GMK

Here's some threads from last year: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=42031&hl= http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=42947&hl= We're still printing on paper.

Duplicate thread. See: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=44575&hl=

It doesn't feel right to me, but I think Gary is correct. I can't find anything against it, and the degreed and certified friends I asked (who all thought it is a great question) think that $22k is enough earned income. Good call, Gary

OK. I'm an idiot. Yes, according to the IRS, you can max out both your Roth 401(k) and your Roth IRA. http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=152956,00.html#7 Can an individual make the maximum contributions, including catch-up contributions, to both a designated Roth 401(k) or 403(b) account and a Roth IRA in the same year? Yes. An individual age 50 or older can make a contribution of up to $22,000 in 2009 to the 401(k) or 403(b) plan ($16,500 regular and $5,500 catch-up contributions) and $6,000 to a Roth IRA ($5,000 regular and $1,000 catch-up IRA contributions) for a total of $28,000 for 2009. Edit: ... but would you need to have $28,000 of earned income to do it?

Thanks for the insights, Borsley. I haven't looked into Roth(k)'s at all, and this is very interesting information. Are you saying, then, that Roth IRA's and 401(k) Roths are 2 completely separate animals? That is, is it true that what you do with your 401(k) Roth does not affect or limit what you do with your Roth IRA, and vice versa? If not, where do they overlap (or would you please suggest a few good references for reading about where they do and do not overlap)? Thanks again.

Aren't all your Roth accounts, whether in 401(k)'s or IRA's, considered to be your one big Roth? Regardless of much you contribute to your various, individual Roth accounts, the overall total you contribute to your Roths for a given year cannot exceed your earned income for the year. Or did I miss something special about a 401(k) Roth?

We're not talk about Form 5558, right?

Here's a related discussion on the 401(k) board, including about 'doing the right thing.' http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=44070

I agree that if the employee came back to work after the FMLA leave ended and then quit, then the person was an employee during the leave. If the employee simply did not return to work after the FMLA leave, then it depends on the (uniformly applied) policy for persons who do not return after FMLA leave ends. For example, if in this case the policy is that the employee is terminated as of the last day of actually being at work (and the employee was so informed before or at the start of the leave), then I'd say the person's last day of employment was her or his last day at work (and not during or after the leave). One opinion for what it's worth.

A related thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...amp;hl=pre-1987

Assuming the Plan Administrator has approved the checklist, the TPA is probably OK. The PA, however, might like to request copies of the documents before signing off and if needed for future reference. From other discussion on these boards, the PA, not the TPA, has the responsibility to be able to produce those documents if a question later arises, unless the written agreement between the PA and TPA specifically gives the TPA that responsibility. Just a reminder to PA's.

Think of your various Roth accounts as one Roth account, and your Roth contributions as contributions to that account. The most you can contribute to your Roth accounts (be they IRA or 401k) is 100% of your earned income (thanks, Seive, for the more precise statement and the cites), regardless of the maximum limits.

Somewhere it must come in that Roth contributions are limited to the lesser of taxable income or the dollar limit.

I would take Sieve's advice regarding SH hardships. Of course, with hardship withdrawals in the spring, summer, and fall, there won't be any months left when the participant can defer any amount ... which appears to be the answer to the participant's argument in the OP.

I am no expert in any of this, but SWH's suggestion to have a consulting session with an attorney makes a lot of sense. I know people who have done this. They say it was worth it, because it gave them a clearer picture of their options, rights, etc. and of what they needed to focus on. Hang in there, and continue to take the lead on protecting yourself. Good luck.

Personally, I don't think so. I see it as gaming the system. The 401(k) plan is a retirement plan, not an education savings plan. Is the participant suffering a financial hardship if she/he can afford to make deferrals? But then, if a retirement plan allows non-retirement distributions (hardships and loans) in the first place, I'm probably not the one to ask. Sorry if I sound grumpy today.

... unless (and until it changes) you are a resident of Wisconsin. (Sorry to be a broken record.)

Whole numbers of people are working on this, including a division of the TSA looking into the roots of the radical fraction. Apparently they can't count all the people involved because of a tally ban. (..never drink and derive. I like it.)

Haven't put a lot of thought into this, but.. what if the ESOP takes out a 5-year loan to acquire the distributed shares. The shares go into a suspense account and are released and allocated to participant accounts as the employer's contributions pay off the loan. (Assuming the Plan Doc allows all this.)

Of course, you would document in your files if a person is not eligible for the subsidy and why. If the person is eligible for the subsidy but chooses to waive it, I would prefer to have a simple, signed waiver on file that documents that the person understood that she/he was eligible for the subsidy but voluntarily chose to waive it. Then, at least, you won't have to deal with any later excuses they may concoct for why they did not know they could get the subsidy ("The dog ate my COBRA subsidy notice."). Rock covers scissors. Signed document covers butt.

Excellent report, Mr. Poje. The plane truth is that it's a sine of the times.

Amen to that, and thanks, Dave, for the [!Report] button.

As a general answer, I would look at what happens if there are no QDRO's. What do the Plans say will happen after they divorce, if they remarry, if they die, if they designate different beneficiaries after the divorce, etc., etc., etc. They won't be each other's spouse after the divorce. If what the plans say is not what the people want, then they may want to do QDRO's.

I think you found the answer regarding January 2010 here.

Still not true in Wisconsin. http://www.dor.state.wi.us/taxpro/news/091030.html