GMK

jpod - not questioning your response. Just curious about how you know this. Thanks.

Don't know if it's required, but ... if you list the dollar amounts now, it may avoid some administrative disputes over pennies later.

No one argues that an audit is a major expense, especially for a small plan. The decision, however, not to have a plan audited should not be made on the basis of cost alone. If the plan is simple, and thorough annual reviews of the plan's activities and records indicate to the plan administrator's satisfaction that all is being done properly, then an audit may be superfluous. On the other hand, if the plan is of an individual design or otherwise complex, an audit may be beneficial, even if you aren't required to send it in with the 5500. Audits help ensure that the plan is reviewed to a reasonable level of detail and may catch mistakes early enough for a simple correction. Audits may identify where procedures are deficient or redundant, how procedures and record keeping can be streamlined, and what new rules are in effect or on their way. And an audit provides a level of assurance that the plan is OK, both as a part of due diligence and in the event that compliance review auditors show up. So, just as a reminder: The current expense of an audit is an important factor, but not the only one to consider in deciding whether or not to have a plan audited. [No, I am not an auditor, I have no affiliation with any auditor group, and no auditor previewed this post.] Edit: typo

K2retire has it right. The Plan cannot pay out more than the account balance. You can write to the Plan requesting a copy of the QDRO Procedure and a copy of the Summary Plan Description. Those documents provide information about the steps for making and appealing your claim. (Your request should be in writing.) It sounds as if there is no problem with the QDRO except that the amount now exceeds the available balance in the account. That raises the question of why the plan did not report to you that the DRO was qualified and make the distribution last September (60 days after you filed the DRO), when the full amount was presumably available. The Plan may have a reasonable answer, but the question is worth asking. If you decide to modified the QDRO, don't settle for $91,000. Word it something like that you get $108,000, or if less, the entire account balance. As R2retire also points out, you will need to work out something else with your ex to get the rest.

As if you forgot. As A. Einstein's relatives (may have) said on 3/14, 'Does anyone care for birthday pi?'

I think there's a difference. If you show up, you haven't quit. If you don't show up and don't phone in a reason for your absence, after a while it looks like you quit. That's how some folks roll. But in the end, I agree that what the Feds say is what's important here. Let's hope they say enough to clear it all up.

Agreed that these can be tough cases. In general, I read it that if the employee has a real choice to stay or go at the time the employment ends, then it is not involuntary. In some cases it may help to have wording in policies to the effect that 'if you do not return after the end of the approved leave period, (or if you are absent without notifying the employer for N consecutive work days,) your employment will end as if you had voluntarily resigned.' But where will the government draw the line in Mr. Chimento's case number 3)?

As I recall, your client will get a credit or a check from the government, but the details on this have not been published as far as I know.

I agree that CHIP is not optional, it is in effect as of April 1, 2009, and 60 days means only 60 days. Health and cafeteria plan documents may need to be amended and contracts with insurers may need to be updated if they would otherwise limit the special enrollment rights. The 2 new notices, one to the employees and one to the state, will be required after the model notices are published (presumably by Feb. 7, 2010).

Careful, RCK. JSimmons has an acute sense about what is the right angle to take to get to the root of issues on these boards without being obtuse.

A Shot... - I've never seen "Big Bang." Is it any good?

Step One - What does the plan document say about distributions when no beneficiary is designated?

jpod - I agree with you. It seems logical that other plan eligibility could end up being the same as defined for other COBRA purposes. I hope they say one way or the other when they issue the model notice.

Good point. I'm not sure, but maybe it was: the sqrt (3 divided by 3 divided by 9) = sqrt (0.11) = 0.33, as in the 3rd day of the 3rd month (to within rounding errors and with some imagination). Sorry for the confusion. (Don't Panic.)

Towel Day - in remembrance of Douglas Adams, Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, in which is recorded the first rule: Don't Panic. (Seems worth remembering these days.) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Towel_Day

3/3/09

I found this article useful: http://www.alston.com/files/Publication/00...%20Bulletin.pdf

Don't panic. Towel Day is coming (May 25).

From what I've read, eligible means eligible even if not enrolled (and I do not expect the model notice to surprise us, but it could). For now, we have prepared a simple supplemental notice in 2 versions to send with normal COBRA notification documents. Both versions of the supplement outline the basics of the subsidy, so that everyone is informed, with a note advising that the government may issue additional rules, clarifications, etc. Basically, one version of the supplement then says that you aren't eligible for the subsidy, because (fill in blank, e.g., not involuntarily terminated). The other version details the AEI's premium amounts with the subsidy, how long the subsidy can continue, that the AEI will pay the full premium when the subsidy ends, and the other prescribed information.

My understanding is that the COBRA subsidy rules do not alter the COBRA eligibility rules. The subsidy, when applicable, simply helps pay the premiums. Only COBRA eligible individuals may receive the subsidy. COBRA coverage ends when the employer ceases to maintain any group health plan, i.e., does not offer health coverage to any employees. I'd ask the Ceridian representative to document their claim.

For other comments (from 2006): http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=32163 Interesting reading, though it may not resolve the issue.

I think we are in agreement, Below Ground, and I like your summary. No one controls what is "administratively feasible." The Plan Document controls. I see "as soon as administratively feasible" as limiting the reasons why the Plan could delay a distribution (or other action) to only the administrative steps that are necessary and prudent to ensure that the distribution is made (or other action taken) in accordance with the Plan Document. For example, if the distribution amount is known (the other factors, like true-up, etc., do not apply or are not going to change), then the Plan cannot delay the distribution payment for convenience or because the sponsor prefers that the payment be made later or any other reason that is not related to making the distribution in accordance with the Plan Document.

Excellent points, Below Ground. I see your examples as administrative issues that relate to getting the payment right. In some cases, they could justify delaying a payment until the final numbers are available. It depends on the circumstances. I still think that the "as soon as" means that you don't wait if you can get it done sooner. For example, I think one has a duty to promptly check to see that Bob's account balance is correct and not wait till the year end review. In other cases, like the match true-up, one can usually determine a "the distribution will be at least this" amount and pay it now, followed by a second, final payment when the real numbers are available. (But I wouldn't do this if there were any doubt in my estimated minimum distribution amount.) And when a payment is delayed, it would be good practice to advice the participant of the reason for the delay and the possible bad consequences of not delaying.

I think Sully is right. To me, the meaning of "as soon as administratively feasible" depends on the circumstances. For a plan termination, it can be a year. For 401(k) salary deferral deposits, it is a few days (how many depends on the individual situation). In each case there will be a set of administrative tasks (completing forms, verifying information, moving funds, etc.). I think that you are OK if you act as promptly as the applicable administrative steps allow. Don't dawdle.

An "Assistance Eligible Individual" (AEI) is any COBRA qualified beneficiary eligible for COBRA continuation by virtue of the covered employee's involuntary termination of employment (for reasons other than gross misconduct) occurring between September 1, 2008, and December 31, 2009. In your example, the spouse looks like an AEI to me, and, therefore, is eligible for the subsidy. Keep in mind, too, that the subsidy is available for no more than 9 months.