Leaderboard

ERISAgeek111, before your client assumes that the radiologist would not be eligible based on the health plan's 30-hours eligibility condition, might the plan's administrator consider how the employer or service recipient counts hours and consider whether the plan's measure is wider? While I don't know your client's facts, I can imagine that a medical professional who works only 24 hours in patient-facing medical procedures and care might work another six (or more) hours in activities that count as service for the relevant employer or service recipient. (Of course, much depends on the particular plan's provisions and definitions.)

FGC, I was playing the cards we were dealt, but you make a good point.

Assuming they are HCEs, yes, I would think so. There's always COBRA.

Are they self-insured? If not, I don't believe the ACA nondiscrimination rules for insured plans have kicked in yet, but then that raises the question of who is imposing the 30-hour requirement? The employer or the insurance carrier?

Easy for me to say I admit, but you or your attorney will have to find the right person at Nationwide and work this out. As the sole shareholder of a dissolved corporation you are entitled to money which would have been paid to the corporation. Can't blame the bank for refusing to accept the check. Figuring out the correct tax reporting may be tricky, but that would be Nationwide's problem.

Agreed, sounds fine. I think "the Gold Standard" memo was for really abusive practices, such as bringing in very short term employees for December to skew testing results. Have no issue with someone who was in the plan half the year. IAW Larry & Tom vesting is not an issue here - only if bringing them in after the fact via -11(g). My only caution is that employers may not want to do this for personnel reasons. Different clients have different thoughts on this, but it's not unheard of for employees compare notes on things like PS contributions. It's easier when the dollar amounts are close even though percentage wise one employee is getting a lot more to pass the test.

"IL"'s (brother, sister, mother and father) are never attributed ownership except in some weird and kinky re-marriage scenarios with minor children. They are frequently NHCE's that the owner(s) wish to favor, providing a kick-start to the non-discrimination testing.

Sorry, didn't follow that you were dealing with passing non-discrim with the initial allocation schedule and if you do so, you do not need an -11g amendment and vesting is not an issue at that point. So, the answer is still the same: cherry pick as much as you wish in this situation; I would not worry about picking the next participant who is vested already. Larry.

What part of 0.5 times zero implies differently?