GMK

Shredder? I thought it was a copier. (Yah, right.) What about the notes in the minutes or resolution or whatever that authorized the establishment of the plan? Wite-out? The web is getting tangled.

I'd like to see an expert's answer, too. I've seen that different classes may be load or no-load and may have different minimum required investment amounts. As you note, expense ratios can vary significantly between classes, especially 12b-1 fees.

See the right hand column of the rollover chart on page 2 of Mr. Lesser's pdf: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43682 (to borrow a phrase) hope this helps.

We knew that Dave was on it. Thanks, Dave.

Sorry, Sieve. I iddn't see one either, back to about 1993. Before that, I think the information went in a different box, if it was required at all. I think one would have to find out from the employer whether the employer remembers whether they might possibly have listed anything other than voluntary after tax contributions in Box 14 ... assuming they listed something. I think participants' account statements offer a better chance of finding useful information. Did I mention that it seems like a long shot and a lot of digging.

You can try to sort out voluntary after-tax contributions entered in Box 14 back at least several years.

Participants may still have their account statements, which would list after-tax contributions and any distributions that reduced basis. There could also be some after-tax contribution information in old W-2's and pay stubs. (There are pack rats amongst us, you know.) It's a long shot and a lot of digging, but corporate copies of payroll records and/or W-2's may help. Bird's suggestion keeps looking better all the time (but check for previous distributions that may have reduced basis). In any case, some effort to find at least some of the after-tax amount would be better than just throwing it all into pre-tax.

Hey, we know they don't really mean it ... do they? Maybe this is just a polite way for public servants to say, "Give me a break. How stupid and backward are these people, thinking they can run a business without paying a monthly fee to be on-line. How small is your small business, anyway? Besides, we're too big to be denied. We've made our choice. You deal with it." Gotta go. Someone is waiting to use this to look up a book.

I too would be interested to read some comments on imputed income. I think compensation includes imputed income unless the Plan Document specifically excludes it. For example, 'included employer-provided health care coverage' is a part of 415 compensation. Can you actually ignore imputed income if your deferrals and matches are per payroll (no true-up)? This issue has not come up yet, but we hope to decide on this and some other compensation issues before they do come up.

This is good news for coverage of adult children to age 26 under federal (and apparently CT) laws. However, check your own state's mandates. If your state has decided to require coverage availability through age 26 and follows IRS imputed income rules, then you get to use your imputed income calculation skills during the last part of the child's last year of coverage, starting after the end of the taxable year in which the child reached age 26 and until the child reaches age 27 and is no longer covered. Post #3 here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=37703 has some suggestions for handling the withholding.

Our QDRO Procedure gives the Plan Administrator the authority to take such actions prior to the receipt of a DRO as the PA deems necessary to maintain the participant's accrued benefit, including suspension of the right to distributions, IF the Plan receives written notice of a coming DRO and IF the participant's benefit is not in pay status. If the benefit is in pay status, then until the Plan receives a DRO, the PA will take no action to limit distributions to the participant or otherwise maintain the benefit. To answer the question in advance, the Procedure lists examples of when a benefit is considered to be in pay status. This part is important, because it documents for everyone involved what the Plan considers to be "in Pay Status" in situations that are likely to occur with the Plan. For example, a force out benefit (under $1000) to a terminated employee is in pay status. Our Procedure releases the restrictions, if any, on the participant's access to the benefits if the DRO is not received within 90 days of the Plan's receipt of the notice that a DRO is coming. The PA has the option to reinstate any or all or none of the available restrictions if a second notice is received (but only if the benefit is not then in pay status). The rest of the Procedure details what happens after the DRO arrives. A well thought out QDRO Procedure that fits the Plan takes some effort, but it is a Plan Administrator's best friend when notice of a coming DRO arrives.

The first sentence of Post #4 of this link pretty much says it all: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=45227&hl= Until there's a domestic relations order, qualified or unqualified, the plan's loyalty with regard to a participant's account is solely to the participant's interest. Now, in real life, I might point out to the participant that the distribution won't hide or protect the assets from the soon-to-be ex, who could come after the distributed cash or other assets to get his or her half (or whatever percentage). But without a DRO, the plan has no grounds to prevent the participant from taking a distribution that is available to her or him.

Au contraire, Mr. Rigby. It is greatly useful to one person. The rumor (I wonder who started it?) is Mr. Wallach's excuse for resurrecting his tiresome old posts, which (bottom line:) serve as a cover for him to advertise here for free. Boo. Hiss. Seriously (not), since Lance is THE expert in this field, having never lost a case, I'd expect him to have the answers about the "raid on Benestar." Well, as long as he asked, "someone" told me that the "raid" was nothing more than a visit to pick up some extra computers for the SEC. Now, I'm going back to ignoring him and using the [Report!] button.

hmm...both born in Louisiana. Coincidence? (BTW, with you on the boo, hiss.) Tom - we were hoping for a Curly Neal song, to the tune of ... well, you can probably come up with some appropriate tune. OK, back to work.

