GMK

If the Plan Document says that participants can elect to take all or a portion of distributions in cash, I don't see how the plan sponsor can take that choice away. You have to run the plan according to the Plan Document. Similarly, if the Plan Document says that participants can require the company to buy back the distributed stock, I don't see how you can deny them that right. If the company has full discretion about buying back stock, then this is not an issue here. But others may know how to accomplish what the sponsor wants.

Check the Plan Document to see if the Plan can require participants to take the distributions in stock, or if participants have options. For example, do the the participants have the right to elect whether they receive distributions in stock or cash, or some of each? Also, do the participants get a "put option" on stock distributed to them, which allows the participant to require the plan or the sponsor to buy back the stock during some specified period after the distribution?

I think there's film of Truman's speech. I seem to recall seeing it on a PBS show about LBJ, because if memory serves, a young Mr. Johnson was present when Harry gave the speech ... which makes for an interesting footnote.

LBJ' used Harry Truman's words from 1952: I will not seek reelection. I will not accept my party's nomination.

The best I could find is that the quote is from former President Will Rogers.

For the record, some (probably most) of us appreciate all the conscientious help, reminders, notices, hand holding, etc. we can get. Thanks to all of you. Keep up the good work.

The Plan Document will say when distribution must be made to a participant who has terminated employment and has attained the age that the Plan defines as retirement age. In some Plans, the retired person is eligible for a distribution very soon, for example, as soon as administratively practicable after the first of the month following or coincident with her/his termination date. Your Plan may say something else, but whatever it says, that's the thing to do.

Just a guess, but being able to buy and sell whole shares, while obviously possible, does not by itself make the investment option efficient. Like the "dollars and cents" of item A, you'd want "whole and fractional" shares for item B.

It may just be my overactive imagination, but I would be concerned about whether the age advantaged employee's continuing employment depends on opting out of the plan. According to the OP, the client wants the employee excluded from the plan. And it will take an amendment to accomplish this. Is it really a voluntary opt out? And what's the "or else" (if the employee can't be excluded)?

masteff is right, as well as articulate. (Insert your own comment about how often that happens.) If you are thinking Roth, now (or within the next ... what ... couple years?) is the time to do it. Lower taxes now and recovery gains tax-free. There will be a recovery, right?

In my opinion, Step one is to pay off the credit card debt. Look at your credit card bill to see how much interest you won't have to shell out every month thereafter. Keeping the $2000 in savings will never earn enough to pay the credit card interest. And then pay the total balance due each month.

So, is "Ponzi" or "Ponsi" the correct spelling?

To the expert formerly known as 'Widdik' your abbreviation is timeless ... hey, maybe you're an achronym!

Does that mean that CEO, ABA, and NFL are abbreviations?

Kevin C - I hope you are correct, but public reaction is rarely the deciding factor in what the federal government does. And don't worry about the legislators. 94%-98% of them will be reelected no matter what side of this or any other issue they are on or what they do or do not do.

WDIK - With apologies for any previous (and certainly unintended) insensitivity, what pronunciation of WDIK do you prefer?

masteff makes a fine qlifying point, with which I agree. Let's not forget words like kinetic, kleptocracy, kritarchy, krobylos, ... that begin with "k" as in knife

I believe I read somewhere that the pronoucification of acronyms, even of those related in applicationistic ways, may be, but is not required to be, tonally consistent (emphasis added ... not sure why).

"qua-drow" for me (sometimes "trubbles")

I thought I recently read about the PA's QDRO due diligence responsibilities, at least at the front end, and I found it (surprise) here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...n+administrator Not really about chasing the bad guys, but IMHO, worth the review.

COBRA qualifying events for dependent children are the same as for the spouse with one addition: for spouse: Termination of covered employee, except for 'gross misconduct' Covered employee's reduction in hours worked Covered employee's becoming entitled to Medicare Divorce or legal separation of covered employee and spouse Death of covered employee one addition: Loss of "dependent child" status under the plan rules I don't see this as a COBRA qualifying event.

Thanks, again. Now, go and vote ... if you want to (allowed but not required, I understand).

Thanks to all, especially mjb, Sieve, and JSimmons. I appreciate your patience with me. I think I see how the rulings discussed in the Choate article may actually not contradict the regulations, and I am satisfied with that. In the trust case, the regs say that it is not enough for the spouse to be the sole beneficiary of the trust. The spouse must also have the unlimited right to withdraw the moneys. In the estate case, the PLR states, "Although not specifically stated in the regulations, a surviving spouse may not ..." So this is not contrary to the regs, but to some rule from somewhere else. In both cases, the PLR's do not contradict the regulations. I am ready to say thank you and good bye on this, and re-read it, but one more question, please. Sieve - In your comments from Tripoldi, you mentioned pre-death distributions that could be "rolled over as MRDs, even though they were not required to be distributed." Do you mean the distributions can be rolled over (because no MRD is required), or something else? I think that MRDs (and RMD's) cannot be rolled over.

mjb - I appreciate your thorough analysis. I'll say again that this has been a most interesting and informative thread. At this point, I am just wondering if anyone knows of a recorded IRS ruling on this matter. One could ask, "How can the IRS rule against its own regulations in the cases Ms. Choate describes in the link in post #40." But it did. As Ms. Choate writes, "But then, the IRS rules exactly the opposite of what its own regulation provides." And it did this not by ignoring those regulations, but after explicitly citing them in the PLR's.

A most interesting thread. I'll bet BruceC (aka BruceM), the OP, is happy he's dealing with IRA's. (What was the question?...) You say potato, and I say potato. You say MRD, and I say RMD. Potato, potato. MRD, RMD. Think we should call the whole thing off? (or is it just part of the ERISA Mash?)