GMK

I have never had a problem with this, but I don't know in general. Otherwise, masteff is on target. For mutual funds, I look at keeping costs low (expense fee, other fees, no loads, etc.). My only justification for paying higher costs would be consistently higher returns, compared to the lower cost fund.

Thanks for the replies. I found that article, too, Masteff. As you say, it doesn't answer the question, but it has some interesting stuff that I plan to read later.

I agree, BG. Probably all spent and then some. I just figured I needed a big number if there were to be a comparison. So, is there an estimate of how much higher tax revenues would be each year if there weren't any 401(k) deferrals?

We all know that, no matter what you tell them, many participants try to defer enough to get the maximum match and hope that will be enough. And many of those who know they should save more, don't or can't. Regardless of how the account is invested, the primary factor in determining the final total is how much is contributed. So, 401(k)'s do not provide a sufficient level of retirement income, because most people don't defer at the level necessary to provide what they will need. Just wondering - If public opinion could be turned against 401(k)'s, and all 401(k) accounts were banned and closed and distributed, approximately how much federal tax revenue would that generate relative to, say, the total federal debt? (Not that anyone would consider doing such a thing.)

Thanks for the update, Dave. We (with one possible exception) appreciate your actions very much.

OK as long as it does not eliminate the disclaimers, which are good for non-members and members to consider, and continues to allow the brief witty and humorous quips and quotes, like BG's, which I would miss. But what problem does this solve? Won't he shorten his signature line and continue to advertise in his excessively long posts?

Forms you find online are similar to what we generated. The questions on our form are based on the EEO-1, Vets, ADA, etc. information we are asked to provide (similar to most or all of what you find online). The form lists the definitions. And it emphasizes the completely voluntary nature of providing or not providing the info.

Good point, jpod. I think you're right. If there's no COBRA, then there's no subsidy denial to review (he said as he returned from the world of wishful thinking).

If the employer really would like to deny COBRA and the subsidy, one approach is to do just that. Then, apply for a DOL ruling on the denial of the subsidy because of termination due to gross misconduct. If the DOL says the subsidy applies, then the misconduct wasn't gross enough, and the employer offers COBRA and the subsidy. If the DOL agrees that the subsidy does not apply, then either does COBRA. In this case, as jpod points out, the denial of COBRA and the denial of the subsidy hinge on the same facts, and this would be a way to find out what the DOL thinks about it. Might be a bit of work, of course, but you'll know the answer in a relatively short time.

1. This DOL link: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/cobraemployer.pdf says you need to provide a notice of unavailability of COBRA coverage (page 11). I know it says within 14 days after receiving the request for coverage, and the person may not make the request. But does the employer want this person to come back a year from now with a "nobody told me I needed to request coverage" complaint to the DOL? 2. When in doubt whether the ARRA subsidy applies (and as far as I tell, the situation you describe is in doubt), submit the question to the DOL for their 15-day ruling.

OK, probably a dumb question... Taxes on a rollover to Roth in 2010 can be spread over 2 years, 2011 and 2012, but with the sunset of the 2003 tax cuts after 2010, won't you pay more tax, possibly substantially more, by waiting until 2011? The model notices in 2009-68 mention the 2 year taxation period but not the return to higher tax rates after 2010. To me, the sunset after 2010 is something participants should know (or be reminded of) in deciding about their rollovers, and it should be mentioned, at least in passing, in the Rollover Options notice. Something like: Under current law, your tax rates may be higher after 2010. or maybe it's no big deal.

jpod - I agree with you entirely about the wording. It says the loss of coverage is on May 31. oriecat's comment clarifies this a bit for me. The subsidy depends on when one is eligible for COBRA, not when one "loses coverage." In the lingo, you may "lose coverage" on December 31 (probably at 11:59:59 p.m.), but you are not eligible for COBRA on December 31. You are eligible for COBRA on January 1.

My understanding is that the person is covered on Dec. 31 and not covered on Jan. 1, so the loss of coverage is on Jan. 1. I see what you mean about the language in Q&A 14 in 2009-27, ('coverage ... would normally end on November 30...'). It would be clearer if it said that the last day of coverage is November 30, but in any case, the person is fully covered on Nov. 30, and is not covered the next day. At least that's how I see it. There's not been much publicity about having to lose both the job AND the coverage before the end of 2009, so some people may be disappointed to learn that their COBRA isn't subsidized in this case.

