Hello all,

Starting in a couple of months, stand-alone Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs) have to report coverage information to the Centers for Medicare and Medicare Services (CMS). It doesn't matter whether it's managed by a TPA or an employer, it all has to get reported (with some small exceptions). The reporting includes SSNs, names, birth dates, and whether the employee is "covered" by the HRA. Reporting does not include whether the employee has exhausted the HRA nor the amount remaining in the HRA.

Reporting is a pain, but the bigger issue is how the coordination of benefits (COB) would work between a HRA, the medical provider, and CMS. CMS has declared that HRAs are a primary payer, but most HRAs only provide reimbursement to the employee for an eligible medical expense. So, will CMS start sending claims made by the employee's providers to employers and TPAs since they are technically listed as "primary payers"?

You can think of a system where CMS requires the provider to send the bills first to the employer or TPA as the listed-primary-payer only to have the TPA or employer deny every "claim" since its being requested by someone other than the HRA plan participant. Similarly in the case where a employee has exhausted his or her HRA dollars, is CMS going to come back to the employer and TPA and demand payment even though the HRA is already maxed out?

Does anyone have any experience with how an employer or TPA might deal with the onslaught of CMS COB issues?

Regards,

RT Moore

An employer reviews a new DB plan design proposal and agrees with everything, except, during the discussion with the plan consultant, they decide they want to include one year of past service for a larger deduction limit. They signed an agreement with the consultant to have a new design done and to have them prepare the plan document.

The provider prepared the new design and the plan document. The employer signed the plan document. The plan's effective date is January 1, 2010.

After a few days of reviewing the revised plan design, the owner-employees question the mechanics of the plan. It shows a beginning of the year accrued benefit. It also shows an end-of-year accrued benefit, which is basically 2x the beginning of the year accrued benefit for all employees. All employees that is, except for the owner-employees who are up against the 415 limit on January 1, 2010, so their 12/31/2010 accrued benefit is shown to be no bigger than their 1/1/2010 accrued benefit.

They now want to change the plan to not provide a past service credit. The higher deduction is no longer a priority. However, they signed the plan about a week ago.

Since the employees have already worked 1,000 hours, is there anyway such a change could be made?

Code Section 415(n)(3) allows trustee-to-trustee transfers from 403(b) or 457(b) plans for the purchase of permissive service credits under the state defined benefit plan.

However, can the same type of tax free transfer be made from a governmental 401(a) plan to the state defined benefit plan?

Many thanks!

If under VCP the IRS requires a retroactive change to a plan that would have, had the change actually been in place at the previous time, affected the information reported on the 5500 and the plan sponsor's employer tax return, must amended 5500s and tax returns be filed as a consequence of the retroactive VCP correction? What if the retroactive change is beyond the 3 year and 6 year statute of limitations? EPCRS does not address this issue - is there another source that does?

Has anyone found a Roth conversion calculator they trust??? Most of them seem to leave out at least one important assumption.

Thanks.

James

I have a very complex question. I hope someone can answer it. Here is the situation:

* Through my employer, I have an FSA. During my employment, I have never elected that money be voluntarily withheld from my pay and placed into this FSA. In other words, there is no "salary reduction agreement."

* The employer places money each year in the FSA. Here is where that money comes from:

- Employer contributes a certain amount of money towards my health care. However, the cost of the health care does not consume that entire amount.

-Therefore, employer places the left over amount—about $730 for 2010—in the FSA.

* Employer has been sold to another company. The existing FSA will continue through the end of 2010, then cease to exist.

* Employer now says it will pay only part of the $730 for 2010. This amounts to about $410. Employer states that I will be forced to personally pay the remaining $320 through the end of 2010.

Question: Is this legal? To me, it sounds like I am being asked to fund what is essentially an employer contribution. If the employer agreed as of January 1, 2010 to place $730 in that FSA, I believe it is obligated to do so.

Thank you for your comments.

Participant had a self-directed account for 401(k) money at Vanguard, became disillusioned for a lot of reasons that I won't get into, and somehow just took the money out; probably with the plan sponsor signing off without our knowledge or input...actually in direct contradiction to our input, but anyway...

I don't believe there was any withholding, and I'm going to assume for now that the participant has the money.

I'm being completely lazy and not even trying to find a fix in VCP; is there one that anyone knows of? Does it matter if the participant is able or unable to repay the money? It's a 5/31 fiscal year and the transaction occurred before the end of the year so it's an open item.

