GMK

Oh, thanks, Sieve. Now I've gotta remember to look up Johnny Canada when I get home, 'cause there are no speakers on my computer at work. Probably better that way. (I'm unsound at work.)

Yah. Who said that? Throw a pi in their face, Soupy.

As noted above, keep the records. I know of a case where a C corp with an ESOP (since about 1986) got all the stock into the ESOP and converted to an S corp. They had to go back and determine the basis for each participant's stock allocation account. This included allocations of forfeited basis from partially vested participants who left years ago. Apparently, it was no fun, but they had the records and could do it. Being able to confirm past payouts to participants is the biggest advantage to having the old records.

Don't know about 403(b)'s, but here's a similar prior discussion relating to 401(k)'s: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44702 Note the potential administrative trubles (posts #5 and #6). It sounds like your per-payroll match contributions are being made after the service is performed, assuming the payroll is paid after the service is performed. The issue is more that the recipient is not yet eligible (last day requirement). or did I miss something.

As QDROphile points out, the Plan is incorrectly limiting your rights. As I understand it, the Plan really has no authority to restrict a participant's access to the participant's benefits (to the extent allowed under the plan document) until the Plan receives a domestic relations order (DRO) signed by the judge. Until then, the Plan is obligated to protect the participant's benefits and rights, and no one else has claim to those benefits. The Plan may claim that it is making sure it has the money that the Alternate Payee (your ex) is supposed to get. But you have court documents that say that she gets half, so such a claim has no bearing on the other half of the account and leaves the Plan with no excuse for refusing you access to some of that other half. Still, the Plan probably won't listen until a lawyer shows up. One approach would be to file a claim (which must be in writing) for a hardship withdrawal benefit. The PA has to respond with the benefit payment or a notice of denial that refers to the specific plan provision on which the denial is based. This claim and denial procedure is described in your Summary Plan Description (SPD). If you can't find your copy, ask the PA for a copy of the SPD. The Plan has to provide it for free. And while you're waiting for the PA to respond to your claim, call the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) to see if they can advise or help you. Good luck.

"Your Rollover Options" no longer needs footnotes in Wisconsin: http://www.jsonline.com/business/87687797.html (Please pardon the generally fun-to-read but misinformed and/or grumpy comments following the article.)

Just a reminder that Sunday is not only "Spring Forward" day, it's also pi day. In recognition, maybe we should get up at exactly 3:14:16 to change the clocks. Ya right.

This article: http://www.morganlewis.com/pubs/ESOP-EB_Ma..._LF_10mar10.pdf provides some useful details on fund segregation, rebalancing, and reshuffling (court decision and IRS memo), but I don't know if all of Cincinnati's questions have been answered.

One way is to have the IT people add a pop-up or scroll window that displays the notice when the participant requests a distribution, and also displays a box that the participant clicks on to check the box, which is next to the "I have read (or I have received) the tax notice" statement. Another interactive check box could be next to an "I waive the 30 day waiting period" statement. For the historical records, the site must log all the check marks and the date they were checked. In addition, if "I have received the notice" is not checked, the site presents a message explaining that the participant has to check the box before the distribution can be made, and if the "waive 30 days" is not checked, another message explaining that the distribution cannot be made within the next 30 days unless the waiver box is checked. or maybe there's a simpler way.

And just as a reminder (of something you probably already have under control): properly account for pre-tax vs. after-tax moneys if they can be rolled back into the original Plan.

My feeling is that since this is withholding on a direct rollover to a Roth IRA, the 10% penalty won't apply, regardless of when the taxes are paid. But that's just my sense of it. If I'm wrong, then as you say, we will have to determine if we have to issue a 1099 for the rollover portion (no penalty) and another for the withholding (indicating 10% penalty). Good luck to us in trying to get enough information from the participant to figure that one out before the 1099 deadline. At least there's some time for an official clarification for us. Participants rolling over to Roths have to decide about withholding now (on top of how they may be affected by the tax cut sunset after 2010). Personally, I'd waive withholding just to maximize the amount going into the Roth and find other funds to pay the taxes.

Very! As it stands, it looks like an under 59-1/2 participant ought to have nothing withheld for 2010 unless they know for certain that they will claim the income in 2010, and not spread it over 2011 and 2012.

I found this summary useful: http://www.groom.com/media/publication/658...0For%202010.pdf

On the bright side, there's material for a verse in "There'll be Pennies from Pensions for you and me." or the more stomping beat of the Elton John-like: Bene and the Tests

Encore! Wow. You come rushin' in here and pull off a miracle of miracles. Good song choice, and I like the way you made it your own.

"Are you finished kicking me?" probably doesn't need an apology, but otherwise I agree.

I don't know of a specific documentation requirement, but the Plan has a responsibility to make and report distributions properly (in accordance with the law, regs, and Plan Document). I suggest having a place on the Distribution Form for the participant to indicate if the rollover is to a Roth and checking with the rollover receiving account to confirm whether it is a Roth or not. Then, when someone comes to you a few years from now and asks how you determined the taxable amount, you'll have a supportable answer.

Sorry, Tom, but we're not going to break with TRADITION.

You mean like someone who says, "Here's to a great Plan. May you provide benefits happily ever after." (or should I restate that?)

Is this a generally accepted assumption, or is it preferable to go through the search options for the spouse, too?

anygig, you just got as good an answer as you could hope for. I recommend that you pass QDROphile's comments on to the Plan Administrator, who appears to have dropped the ball in couple of places in this story (and may not know it).

It's easiest for you and most convenient for participants to have as much as possible in the one wrap document. It's OK to have a separate SPD for the FSA, as long as you have an SPD for the FSA. I'd include the AFLAC plan in the wrap document if Mercer will do it. When you get the wrap document from the broker, read it over carefully to see that it correctly describes how your plans work. For example, is enrollment automatic or do participants need to file a form to apply? Is eligibility described correctly? and things like that. I would expect that a wrap document from your benefits broker will generally be just fine, but sometimes you have to make minor corrections.

ANON-MD: Sometimes we wait for multiple responses to our postings, but that is not necessary here. If you read these boards regularly, you know that Mr. Simmons gives good advice, and I doubt that anyone will be disagreeing with what he says above. You also need to consider (and may already have) any notices that you may be required to provide to participants, e.g., Women's Health and Cancer, Materinity Coverage Length of Stay, etc. One approach is to use a wrap document for your SPD, which would give you one document that summaries your welfare plans (POP and FSA), ERISA rights, COBRA, HIPAA, FMLA, USERRA, eligibility, claims procedures, etc. and also contains the required notices.

Has it been a week already? I haven't even started. I was gonna go ape over this, but I guess I didn't plan et very well, did I. Mr. Presson: Who directed i was wrong on this one? I can't remember. and why did it have 2 explosions? Maybe I can get a round to it this week-end. It is a fun quiz.

Darn it. I got so excited that I missed that it doesn't really answer my first benefitslink question. I get it that there's no withholding if the eligible rollover distribution total for the year is under $200 (per the referenced Q & A 14). The question I still have is whether withholding is required in the case of an eligible rollover distribution of $200 or more that is in stock and cash, where the cash portion is less than $200. The cites I have found all say that there is no withholding if the cash part is less than $200 in lieu of partial shares, but does it say anywhere (back of a napkin is good) that withholding is not required when some or all of the $199 in cash is for non-stock account balances (without the "in lieu of partial shares" requirement)? It looks like withholding is required unless the (under $200) cash portion is entirely in lieu of partial shares, but I've been wrong before. Thanks for any comments.