Don't have a template to send, but you can google 'consent resolution' and find samples. Generally, they are like other resolutions (whereas, whereas, whereas, and now, therefore). A difference is that it includes a 'whereas' that references the by-laws section that permits consent resolutions. And usually all the Board members sign it (or all the shareholders if it's a shareholder resolution). The by-laws probably specify if this is necessary.

What I would expect is that the Board's approval of the resolution is documented in the Board meeting minutes, and a copy of the resolution is filed with the minutes. I would also file a certified copy of the resolution with the Plan documents (certification is usually by the corporation's secretary). The amendment, which gets filed with the plan document, I would have signed by the President (for the company, assuming the company is the plan sponsor), and by all 3 trustees (for the plan). Yes, if the President is also a trustee, she/he gets to sign it twice. And yes, you make a good point about checking the by-laws and plan document to see if any other specifics are required.

Peanut Butter Man is right. Document, document, document. (Well, in this case, document, document.) Some years down the road, it may prove useful to be able to present signed documents that verify that the plan was changed (amendment) and that the plan sponsor approved of the change (resolution). And it doesn't take much longer for the Pres/Trustee to sign two papers vs. one.

At this point, anything could happen, but, based on your last post, you are headed in the right direction. Try to filter out the extraneous possibilities. They aren't worth your worrying about them. The two steps that matter are that the judge signs the DRO and that the fund confirms that what the judge signed is a qualified DRO.

We found that printing it 2 columns per page, like a 2 column newspaper, requires fewer sheets of paper. It can be a little fussy to edit, but IMO it's easier to read, and as I said, takes less paper. And we print both sides of the paper.

Sieve, who beat Detroit last Sunday? Wait a minute ... oh, yah. Detroit won! Congrats.

Just a shot from the hip: My understanding is that age 59-1/2 is a trigger event, and that 'within one taxable year' is a separate factor. That is, it doesn't matter if the one taxable year does or does not include the year of attaining age 59-1/2. The one taxable year means that there can be one or more distribution payments if together the payments within the one taxable year amount to a lump sum distribution. ... but it would be interesting to hear from the experts.

Sorry, we don't generally publish our forms, but a world of samples awaits if you google "voluntary self identification"

So I'm told.

We use an in-house form that we update whenever the EEO-1 ethnicity and race questions change. We list the affirmative action definitions and ask people to check the boxes. The form is titled "Voluntary Self-Identification" and has paragraphs pointing out that the federal government asks us for the statistical information (not by individual), that providing information is completely voluntary, and that one's employment status is not affected by providing or not providing the information. The same form also asks for disability/accommodation and military status information (all voluntary). Most people fill it out. For those that do not, we guess as needed. If people won't tell you something, you can't stop them.

Chelsi, the fund doesn't care what starting dollar amount you use, unless the fund has to figure it out. And in your case, it can't figure it out. The fund is not required to go to a lot of effort to calculate QDRO amounts, so they won't. It's really a matter between you and your ex, and the fund just wants simple instructions on what to do. If you can specify a flat dollar amount to the fund, they will like that very much. Before the judge signs the DRO, she/he may want to be satisfied that the dollar amount is not out of line with the divorce agreement and may want to see the calculations (which can have approximate amounts). If you and your ex agree to the amount before the judge, my guess is that the judge is likely to sign the DRO. Another step that might help move things along is to send a draft of the DRO to the fund before you go to the judge. Ask the fund if they would accept the draft DRO as qualified (if the judge signs it), or if the fund needs anything changed or added. The fund may want certain things spelled out (even if they don't seem to matter to you or your ex), just for completeness. That way, you know that if the judge signs it, the fund will pay it. Hang in there. QDRO's aren't fun, but you can do this.

FWIW, I believe that your best hope is to get your ex to agree to a flat dollar amount and put that into the DRO. That's something the fund can handle, since they won't have to make any calculations (which they apparently can't do anyway). Tell the judge that you and your ex have worked through the numbers and both agree that this amount is consistent with what you both want... or something like that.