Leaderboard

Regardless of identifying "fault", this screams for better controls in daily administration.

I bet the guys that took over the federal facility in Oregon have an attorney that backs their case. But most attorneys probably wouldn't agree with that particular interpretation. I see Zane in the same vein. No extra charge for the rhyme.

Even though the example is on a fixed dollar amount the whole passage ends with this: What does your plan say? Although not common, a plan can specifically require that salary deferrals cease once a participant’s compensation reaches the annual limit. If your plan specifies that salary deferrals be based on a participant’s first $250,000 compensation, then you must stop allowing Mary to make salary deferrals when her year-to-date compensation reaches $250,000, even though she hasn’t reached the annual $17,000 limit on salary deferrals, and must base the employer match on her actual deferrals To me that makes it clear that in their (IRS') mind your plan has to specify that deferrals be based on the participant's first $250,000 compensation to get the result the auditors are talking about. I am with Austin at this point enough evidence has been given to support the belief of the people on this board. It might not be enough for the people who are asking the question but that says more about them then the evidence.

They either ignore or misrepresent the issues such as with Colorado and Oregon, which along with other states have also issued notices regarding the HHS and DoL positions, pre-ACA. which still stand. Zane ignores the insurance law, HHS and DoL issues by keeping the argument on ACA and section 105. It is amazing that get away with inventing the term HRP and imply that it means something other than an HRA because it is a section 105 MERP. But, since they are in the small group/employer market, the employers do not have adequate legal advice. I do not understand why brokers knowingly submit applications which have false statements. I do not think that they realize the potetntial consequences of claim denials and retroactive policy recission.

401 Chaos, thank you for your further observations. Before an employer relies on an indemnity as a reason to take on risks, the employer might want advice about exactly which risks the indemnity responds to, and about whether the indemnity might be legally unenforceable. If the employer knew or ought to have known that it was accepting legal advice from a non-lawyer, a court might be reluctant to enforce an indemnity promise that facilitates the non-lawyer's conduct of engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.

I'm unaware of an employee-benefits lawyer who would say an employer's reimbursement of its employees' payments for individual health insurance is proper.