA that she treats as an inherited IRA (maintained in the name of the deceased with the surviving spouse as the beneficiary). If you treat the IRA as an inherited IRA, payments from the IRA will not be subject to the 10% additional income tax on early distributions, but you will have to start taking required minimum distributions based on when the deceased would have reached age 70-1/2. The instructions for IRS Form 5329 list exceptions to the 10% additional income tax, or see pages 12 and 16 of this pdf: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-68.pdf