Harwood

The government encourages people to keep their money in tax-deferred accounts so that they have money when they retire. It is contrary to established social policy to allow a force-out of several thousand dollars without the opportunity to roll it over. The rollover notice must be given to all who have more than $200 in their account. § 1.401(a)(31)-1, "Requirement to offer direct rollover of eligible rollover distributions," especially Q&A 11 which has the under $200 exception

Legally, you must have been given the "Special Tax Notice Regarding Plan Payments" before you were cashed out. Legally, you must have been given the right to rollover the money; if you did not respond, then you can be cashed out with the 20% withholding.

It was a provision of EGTRRA, effective January 1, 2002, that now allows surviving spouses to rollover to plans, not just IRAs.

Bi-weekly payrolls mandate bi-weekly remittals, absent a compelling reason otherwise. To hold the money for several weeks is inviting big trouble to visit. http://www.reish.com/publications/article_...m?ARTICLEID=353

I agree with Lgolden. In California, we try to convince the Participant of the problems they will face when their loan goes into default, such as state and federal taxes [often including additional taxes for premature distribution] and the inability to get another plan loan in the future. If employee insists on stopping deductions, we will comply. Irrevocable elections are not permitted by California law. The DOL has not ruled on the issue; this does not seem to be an issue of ERISA-preemption.

Please forget the 15th of the following month. Deferrals and after-tax contributions must be sent to the Trust as soon as possible. [The DOL also thinks loan payments should be subject to the same strict deadline] http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_VFCP.html

A lawyer once gave me these California QDRO cases: In Re Marriage of Brown, 15 Cal. 3d 838 (1976) In Re Marriage of Stephenson, 162 Cal. App 3d 1057 (1984) [it quotes In Re Marriage of Gilmore (1981) 29 Cal. 3d 418 "Trial courts have considerable discretion to determine the value of community property and to formulae a practical way in which to divide property equally."] In Re Marriage of Frahm, 45 Cal. App. 4th 536 (1996) In Re Marriage of Lehman, 18 Cal. 4th 169 (1998) They may not deal with changing formulas but they certainly deal with calculating benefits. I don't know where to get printouts for free. These places charge: http://lp.findlaw.com/ http://www.atybriefcase.com/ Still seems odd to me that judge wants you to provide cases "of change" that will hurt you.

5500 Instructions: "Generally, a return/report filed for a pension benefit plan or welfare benefit plan that covered fewer than 100 participants as of the beginning of the plan year should be completed following the requirements below for a ‘‘small plan,’’ and a return/report filed for a plan that covered 100 or more participants as of the beginning of the plan year should be completed following the requirements below for a ‘‘large plan.’’ Use the number of participants required to be entered in line 6 of the Form 5500 to determine whether a plan is a “small plan” or “large plan.” Exceptions: (1) 80-120 Participant Rule: If the number of participants reported on line 6 is between 80 and 120, and a Form 5500 was filed for the prior plan year, you may elect to complete the return/report in the same category (‘‘large plan’’ or ‘‘small plan’’) as was filed for the prior return/report. Thus if a return/report was filed for the 2001 plan year as a small plan, including the Schedule I if applicable, and the number entered on line 6 of the 2002 Form 5500 is 100 to 120, you may elect to complete the 2002 Form 5500 and schedules in accordance with the instructions for a small plan."

Two California QDRO specialists: http://qdropro.com/ [They have prices posted for doing legal work] http://www.qdroprep.com/ [i am confused by your post. Ex-spouse wants to modify the formula to your disadvantage; Plan Administrator says its too late to modify; Judge wants you to find cases where modification occurred?]

The DOL has a nice site with all forms 1995 - 2002 http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html

We [trustee/recordkeeper for a number of plans] accept QDROs approved by the Plan Administrator that give a portion of the loan "asset" to the Alternate Payee. Few QDROs do this, but it happens.

The Dept. of Labor feels that loan repayments should be treated like employee deferrals and after-tax contributions: remit as soon as possible. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/aos/ao2002-02a.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_VFCP.html

What waiting period are you referring to?

Put your running shoes away. I've seen a 403(b) plan with a similar requirement. It appears to be quite legitimate.

rcline46: Although deferrals can only start October 1, can compensation take into account the entire year? In other words, if the plan limits deferrals to 10%, can a person do 40% for the last quarter, since it will be 10% for the entire 12 months?

Where have you read that the value of GTL in excess of $50,000 is not taxable to a retired or terminated employee?

The Plan Administrator is responsible and personally liable for the monetary damages. The penalties are huge. If ever qualified legal counsel is called for, this is it.

"The term ‘‘blackout period’’ means, in connection with an individual account plan, any period for which any ability of participants or beneficiaries under the plan, which is otherwise available under the terms of such plan, to direct or diversify assets credited to their accounts, to obtain loans from the plan, or to obtain distributions from the plan is temporarily suspended, limited, or restricted, if such suspension, limitation, or restriction is for any period of more than three consecutive business days."

If they are legally separated AND there is a court order to that effect, spousal consent is not needed.

Try Form 1042-S and IRS Publication 515 for starters

I guess you don't need a street adress when you have a unique 9 digit zip code.

The IRS-approved GUST prototype I use has this: " . . . if a Participant has designated the spouse as a Beneficiary, then a divorce decree or a legal separation that relates to such spouse shall revoke the Participant's designation of the spouse as a Beneficiary unless the decree or a qualified domestic relations order (within the meaning of Code Section 414(p)) provides otherwise or a subsequent Beneficiary designation is made."

Beware emails that say "Please send this to everyone you can" This one has several errors - such as the "speech" was May 27, 1999, not June 26, 2003. I like to check out these things at snopes2.com For this particular issue: http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/outrage/scott.htm

Why do some clients want to force people with under $5,000 out? 1. Because the plan document says to, with no discretion on the sponsor's part as to timing. 2. Because Sponsor pays fees [based on number of balances] and picks up other expenses for the benefit of Participants. Sponsor doesn't want to continue to spend money on terminees, especially those with small balances

I once read that the statue of limitations for IRS purposes can extend to fifteen years: 3 years for the IRS to assess taxes 10 years for the IRS to collect 2 years for the taxpayer to claim a refund on the assessment