Super Interesting Must-Read Direct Deposit Question

[Guest dcprovista]

Okay... maybe it's not a "must-read" question, but I was wondering whether a plan can require that participants only receive benefits via direct deposit. The practical effect would be that all participants would be required to open a bank account. I looked for guidance in connection with Code sections 410(b), 411(d) and 401(a)(4), but couldn't find anything relevant except for the rule in Treas. reg. 1.411(d)-4 that "administrative procedures for distributing benefits," are not a protected benefit. Any thoughts?

[rcline46]

It would have to be under state law. I have not heard of anything where the employer is permitted to demand the employe have a bank account.

[Alf]

I smell a 411(d)(6) cutback unless it is just going in for new benefits.

[mbozek]

Stupid Q- how will the plan comply with its requirements for distribution after a participant requests a distribution if the PA refuses to make payment until the particpant opens a bank account? If benefits must be paid within a reasonable time after the request is filed how can the plan deny payment? Will the plan withhold mandatory distributions if a particpant does not have a bank account?

[Guest dcprovista]

Dear Mr. Moderator -- I appreciate your response and your thoughts, but did not appreciate your negative comments regarding the nature of my question as "stupid." As a moderator, I would expect that you would set the bar high when it comes to demonstrating appropriate behavior on the boards... very disappointed Benefits Link user here...

[Guest fatabbot]

Dear Mr. Moderator -- I appreciate your response and your thoughts, but did not appreciate your negative comments regarding the nature of my question as "stupid." As a moderator, I would expect that you would set the bar high when it comes to demonstrating appropriate behavior on the boards... very disappointed Benefits Link user here...

Thicker skin may be required here. It's just the internet.

[Guest dcprovista]

"It's just the internet" -- sounds like an excuse for lazy social behavior.

[Guest grunt]

Dear Mr. Moderator -- I appreciate your response and your thoughts, but did not appreciate your negative comments regarding the nature of my question as "stupid." As a moderator, I would expect that you would set the bar high when it comes to demonstrating appropriate behavior on the boards... very disappointed Benefits Link user here...

Funny, I interpreted his post to mean that his questions were stupid (in the nature of a reality check). But if he meant that your question was stupid, that is indeed rude, and it puts a damper on open discussion.

[Guest DMK]

I interpreted it the same way as grunt -- i.e., "I know this may be a stupid question, but how will a plan comply . . ." I think the poster took it the wrong way.

[Guest fatabbot]

"It's just the internet" -- sounds like an excuse for lazy social behavior.

[GBurns]

Something is wrong here. This is not what mbozek would post. Yes, at times he will lose his cool and be aggressive or curt, but never in this manner. So I have to give him the benefit of the doubt, that he was not calling a poster names. It might have been a yet to be corrected typo, so let's wait and see what response or explanation is given.

[No Name]

I'm in the camp that says he was calling his own question stupid. Geez, take a deep breath.

[Guest Donkey Kong]

Yes, at times he will lose his cool and be aggressive or curt...

Describes you Mr. Burns, except not lately. You have been such a softie.

[JanetM]

No Name I agree with you.

Donkey Kong, shame on you. GBurns has been very polite lately, we should appreciate him not attack him. What's wrong with being a softie.

[GBurns]

Thank you JanetM. There is an old saying about a picture being worth a thousand words, hmmm ?

[Kirk Maldonado]

JanetM:

I see an interesting parallel here.

You interpreted the description "softie" as being negative, even though it is not necessarily a perjorative term, just as dcprovista interpreted mbozek's comments as calling his (her?) questions as being stupid when it wasn't clear mbozek was characterizing the questions of dcprovista or his own.

Perhaps fatabbot's admonition that we should all have a thicker skin is appropriate.

We are all giving up some of our spare time to contribute to BenefitsLink, so some times we may be frustrated at work, our spouse, or some other person and post some language that is a bit harsher than should be used.

We shouldn't focus so much attention on little slights contained in the responses of others. Rather, we should focus on the bigger picture; which is we have a lot of benefits professionals with different backgrounds and perspectives all freely sharing their thoughts with others on BenefitsLink, even though we could use that time in a million other ways.

As an example of this thicker skin perspective, I don't think "softie" is necessarily a negative term. In fact, in my experience it is usually used in a favorable, almost affectionate manner.

I also agree that the recent postings by GBurns do not have the edge to them that was contained in some of his prior postings and that change should be noted and appreciated.

[Guest Donkey Kong]

I was meaning "softie" to be positive. If I could find Burns, I would give him a big hug, but not too big, more like a Fay Wray type hug.