Leaderboard

I agree with Bri. This looks like a classic example of the service spanning rules. https://www.asppa-net.org/news/2019/10/handling-rehired-employees/#:~:text=Elapsed Time Method%3A&text=Under the service spanning rule,or can use 365 days. I would add if you study the base document, assuming it is some kind of prototype, it will most likely have a discussion of the Service Spanning Rules and how to handle rehires. The guy who trained me in this business back in the early '90s wouldn't let you come into his office to ask a question unless the following two condition were true: 1) You had a copy of the plan document with you. 2)You could explain where you looked in the plan document you looked for the answer. He claimed, and is correct, 90%+ of all questions can be answered by reading the plan document. He was willing to spend all the time you needed with you showing you how to find the answer in the document if you met those two conditions. He threw you out of his office if you hadn't met one or both of those conditions. My guess the document really does answer this question.

I vote for 8/22, since as of his rehire date three months had elapsed and his normally scheduled entry date of 6/1 had also.

First, is the plan subject to ERISA? Mention of a probation officer raises the question about the type of plan. Could it be a government plan? It makes a big difference. If it is an ERISA plan, I would start with a claim for benefits by the widow in order to make the plan state its position. Also, a claim for benefits is rather simple and cheap relative to other courses of action, which may ultimately be necessary anyway. The plan is required to have written claims procedures. Follow them.

Does anything in this health plan’s governing documents make an otherwise eligible employee not covered because she is a minor or has not attained a specified age? BenefitsLink neighbors often say, Read The Fabulous Document. Because ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D) calls a fiduciary to administer an employee-benefit plan according to the plan’s governing documents, RTFD can be a useful work method for a group health plan too, perhaps even more so than for a retirement plan. This is not advice to anyone.

Don't take it as a slam on my part. I was just pointing out how to find it. Please don't be shy to ask questions here. That wasn't the point of my reply.

An employment-based retirement plan might have provisions about what the plan provides as the plan’s distribution. A plan might provide, after normal retirement age, an involuntary distribution larger than an amount needed to meet Internal Revenue Code § 401(a)(9). AZinsser posted a query in BenefitsLink’s forum for Individual Retirement Accounts. For IRAs, the individual is responsible for determining the individual’s minimum. Federal income tax law permits an individual to take more than she needs to meet her § 401(a)(9) minimum. Yet, an individual might prefer to take no more than is needed to meet her § 401(a)(9) minimum.

What Peter describes is especially important for plans that valued annually but not at 12/31. I would also mention that some plan documents address this, as well as overall cash vs accrual methodology, and I have seen some (typically in their basic plan document of a pre-approved doc) say that the account balance is also increased by accruals for that period, even if not deposited until after the calendar year. The regulations don't require this, but the document can specify it. For example, if a 3% Safe Harbor nonelective is accrued for 2024, but not deposited until 2025, the plan document might require the valuation as of 12/31/2024 be increased by the 3% Safe Harbor accrual, even though it was not deposited by 12/31/2024. So if the 2025 RMD is calculated and processed using just the cash value of the account as of 12/31/2024 (assuming a calendar year end plan), it would likely be short, if the document specified accruals must be included. Perhaps not an RMD failure under the regulations, but possibly an operation failure for the plan. Just a gentle reminder to read the plan document carefully.

If the employee's general purpose health FSA reimbursed only the employee's expenses, it would not be disqualifying coverage for the spouse. It would only be disqualifying coverage for the employee. But I don't think I've actually seen a real-world health FSA with that plan design. In this case, we're talking about the FedFlex Plan, which (like just about all other health FSAs) does reimburse spouse's expenses: https://www.opm.gov/healthcare-insurance/flexible-spending-accounts/reference-materials/fedflex.pdf

The rule for determining an individual-account (defined-contribution) plan’s § 401(a)(9) “account balance” is 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)(9)-5(b) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.401(a)(9)-5#p-1.401(a)(9)-5(b). 26 C.F.R. § 1.408-8(a)(1) applies that rule for an IRA. 26 C.F.R. § 1.401(a)(9)-5(b) mentions: “The account balance is increased by the amount of any contributions or forfeitures allocated to the account balance as of dates in the valuation calendar year after the valuation date.” “The account balance is decreased by distributions made in the valuation calendar year after the valuation date.” I see no mention of counting a dividend receivable or interest receivable. Other BenefitsLink neighbors might describe IRA custodians’ (banks’, trust companies’, and securities broker-dealers’) customary practices. This is not advice to anyone.

Hi there, congrats on the marriage. Yes, you are correct that both you and your spouse would be blocked from HSA eligibility if your spouse enrolls in a general purpose FSA through her workplace. This is because the health FSA would reimburse both your spouse's and your medical expenses pre-deductible. However, if your spouse is merely eligible for a general purpose health FSA, but doesn't actually enroll, that will not affect the HSA eligibility of either you or your spouse. If that is the case can i contribute up to the HSA max of 8550 instead? I've already completed my enrollment with self-only coverage and she is not associated to any of my insurance(s). If your spouse enrolls in the general purpose health FSA, neither of you can contribute to a HSA because you both would have disqualifying coverage. If #1 is not possible. Can she enroll in a Limited Expense Health Care FSA? Definitely. Limited purpose FSAs are not disqualifying coverage because they reimburse only dental/vision/preventive expenses (i.e., they do not reimburse pre-deductible, non-preventive medical expenses). Regardless of the above answers am i allowed to use HSA funds for my personal expenses with contributions I've made before getting married? Definitely. HSA eligibility is relevant only to the ability to make and receive HSA contributions. Tax-free distributions for medical expenses are available for the HSA holder, spouse, and qualifying children regardless of whether the HSA holder or those dependents are currently HSA-eligible.

I agree with everything everyone has said thus far, but I think a few practical points need to be put forth. First, if a plan is a start-up post Secure 2.0 signing, then whoever is the recordkeeper should "strongly encourage" the employer to implement the ACA provisions from day 1. In our case, virtually all did. Second, it is actually highly unlikely that a post effective date start-up has actually decided to move recordkeepers. In most case (not all, but most), there aren't sufficient assets to entice a successor recordkeeper to seek out that business, nor are salespeople interested because the payout is low. If a salesperson is going after start-ups or newer plans, it's because of a relationship with the advisor (and of course, they are the most important advisor on the planet gobs of new business if we do this one favor for them....) Indeed, many recordkeepers loathe startups to begin with (the payback is lengthy) end have back end "term fees" that discourage moving the plan early. There are some that move, and it is incumbent on our transition services team to verify status, and our document consulting team to engage the client to implement ACA at transition time, rather than 1/1/25. Our approach, is to accept startups, or many newer plans ONLY IF they implement ACA provisions to kick start asset growth (oh, and it's good for the client too.)