Leaderboard

I don't think unlawful is the right word. You won't get arrested for this... just lose tax status.

Yes, loss of coverage caused by a reduction in hours is a COBRA qualifying event. That's also true if the reduction in hours causes the loss of coverage at the end of the applicable ACA look-back measurement method stability period. More details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/the-cobra-triggering-events It doesn't matter whether the employee is eligible for active coverage at that point. By definition they aren't be eligible for active coverage, otherwise they wouldn't have lost it and had the qualifying event. In other words, basically everyone on COBRA is no longer eligible to enroll in active coverage at open enrollment. Here's a quick overview-- https://www.newfront.com/blog/loss-of-health-plan-eligibility-caused-by-move-to-part-time-work Employees who do not average at least 30 hours of service over the full standard measurement period (i.e., generally do not reach 1,560 hours of service in the typical 12-month standard measurement period) can be removed from coverage as of the start of the new stability period (generally the start of the new plan year) because the employee will be treated as part-time for ACA purposes for the duration of that stability period. This will be a COBRA qualifying event as of the end of the plan year in which the employee loses coverage (loss of coverage caused by a reduction in hours).

The high 25 rule is part of 401(a)(4), specifically 1.401(a)(4)-5(b). Collectively bargained plans are typically treated as satisfying 401(a)(4), see 1.401(a)(4)-1(c)(5). So I would conclude that a collectively bargained plan is exempt from the high 25 rule.

Sorry, just realized the OP was way misleading. Edited. This all has to do with, and only with, the 5558. No 5500 or 8955....

Wrong on the 5558.

IRC 401(k)(2)(B) Also, paragraph 1.401(k)-1(d) of the regulations.

Pre-nup is not relevant. The Plan must follow its own rules for distribution and who is defined to be the beneficiary. Hint: likely, the plan defines beneficiary as "spouse".

That's how I read it as well, although I have not actually had to do this yet.