A plan with many Life and CC options (some are Life and below 10 years CC and some are Life and over 10 years CC) would like to simplify things. They want to eliminate as many options as possible, without running afoul of 411(d)(6). The plan also has a lump sum option (which almost all particpants take when there's no restriction otherwise stopping them).

Under 1.411(d)(3)©(4), all of the Life and 10 or less is grouped separately from Life and more than 10 forms. Does this mean the plan must keep at least two Life and CC options, such as Life&10 and Life&15?

Are terms governing ability to withdrawal from plan typically included in trust or participation agreements? Or are those rules governed entirely by the CBA?

Any reason why a plan's attorney who received in excess of $5,000 of direct compensation from the plan would NOT be identified on Schedule C?

While it is clear that rolling a governmental 457(b) to an Rollover IRA will "taint" the money for the 10% excise tax. Can this money be cleaned of that problem by rolling it back into another existing governmental 457(b) plan or are the previous 457(b) funds forever tainted? Can there be a "tracing" of the funds?

I practice in NY and am am familiar with using the State's 3 year statute of limitations period for a COBRA notice violation claim. But, I haven't been able to determine whether such a claim is subject to the notice of claim requirements to sue a municipality/School District? Does anyone know off-hand whether a COBRA notice violation is exempt from the notice of claim requirement? Thank you.

Can a company have a 125 plan with only HCEs. This group employs 5 HCEs and no non-HCEs. My first thought is no because the HCEs would receive 100% of the benefit, however, since they employ no non-HCEs, the plan isn't really discriminating against non-HCEs. Any thoughts or direction would be appreciated. Thanks!

I could be wrong on this, but, I remember reading somewhere, sometime ago that if a company incorporates after the beginning of a year, the Effective Date for the plan could still be established as the first day of that year in order to avoid short yeat limit pro-rations. I have a potential client that will incorporate around September 1st of this year and I was wondering if there was any way the plan's Effective Date could be made January 1, 2010?

Does anyone have an opinion whether it might be a potential violation of ERISA Section 510 for an employer to reduce wages $X/hr. once an employee commences participation in the employer's plan? Would it make a difference if the employee agreed to the reduction in an employment agreement?

Published planbook with attachments (accountant's opinion and schedule of asset at YE). There were no validation warnings prior to submssion so I submitted to DOL. DOL returned an error message, "Filing Unprocessable". Which I understand is NOT considered filed. But I don't know how to correct.

I have no idea why the filing was unprocessable. The Accountant's Opinion and Schedule of Assets were attached as Internal attachments. I can view with no problems. There is no security on the files.

any ideas? Thanks!

I have a plan with a participant whose spouse owns the stock of the sponsoring corporation. He is 65 years old and skiddish about the market and has $400,000 in cash. The corporation needs an operating line for some projects that are on the horizon. Is it a valid investment to loan the corporation money at market rate or is that an implied participant loan and anything in excess of $50,000 would violate the loan provisions???

The Bahamas Bridal Association is comprised of our country’s leading professional destination wedding planners who are all dedicated to excellence and perfection. A certified Bahamas wedding planner is your best source for information on a destination wedding in The Bahamas.

With 700 Islands & Cays dancing in the clear, aquamarine waters of the Tropics, your wedding options are endless. And no one knows the Islands and your options for Bahamas weddings like the members of the Bahamas Bridal Association.

Visit Now:- wedding in bahamas

Advertising link removed.

Is it possible for a multiemployer plan to specify that benefits are to be adjusted so as to avoid having any unfunded liability? I am almost certain there is a misunderstanding, but is anyone aware of a special kind of plan that would allow this?

Money Purchase Pension Plan terminated 4/30/2008. For 2009 Schedule R, can Part II - Funding Information be skipped. From the form istelf-- (If the plan is not subject to the minimum funding requirements of section of 412 of the Internal Revenue Code or ERISA section 302, skip this Part).

My interest here is that the company went bankrupt, and there was a funding deficiency at 12/31/2008 (which will never be paid), and was disclosed on the 2008 Schedule R. For DB plans, I think there is agreement that a Schedule SB is not required in the plan year following the plan year containing the plan termination date, and I also think Part II on Sch R can be skipped for that following year, since the DB plan is not subject to 412 in that following year. Correct?

Any ideas if Part II can be skipped for the money purchase pension plan in this following year similar to the DB plan (not subject to 412).