Havlicek was all-around great, and he could jump. Stockton deserves a lot of consideration. Russell starts as a power forward or twin tower. And coming back down the floor against Bill and Kareem, you better be hitting from outside. Nothing compares to Dr. J. but people ought to know about Pogo Joe, both his skills and the NBA indignities he endured.

Excellent reference, oriecat. Most general literature and other documents say "eligible for Medicare," which to most people means or appears to mean old enough (or otherwise eligible) to enroll in Medicare. Causes big confusion.

Nice list, Sieve. I never finished a full 12 picks. If I needed a Celtic forward, I'd pick Havlicek (sorry, Larry, and sorry, Larry). I'd probably go with Shaq or the Admiral in place of Wilt. And I haven't sorted out whether to include the Ice Man, Clyde Frasier, or Dischinger (50.6% from the field). Ya, I'd keep Petit.

Good for you. Thanks for the update.

We had a joke amongst ourselves that went, "Team player Magic Johnson drives toward the basket and shoots." I would probably have him coming off my bench, but Big O runs my team. And obviously, I'd start Kareem at whatever level, pro, college, or high school. Anyone else have Pistol Pete on their bench? And AtA, that seems a little harsh on Gene Conley. He had some good days, way better than Mr. Conners. But I digress. Thanks for all the opinions. Nice to see Elgin on another team. He doesn't get a tenth the attention he deserves.

Bill is the only contender to Kareem. Maybe Wilt controls Bill on paper, but Bill controlled Wilt on the court. My starting 5: Kareem Bill Jerry (West) The Big O Dr. J first off the bench, probably Elgin (Wow, this guy is really old.)

Well done, Belgarath!

Happy Birthday, Mr. Abdul-Jabbar.

If I were processing this account, I would like some written direction on how long I should wait for this possible additional contribution to be made. And if I know one is coming at some time in the future, should I allocate the under $25 income or gain now or wait or skip it? Also, just me, but I would prefer a plan amendment that authorizes the committee to withhold from a participant or former participant an amount (up to some maximum amount) that would otherwise be the participant's. The committee can decide how to administer it, but I like the authorization to keep the money in the plan to be in the plan doc, i.e., formally approved by the plan administrator.

1. Follow QDROphile's advice. 2. Many plans do not keep older records. 3. Plans like DRO's that specify a dollar amount. I think your best bet, especially since you're dealing with a plan that apparently has not handled many if any QDRO's, would be if you and your ex can agree on a dollar amount (based on your ex's account records) that the judge would agree satisfies the '50% plus loss/gain' specification (yes, I know that's a lot of agreeing), and list that amount in the DRO. 4. Although I don't think it is necessary here, one way to document phone call information is to write a letter back to the plan summarizing the call, like: So-and-so (name, not 'this so and so') told me in a phone conversation on (date) the following information about the plan's QDRO procedures: 1. __ 2. __ 3.__ etc. Please let me know if any of these items is incorrect. Thank you. Good luck.

Chelsi - The duty of the plan is to protect the participant's account. Generally, when the plan receives notice of a forthcoming domestic relations order (DRO), the plan limits the participant's access to the funds for a limited period of time. After receiving the DRO, the plan will restrict distributions from the account while the plan determines if it is a qualifed DRO (QDRO). Because people could play games with notifying the plan of a possible DRO in the works, the plan is not required to wait for the DRO for very long. I don't know if there is a minimum time. This DOL site: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_qdro2.html verifies that a plan is required to have a written procedure for determining the qualified status of a DRO. This DOL site: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_qdro.html says that the plan administrator is required to furnish you with a copy of the plan's procedure for determining the qualified status of a DRO (see "Who is the administrator of the plan?"). In the meantime, I would suggest focusing on getting the DRO drafted. And be certain that your notices to the plan are in writing. Phone calls are handy, but written documents carry the day. It also usually moves things along if you ask the plan to review the draft DRO (before the judge signs it) to get the plan's opinion of whether there is anything in the draft that the plan cannot accept or if the plan wants any additional topics covered. Plans are likely to reject a DRO if the plan has to make decisions on how exactly to divide the account. In some cases, the plan may come back with a description of how it would divide the account if it receives such a DRO. You can then proceed on that basis or modify the DRO to specify how it is to be done, as long as the DRO does not require anything that is not already allowed in the plan. QDRO's are not fun, but you can do it.