Leaderboard

Enrolling in Medicare only makes you ineligible for HSA contributions not an HDHP family plan. It is possible to continue on a HDHP family plan and your spouse to be HSA eligible for family plan contribution limits. However, if due to company policy or cost effectiveness, you are no longer covered on 8/1 and it becomes an individual HDHP plan on 8/1, her contribution limits change. Her HSA eligibility would become 7 months family plan and 5 months individual plan. Under the rules for married people she could make a base contribution of ($6900 * 7 / 12 = $4025) - your $3916.67 base contribution = $108.33 for the first 7 months. An individual base contribution of $3450 * 5 / 12 = $1437.50 for the last 5 months. For a total base contribution of $1545.83. She is an HSA eligible individual for all of 2018 and can make the full $1000 catch-up contribution. Her total contribution for 2018, if switching to an individual HDHP plan on 8/1, after you made $4500 in contributions for a family plan 1/1 - 7/31, is $1545.83 + $1000 = $2545.83. Hope that makes sense.

When ever I see 'GTL' I think about 'Jersey Shore' the MTV show.

"Prevailing Wage" is treated as Employer Nonelective to the IRS for all intents and purposes. All that is happening here is that the DOL is requiring a certain level of benefit for each of these employees (and that level of benefit is being met with contributions to the plan). It is, ultimately, incumbent on the Employer to demonstrate to the DOL that those benefits were indeed provided. The IRS just sees a contribution. So, to your question: How is a re-source necessary? If you're giving a 3% SHNEC to each employee, then that 3% merely gets used to satisfy the DOL's requirement that the employee receives a certain level of contribution. There are other requirements (e.g. immediate entry) that the DOL imposes in order for those contributions to be accepted as fulfilling the Employers responsibility to the employee, but the level of contribution is merely one. Again, the IRS doesn't care as long as the amounts being provided are made pursuant to a definitely determinable formula and does not discriminate in favor of HCEs. Good Luck!

I certainly think that presents a strong answer to that amended complaint

Counts VIII and IX in the second amended complaint in Cassell v. Vanderbilt University assert fiduciary breaches and prohibited transactions based on allegations that the plan’s fiduciaries allowed TIAA to use participants’ information for purposes beyond performing or providing TIAA’s recordkeeper services. But what if the retirement plan’s fiduciary: evaluates the communications and disclosures about the budgeting service, and finds they fairly describe the service, its fees, and its risks; evaluates the budgeting service, finds it is not inherently dangerous, and finds that an unknowledgeable person can make his or her own evaluation of the service; negotiates a recordkeeping fee that reflects an expert’s report on the value of allowing access to the participants for cross-selling; and discloses to participants that the fiduciary made this deal to lower participants’ expenses, and communicates to them that they must carefully evaluate the budgeting service for themselves. Could facts like these set up an explanation that a fiduciary acted loyally and prudently?

TaxLawyer1978, while I don’t give you or anyone advice, consider whether there might be some arguments in another direction. A Federal income tax rule suggests arguments that a self-employed individual is an employee for a year in which she has any earned income, and also for a year in which she rendered some personal services (even if her business provided her no earned income): (b) Treatment of a self-employed individual as an employee. (1) For purposes of section 401, a self-employed individual who receives earned income from an employer during a taxable year of such employer beginning after December 31, 1962, shall be considered an employee of such employer for such taxable year. Moreover, such an individual will be considered an employee for a taxable year if he would otherwise be treated as an employee but for the fact that the employer did not have net profits for that taxable year. Accordingly, the employer may cover such an individual under a qualified plan during years of the plan beginning with or within a taxable year of the employer beginning after December 31, 1962. 26 C.F.R. § 1.401-10(b)(1) https://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?SID=2ed955aaf30998b5f81b0ccb8bd185b9&mc=true&node=se26.6.1_1401_610&rgn=div8 And the rule doesn’t say ‘for IRC § 401(c)’; it says ‘for IRC § 401, which includes § 401(a)(9). The decision-maker would want to get into the details of the partnership agreement and the partnership accounting to discern whether the 70-something really is a partner. And did he render some personal services? Did he at least make a few courtesy calls to placate clients? If we were debating whether an employee has a severance-from-employment to permit a distribution a plan otherwise would not provide, some (perhaps including the IRS) might argue that part-time work—even a substantial reduction “in the number of hours that an employee works”—is not a severance. See, by analogy, 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)-1(b)(3). I don’t suggest these arguments resolve all questions or even lead to a sound conclusion. But a plan’s administrator might get its lawyer’s advice and find there’s enough to support an interpretation that the plan doesn’t compel a minimum distribution.

This is exactly the problem situation (or variation) that comes up regularly. If the IRS ever got into this, it would look abusive and scammy. Why push it? The whole tax-deferred savings aspect of the tax code is a huge benefit. The accrual is the big benefit, that is done, and the intended legitimate purpose has been achieved. Don't be a pig for purposes of estate planning or whatever greedy factor is at play .

My initial thought is there is no issue here. Budgeting tools are often on recordkeeper websites. But, then I remember there was a recent amended complaint (Vanderbilt I believe where TIAA-CREF is the recordkeeper) claiming that Vanderbilt allowed TIAA to use its access to participant data to selling insurance and products outside the plan? The claim alleged that this was improper and that Vanderbilt violated the exclusive benefit rule. Similar parallels here? We shall see what comes of that.