GMK

Thanks for a good start, RLL. The 2 issues I've found relate to segregation and diversification of former employees' accounts. Still can't find the "12 questions," which, of course, may all deal with only these 2 issues.

Oh, ho. Now I'm shell shocked and scrambled, for sure. You guyz yust crack me up wit' yer yokes.

Sorry to be dense, but what does that mean? maybe an example. Thanks.

Thanks for the interesting info, JLHKD. Is there a google phrase or specific online sites to get more information about this?

Hey! I thought no hints (like they'd help me). Well, I won't push the [!Report] button this time, but watch it.

Thanks, Bird. That's the disappointing answer I pretty much expected.

An uninformed reader asks: Is there a parallel to credit unions vs. banks in the annuity world? That is, if you want to invest your 401(k) lump sum in an annuity, are insurance companies the only annuity supplier option or are there also "annuity unions" or any other choices (assuming you have no access to a DB plan)? Just curious.

Hey, I got 1. Us old guys know this one, too!

Thanks, Tom. 2 and 3, so far ... and maybe forever. I'll look again this weekend when I have access to family members who know movies. Hi Ho. Hi Ho. It's off to .... (hey! that's not whistled.)

Many many thanks, QDROphile and Sieve, for your replies. As a criterion for DRO reviews, it appears that an AP with an account in the Plan has all of (but no more than) the same rights as a former employee participant with an account in the Plan (subject to any restrictions of the AP's rights specified in the QDRO). or is this too simplistic?

Thank you, Sieve, for the example I should have remembered. So, if a Plan wants to require AP's to take their distributions as soon as practicable, can this simply be an administrative decision or must it be in a Plan Document amendment (and listed in the QDRO Procedure in either case), or is it just plain not allowed (except to the extent that the Plan allows/requires force outs of participants)?

Isn't this because the benefit is being paid from one participant's account, and the AP isn't another participant with a separate account. Recognizing that for record keeping purposes separate balances may be determined, the total benefit still only comes from one participant's account. And, therefore, you are not required to get an audit solely because you had some AP's that year. QDROphile know this stuff better than anyone, so I am conflicted. I see the term Alternate "Payee" as defining someone who receives a payment from the plan. I do not see it as someone who can become an "alternate participant" in the plan. I would greatly appreciate any comments on this.

First thing that comes to mind is that you cannot participate in the Plan if you are not eligible, and persons generally have to be employed by the company at some time in order to be eligible to participate. The AP will have distribution rights like a participant, but unless otherwise eligible through her/his own employment with the company, I doubt that she/he will have a right to participate (maintain an account) in the Plan. Unless the Plan Document somehow provides for such AP participation, the DRO is requiring something outside of what the Plan normally offers, and that would prevent qualification of the DRO. I'm interested to hear what others say.

That's good enough for me, Tom. Thanks for the cite, which I didn't find in my web searches (and which incidently answers the first question I posted on benefitslink).

IMO this is sensible all around, but is it approved in writing anywhere? Or is it just a practical (though unsanctioned) practice? For example, from Publication 575, for rollover eligible amounts paid to a participant, withholding is specifically not required: if all distributions paid to the participant in the tax year total less than $200 or if the cash portion of a distribution is less than $200 in lieu of fractional shares (per 3405(e)(8)). Is it written anywhere that withholding is not required, for example, for a corrective distribution (as in the OP) of less than $200, or if in a distribution of stock plus (less than $200) cash, the under $200 cash portion is for a small non-stock balance instead of being in lieu of fractional shares?

For what it's worth, I'm used to seeing that although service after a 5 year break does not count toward vesting before the break, service before the break does counts towards vesting after the break. Perhaps the Plan Document has a section that specifies how to deal with vesting after a 5 year break, even though it was written when 100% vesting was immediate. I don't know if there is a general "once 100%, always 100%" rule, but maybe someone will post the answer.

Does it matter that Feb. 15, 2010, is a federal holiday?

I'm sorry, Dave. I can't tell you that.

I know nothing about on-line health plan decison tools (so I won't be any help to you), but for those who might be able to give you an answer, can you narrow your question down to a list of the specific options from which your employees will be selecting a best choice? or do you mean to consider every option?

It might be worth checking whether the ML account has a minimum balance requirement that would leave some (many?) participants with no real option to transfer to ML.

Start at page 10 of this pdf: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-09-68.pdf edit: if this involves a rollover from a qualified plan. Otherwise, ... And for a lot of details, there's publication 590: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p590.pdf

d. rigby - Well said. I'm just wondering if there is a common or preferred usage convention. M. Preston - Can't say that it's ever struck me that way (still doesn't), but it would come as no surprise to find out that you are correct. Anyone else?

Are the phrases "at its sole discretion" and "in its sole discretion" equivalent? For example, Company A at/in its sole discretion can contribute Or are there cases where it is more correct to use one or the other? Or is only one the really correct phrase to use? I see both and wonder. Thanks for educating me (again).

We are the sponsor. We make and deliver the copies. In our case, I would expect to receive a bill if someone else did the copying and mailing, but maybe some places make copies and mail them as part of the contracted service.

It's pre-1987. And here's another thread on this: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=28910&hl=