GMK

Mr. Moreland is correct. The Plan document may not even allow participants the option of a rollover for a distribution under $200. But if it does, then I'd send the distribution form. In all cases, send the special tax notice. You can explain in the cover letter that the Plan does not permit rollovers for distributions under $X (if that is true) and that no withholding is required on distributions under $200.

Mine's OK now, too. Thanks for fixing it.

As Bird said, ask the Prudential person or the company's employee contact for the 401(k) what options you have for directing your investments. If the 401(k) does not offer something that specifically allows you to limit investments to low risk options, you could consider again reducing the "time to retirement." Instead of being in the 5 to 10 year range, select 0-5 years (if it is available). This should increase the fraction of your contributions that goes into (less risky) money market and bond funds and less in the (more risky) stock funds. Also ask the 401(k) person if you can be listed as a low risk investor instead of a medium risk investor, and find out if you can have the money that is already in your account moved to a less risky allocation (lower percentage in stocks). These kinds of steps should put you in the lower risk mode you would like at this time. These changes will help reduce losses while the market drops, but they will also limit your gains when the market recovers. When the stock market begins its come back, you might want to consider returning to being a medium risk investor with 5-10 years or 10-15 years to retirement, in order to have more invested in stocks. Or you might find that you are satisfied with the earnings you are getting on your 401(k) contributions. No one knows when the market recovery will start or how long it will take. In addition, there can be big ups and downs during the market's recovery. Hope this works out for you.

Mine's behind the logo now, too. (Bill Presson's suggestion works.) For anyone who might be looking into this, it was OK earlier this week, or maybe it was last Friday (can't remember exactly).

K.C. - You're welcome, of course. I was just lucky. That thread was running at the same time as yours. As a suggestion, click on the View New Posts link at the top of the page. It's all interesting reading, but from a practical point, you get to see the list of topic titles under discussion. Titles are listed under one subject area, but the discussions often provide useful information related to other subject areas. It's no guarantee that you'll get what you want, but sometimes you get what you need.

K. C. - See also J. Simmons' reply here: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=39977&hl=

At first blush, if the numerator (9.630) represents the total number of years that they were married to 3 decimal places (probably while the participant was a participant), then the denominator probably ought to be 19.085. Alternately, if the 31 days is used in determining the amount of the annuity, then also use it in determining the fraction. If the 31 days is disregarded for the annuity, disregard it for the fraction. In conclusion, QDROphile is correct.

Agreed. Sorry for my blow up, which for the record resulted from reading the bill. I heard and read about it in the media later. I appreciate benefitslink and will remember to keep my postings germane to the topics of these boards.

I agree with the comments posted. 1. The ESOP can add accounts for individual participants (to accept their diversification distributions). It's just more work for the ESOP - setting up "reasonable" options requires some research and on-going monitoring and there are more records to keep. We set up a 401(k) apart from the ESOP and find that many of those who diversify like to roll it into their 401(k) accounts. Others prefer to roll it into an IRA they set up separately from the company sponsored plans. Some take the cash (and get hammered with taxes). 2. Future diversifications are not necessarily based only on the latest year's growth. Generally, ESOP diversifications can be elected for each and any of the 6 consecutive plan years in the Qualified Election Period (QEP). The participant can elect to receive a diversification distribution of up to a percentage (25% or 50%) of the stock contributed to the participant's account since 1986, less previous diversification distributions. In the first 5 years of the QEP, the percentage is 25%. In the 6th and last year for which a participant can elect a diversification distribution, it is 50%. So, for each year you calculate 25% (or 50%) of the post 1986 stock and subtract previous diversifications, if any, to determine how much is available for a diversification distribution that year. A spread sheet helps. Good luck.

I was hoping it would be 10 years at the most until retirement, but now it looks like I'll be working till the sun goes down ... (if there are jobs). Meanwhile, we enjoy everything we can each day.

Whew! What a relief. They remembered to include the excemption from excise tax for certain wooden arrows designed for use by children (sec. 503 of the senate bill). That'll certainly help unclog the financial aorta and get credit flowing again. ...OK. I'll go back to my reading and shut up about it.

Thanks, jevd. That's useful information for those of us who read these boards. ... sorry, but I can't help wondering what other non-bailout items are being tacked on to this bill. Looks like I'll have to do some reading if I want to find out.

Nice summary. No hanging chads on Mr. Poje's ballot. Does this mean we now have to adjust to the Andian calendar?

JanetM is correct, although there is a discrepancy (6 days instead of 7) in leap years. And yes, tomorrow, you will be the first of many days behind, until the 1 shows up again on the first of a month. No one knows for sure when that will happen (without Excel). What will you do when the extra hour of daylight is taken away? That one hour may mess things up more than the one day.

I've been out of town, so I'm just catching up on reading the Boards. Has the list changed lately? Like: 1. GDII (great depression two) ... just wondering.

And didn't I hear that the tax cuts expire in 2010, so although your income level won't prevent you from converting to a Roth, you'll pay a lot more taxes on the dollars you converted to the Roth. Or is this just a rumor?

Since the 1840's we had a president die in office every other decade ... until Reagan survived the attempt on his life. Is this a paradigm shift or were the 1980's the exception that proves the rule?

Things to consider ... Assuming the plan document properly allows the plan administrator to determine additional valuation dates, the cost of the valuation may be relevant, since it reduces the value of the company (maybe not by much compared to the reduction in the amount to be distributed). Agreed that early in the year distributions are not the issue. Past practices has more to do with how any Sept. Oct. distributions in previous years were handled (like when the market was up late in the year).

Sieve's reference is correct. Mathematically, N/0 = undefined, where N=any number, including 0.

Lots of good information and comments here. BenefitsLink boards are great. Since the audit is likely, I add that I agree with Bird (post #4) that doing other work for the company does not prevent the company's accountant from doing the plan audit. It's up to the company to decide whether to shop for a good price (knowing you get what you pay for), but in any case, they might do well to find out in advance what the auditor will charge. I also agree with Bird (post #10) that it is a little strange that the audit was not mentioned at all when the 5500 was prepared, but it's also not that unusual. I may be mistaken, but whoever OKed the 5500 for the company should have seen line 3 on schedule H. IMHO, 5500's are one of the things that plan sponsors should review thoroughly before approving them. Good luck.

Jacmo, I appreciate your comments about 1/1 renewals. And I have no problem with being corrected by facts.

Marie --- I stand corrected and withdraw my recommendation, in light of Jacmo's comments. Jacmo --- Thanks for your comments. Purely out of curiosity, why is service so bad for 1/1 renewals?

Just my opinion, but this feels like a case where Rutager is wise to know the answers before questioning the employer about the source of a definition. Rutager is likely to get an answer from the somewhat desperate employer like: "I read it somewhere. Don't you know about it? Why didn't you use it?" It'll be an easier situation if Rutager can calmly respond with the facts.

Thanks, marie. Now it is clear. If the employer wants to pay the entire remaining balance of the deductible each year after the employee pays the first $500, then I think the most workable solution is the one you posted: amend the plan to say that, instead of listing a dollar amount. The employer could include a cap (up to a maximum of $X per year paid by the employer), but this is probably not necessary, since the employer decides the amount of the deductible at renewal time. I also recommend that you make one attempt to get the insurance on the calendar year. Insurance companies like to spread out renewal dates, so they don't have to process everybody's renewal on January 1. (I can't blame them for that.) But someone has to get the January 1 renewal date, and your case for it is stronger than most.

29 CFR 2520.104b-10©