Leaderboard

You are so kind.

I would take the position that the former employee is still a QB eligible for COBRA under the Outbreak Period rules. The rules state COBRA can terminate early if the qualified beneficiary first becomes covered under another group health plan after electing COBRA. The enrollment in the other group health plan must occur after the qualified beneficiary elected COBRA to cause early termination. The timing piece means that a qualified beneficiary who enrolled in another group health plan prior to electing COBRA will not be subject to early termination of COBRA because of that other group health plan enrollment. In this case, the former employee has not yet elected COBRA under the employer at issue. So any other group health plan enrollment during the interim will not cut short the QB's COBRA rules under the Outbreak Period rules that will provide up to a year to make the election. Here's a longer summary: https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/early-termination-of-cobra-upon-enrollment-in-other-group-health-plan-or-medicare/ Here's the relevant cite: Treas. Reg. §54.4980B-7, Q/A-2: Q-2. When may a plan terminate a qualified beneficiary’s COBRA continuation coverage due to coverage under another group health plan? A-2. (a) If a qualified beneficiary first becomes covered under another group health plan (including for this purpose any group health plan of a governmental employer or employee organization) after the date on which COBRA continuation coverage is elected for the qualified beneficiary and the other coverage satisfies the requirements of paragraphs (b), (c), and (d) of this Q&A-2, then the plan may terminate the qualified beneficiary’s COBRA continuation coverage upon the date on which the qualified beneficiary first becomes covered under the other group health plan (even if the other coverage is less valuable to the qualified beneficiary). By contrast, if a qualified beneficiary first becomes covered under another group health plan on or before the date on which COBRA continuation coverage is elected, then the other coverage cannot be a basis for terminating the qualified beneficiary’s COBRA continuation coverage. (b) The requirement of this paragraph (b) is satisfied if the qualified beneficiary is actually covered, rather than merely eligible to be covered, under the other group health plan.

Retirement distributions (early or normal) are "retirement income" and are taxed by your state of residence at the time of the distribution.

Does the plan allow participants to change their election with each payroll? If so, you might not have a problem at all.

SSRRS, it’s unclear whether your query is about New York State or New York City. There are differences between the State’s and the City’s law.

Where the plan terminates spousal eligibility at the point of legal separation (as opposed to requiring final divorce), the spouse loses eligibility at the point of the legal separation and must be removed at that point. Loss of coverage based on legal separation or divorce are both COBRA qualifying events. Note that not all married couples legally separate prior to a divorce, and a legal separation requires a court order (merely living apart is not “legally separated”). Details here: https://www.theabdteam.com/blog/legal-separation-vs-divorce-2/ Here's the relevant cite: Treas. Reg. §54.4980B-4, Q/A-1(b): (b) An event satisfies this paragraph (b) if the event is any of the following— (1) The death of a covered employee; (2) The termination (other than by reason of the employee’s gross misconduct), or reduction of hours, of a covered employee’s employment; (3) The divorce or legal separation of a covered employee from the employee’s spouse; (4) A covered employee’s becoming entitled to Medicare benefits under Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395-1395ggg); (5) A dependent child’s ceasing to be a dependent child of a covered employee under the generally applicable requirements of the plan; or (6) A proceeding in bankruptcy under Title 11 of the United States Code with respect to an employer from whose employment a covered employee retired at any time. (c) An event satisfies this paragraph (c) if, under the terms of the group health plan, the event causes the covered employee, or the spouse or a dependent child of the covered employee, to lose coverage under the plan…

I have not had this experience. But I generally don’t let participants tell me tax law. Especially related to ESOPS or 1099-Rs. I would say to this participant that i filed according to the way I read the rules. I may be in error, but if you can bring in the assessment letter from the IRS that double taxes you or causes any other issue for you we would be happy to amend the 1099-R. You will never hear from this person again.

Owner does not want to complete beneficiary form because his spouse is his primary beneficiary and he has completed estate planning that his children are contingent for all accounts. Am I correct that a plan specific form needs to be completed so that the children would be considered contingent, otherwise should spouse predecease or owner & spouse die simultaneously, the plan's benefits will go to the estate rather than to the children?

