GMK

kokoro - I agree with K2retire's approach. Fidelity wants something in writing, signed by your ex, that says that no DRO is in the works. I seem to remember an earlier post on these boards where Fidelity acted on an apparently-real-but-it-was-fake QDRO, or something like that, so you may be subject to a new, tighter scrutiny policy at Fidelity. Still, I don't see how they can delay your distribution based on the letter and no actual DRO having been submitted, but maybe things are different in California.

Without looking into the technicality you describe regarding the transition period (you may be right), just send a simple notice to those who are eligible for the additional 6 months of subsidy soon. The law does not require employers to wait until February 17 (which deadline may be to give time for the department to generate a sample notice.) Considering the intention of the law, people who drop COBRA in January as in your example and who receive the notice in February will probably be allowed to be reestablished on COBRA in January. I'd send the notice now to avoid the administrative hastles of going back to fix it retroactively.

Thanks, BG5150. And all the best to you. Oh-ten is gonna be a great year, don't you think?

Absolutely correct. "at" is a noun when it refers to money in Laos. One kip = 100 at, where a kip is a sort of Laos dollar and an at is a sort of Laos penny. In this context, "at" is a perfectly proper word with which to end a sentence.

...if it refers to the element astatine (atomic number 85). I've heard that ignorance and apathy are things up with which we should not put. But then, who knows, and for that matter, who cares?

Just guessing, but I think you put the fulcrum close to the end of the lever that is nearer the world. (I know, nobody likes a smart aleck.)

Thank you for that clarification, mjb, and for your other posts.

...willing and able... but I hear you. Several aspects of this make me as angry as jpod's judge. But anyway, thank you very much for your response. I appreciate all your posts.

OK, I get it. Thanks, Fiduciary Guidance Counsel. And I agree that plan expenses are an important fiduciary duty. Becomes a bit of a dilemma deciding how much doing the right thing is worth in dollars. Just curious. Have the feds ever come in to defend a plan in a case like this?

Plan qualification maybe?

I second jpod's post. Until the plan receives a DRO that claims to be qualified, the account is the participant's, and the plan cannot be giving anyone else any say in the matter beyond what is required in the plan document. Your QDRO Procedures may specify some things that the plan will do when the plan is informed that it may be receiving a DRO, such as, sending the QDRO Procedures, etc. Absent a DRO, I would have to check with our lawyer to find out if a court order can take away the participant's right under the plan document to borrow from the plan. Maybe so. I don't know.

Key Lime. You have received a lot of good, reasonable advice here. From the other side of the table, we rely on our TPA and get information and help from the TPA when they can provide it. It's a good working relationship. But in the end, we, the Plan Administrator, have the responsibility and liability for our documents and records. That's why we file what they send, and why we check their numbers. We expect professionalism and courtesy, but we also expect to have to pay for any extra work we request. And we're rarely disappointed.

... so that's is why VEBAPLAN keeps posting to himself. Verrrry interesting.

Who's Tiger Woods?

Someone here said that this the "Bo Derek" rule. Maybe? I'm just posting to help get to 10 posts.

sales volume (demand vs. price) and economies of scale

For most, it appears to be related to maintaining that svelt figger: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article....you-lose-weight

Some would credit unusual (and unsubstantiated) activities of avis and anthophila. Others credit ciconiidae. ... hope this helps (to borrow a phrase).

From the little I have read about Roths and AMT, it appears that you have to run all the numbers to see if converting to a Roth IRA (and paying taxes now) gives you a better overall tax result than continuing with the AMT, or if it even gets you out of the AMT's expanding reach. Every year a few million more taxpayers get hit with AMT, and Washington needs the money, so they aren't going to index it to restore it to its original purpose in 1970. If having a Roth keeps you in your tax bracket and lets you keep your deductions for children, state and local taxes, etc., then conversions and rollovers to Roths and Roth 401(k)'s could become hot topics in the benefits world. Perhaps as more people become 'eligible' for AMT each year, we may see more discussion of how to analyze whether a Roth might help.

I agree with K2retire. Based on the SPD, the participant does not lose credit for the pre-break years of service.

OK, I missed this good point. With less than 501 hours in 2009, 2009 is a one-year break in service year. However, how this impacts vesting and forfeitures depends on what your plan document says about vesting and forfeitures. For example, does the document require that the person be separated from service and have five one-year breaks, or just five one-year breaks? I suggest checking with the lawyer who wrote the document.

Your plan may read differently, but what I'm used to is that if a person has five or more consecutive one-year breaks in service (2005-2009 in your example), then service after the break is disregarded in determining vesting of the PRE-break benefit. So, in your example, the pre-break benefit remains vested at 80%, and incidentally, the other 20% might be forfeited after the five one-year breaks (check your plan to see when forfeiture occurs). Generally, all years of service (before and after the break) count for determining vesting for POST-break benefits. But check what your plan document says about these things.

And we appreciate your posting what you find. We include a paragraph about the 30-day consideration period on the distribution election form with a space for the participant to initial if she/he elects to waive the 30-day delay. Not a bad idea to have it in the Notice, too.

Presumably, since the information is not required to be in the 402(f) notice if it is properly provided elsewhere, it was not deemed necessary to include it in the 2009-68 "Your Rollover Options" model. But, of course, if one doesn't emphasize it with the election form, then it makes sense to add it to the 402(f) notice. Or do both.

Thank you for spotting this, Everett, and for the confirming references, masteff.