Leaderboard

so we are stuck for 9 straight days beginning 5/10/15 and ending 5/19/15 next year it takes place in June

Sorry, but this kind of conversation really bugs me. Can we please stop trying to figure out ways to nickel and dime the lowest paid people in our society in order to save the people who need it least? Take your creative energy and try to figure out a way to explain to the owner why this is a bad idea. If the plan pays the fee it is spread among everyone. It doesn't really "cost" the owner very much to let the plan cover the fee. I know the DC world charges participants for everything, but you have to see this is bad practice. People with the smallest account balances, who need the money the most, get dinged constantly just to get it. Here Sally is $150 contribution for you - aren't I great. Oh, you spent $5 more on coffee this month, so your fired. Lets see, $100 to process your distribution, $10 to prepare the 1099, $2 to liquidate the account. Here is your check for $38. Now be a doll and bring me my new driver before you leave. P.S. Peter - no disrespect to you intended. I think your idea would probably be fine, assuming it can still pass the non-discrimination rules, but consider how is the really different than just letting the plan pay the fee. Granted, it is $100 that stays in the plan that otherwise would have been paid to the slacker who got canned, but it isn't really $100 back into Big Wigs pocket.

Looks like 1/2/34 will be a day off for many people, since the Jan. 1 holiday is on a Sunday in 2034. Unless, of course, 1/2 means 01 Feb., in which case, it's a Thursday, and you're on your own. In either case, please try to remember to celebrate big time for me, because if I beat the odds and am still around by then, I probably won't have clue what day it is, or even care. The same, but even more so, for 1/23/45 ... but seeing that day is an interesting goal. I missed it by 3 months last century.

@zbenefits You are grossly misreading the USC. IRC Section 105: Section 105 allows tax-free reimbursements from a self-insured medical reimbursement plan if the reimbursements are for expenses incurred for “medical care” as defined in Section 213(d).Section 105(b) Amounts expended for medical care, states that "gross income does not include amounts referred to in subsection (a) if such amounts are paid .... to reimburse ... ... for expenses ... for the medical care (as defined in section 213(d). It does not mention reimbursements, tax free or otherwise, from a self-insured medical reimbursement plan. Subsection (a) states that, "Except as otherwise provided in this section, amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance .....shall be included in gross income to the extent such amounts (1) are attributable to contributions by the employer which were not includible in the gross income of the employee, or (2) are paid by the employer. IRC Section 213: Section 213(d) defines “medical care” for personal deduction and Section 105 distributions, which includes amounts paid for insurance. Section 213(d) has no bearing or relation to section 105. Section 213 is under "Deductions from income", a Form 1040 item whereas section 105 is under "Items specifically excluded from income". There is no exclusion (pre -taxing) under section 213. IRC Section 106: Section 106 allows the value of the self-insured medical reimbursement plan to be tax-free to employees. Section 106 is titled "Contributions by employer to accident and health plans". It states that " ...gross income of an employee does not include employer-provided coverage under an accident or health plan." It says nothing about self-insured medical reimbursement plans. It relates to "coverage"., so that we are not taxed on the value of the benefits received, such as a heart transplant and the employer payment of premiums, which are contributions. That is why employee salary reductions under a section 125 cafeteria plan are "treated as employer contributions' by section 125. IRC Section 162: Section 162 allows reimbursements to be tax-deductible to the employer as a business expense. Only if allowed by other sections. An item is only deductible if ordinary, reasonable and customary and not otherwise prohibited by another section. There is no specific section of the IRC that allows tax free reimbursement to an employee for individual health insurance premiums. Such reimbursement was and is only made possible by the Treasury Regulations (CFR) and supplemental Written Determinations. Regulations and Written Determinations are subject to change at the discretion of the Treasury Dept. Revenue Ruling 61-146 allowed tax free reimbursement along with a part of the Proposed Treasury Regulations for section 125. At their discretion, as allowed by law, and in keeping with ACA, these have been withdrawn. Treasury gave it now Treasury stops it. It is solely at the discretion of the agency. All of your citing of PHS 2711 and 2713 etc is gobbledygook. If most, if not all, of the relevant Preventive Services are provided under the Health Insurance coverage, there is nothing that the patient will pay and therefore nothing that you could reimburse. If you were to provide these medical services your Premium Reimbursement arrangement (or whatever you choose to call it) would no longer be an excepted benefit and would have to comply with the same requirements of other health insurance plans.