To be honest, I am not sure. I have never encountered this situation. However, the way I would approach it would be more like a change in vesting schedule. As long as nobody's vesting percentage is reduced by the change, then it should be fine. I would measure those vesting percentages both on the effective date and on the last day of the year. In other words, if somebody would have gained an additional year of vesting service during 2021, but wouldn't under the amendment, then I would make sure to grant them that additional year anyway.

The text of New York City’s legislation includes this: Covered employer. The term “covered employer” means any employer as defined in subdivision 3 of section 190 of the labor law that (i) employs no fewer than five employees whose regular duties occur in the city, consistent with any rules promulgated by the retirement savings board pursuant to section 20-1408; (ii) has employed no fewer than five such employees without interruption for the previous calendar year; (iii) has been in continuous operation for at least two years; and (iv) has not offered or maintained in the preceding two years a retirement plan, provided that an entity described in clauses (i) through (iv) in the definition of “participating employer” shall not constitute a covered employer. https://legistar.council.nyc.gov/LegislationDetail.aspx?From=RSS&ID=3498476&GUID=6E78D2BB-A4BA-4FD8-8C03-ABA62C914AEB An employer would want its lawyers’ advice about how to interpret this.

The successor rule applies to 401(k) Plans. Their payroll company is confused.

If the employer is sure it has no one living or working in NYC, it would consider New York State’s law, which you found is voluntary—that is, the State law imposes no punishment on an employer that does not facilitate the program.

More Florida representation on the boards 😎

I really think you should be asking your actuary and CPA these questions.

This is why I recommend allowing changes each payroll. Employers are so wary of this, but it's very rarely an issue. The only way this might not fix the issue is if the bonuses are paid on a regular paycheck and not separately.

We've never dated ours and never had a problem.

https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/nyc-moves-establish-auto-ira-program

That's a tricky one. Under the NAIC model COB rules, COBRA is generally secondary to active coverage. That's true even where the individual is a dependent on the active coverage. However, a drafting note in the COBRA section says to refer to the dependent vs. non-dependent rule in your situation. In other words, it says that if you're covered as a dependent on an active plan while covered by COBRA as a non-dependent, you don't look to the COBRA COB rules. Instead, you look to the dependent vs. non-dependent rules. Under the dependent vs. non-dependent rules, the primary plan is the one in which you are covered as a non-dependent. In that case, it's the COBRA plan. I would definitely confirm with the plans that they are following this approach. Not all plans follow the model COB rules, and this is a very nuanced aspect of them. NAIC Model COB Rules: https://content.naic.org/sites/default/files/inline-files/MDL-120.pdf Drafting Note: This rule applies only in the situation when a person has coverage pursuant to COBRA or under a right of continuation pursuant to state or other federal law and has coverage under another plan on the basis of employment. The rule under Paragraph (1) does not apply because the person is covered either: (a) as a non-dependent under both plans (i.e. the person is covered under a right of continuation as a qualified beneficiary who, on the day before a qualifying event, was covered under the group health plan as an employee or as a retired employee and is covered under his or her own plan as an employee, member, subscriber or retiree); or (b) as a dependent under both plans (i.e. the person is covered under a right of continuation as a qualified beneficiary who, on the day before a qualifying event, was covered under the group health plan as a dependent of an employee, member or subscriber or retired employee and is covered under the other plan as a dependent of an employee, member, subscriber or retiree). The rule under Paragraph (1) applies when the person is covered pursuant to COBRA or under a right of continuation pursuant to state or other federal law as a non-dependent and covered under the other plan as a dependent of an employee, member, subscriber or retiree. The rule in this paragraph does not apply because the person is covered as a non-dependent under one of the plans and as a dependent under the other plan.

OK but someone elects 75% of pay and makes $500 a week. Their health care is $250 a week. My opinion is a zero check and all is done and all is well. I mean at some point I think you just have to be practical, and collecting from a next paycheck is maybe just a wee bit impractical. Maybe a better word is imposslbe?

Assuming you did not make a calendar year lookback election, you will need to know 6/30 year-end comp and calendar year comp for all employees in both companies. For A's plan year beginning 7/1/2020, employees in both A and B who had comp greater than the limit for the period 7/1/2019-6/30/2020 will be HCEs when doing A's testing. For B's plan year beginning 1/1/2020, employees in both A and B who had comp greater than the limit for the period 1/1/2019-12/31/2020 will be HCEs when doing B's testing.