How about a simple solution assuming the 45,000,000 Americans without health insurance have the ability to pass the hands-on and written tests for driving on our highways and by-ways? Simply require them to furnish evidence of being currently insured for healthcare coverage (at catastrophic levels or no fault levels if nothing else) as well as automobile coverage?

It would matter not whether the coverage is employer based, individual or government! No healthcare coverage equals no license.

Does the new NRA rules apply to Money Purchase Sources that were merged into Profit Sharing Plans? Would you need to amend your profit sharing plans that have money purchase sources to change the normal retirement age on that source of money.

Does anyone have any opinions, tips, experience, etc. regarding the pros and cons of funding severance payments through a VEBA. I know this is very open ended, just looking for general opinions.

If I am requesting FMLA or Medical Leave can the company I work for make me fill out a "HIPAA Autorization to Disclose form" that gives them (the Company), the Disability management company, it's affiliates, their disability consultants, health care professionals and staff permission to obtain the necessary information to adjudicate a claim for disability and/or leave of absense benefits. Before they process or grant either the FMLA or Medical Leave? This form wants us to sign and give the Company a date range that they can have the authorization then they want us to put a check next to each one of the following they are allowed to have: Complete Medical Records, Alcohol and or Substance Abuse, Psychiatric Evaluation and testing, hospitalization,confinement, AIDS/HIV Test information, other evaluations/assessments(specify).

If needed I can supply a copy of the form without the name of my employer.

Client has a 401k which has an ownership interest in the ESOP consists of shares of which 98.5% is company stock (Lockheed) and the other 1.5% is a bond fund.

So the question is, does the client actually own Lockheed stock (which would allow for NUA) inside the ESOP if he has ownership of "shares" in an ESOP that in turn are a blend of company stock and a bond mutual fund?

Client meets the usual NUA rules about retiring now, at age 65. Of course to get NUA one must withdraw entire balance of 401k, put the company stock directly into a taxable account (never into an IRA), and roll the rest directly into an IRA. They must pay tax on the basis part of the company stock and when they sell stock they pay LTCG.

I was wondering if a controlled group existed in this situation. I wanted toi understand this before I moved on to the ASG rules. The facts are set forth below:

Corporation A - 91% owned by ESOP (all shares allocated to Individual A, sole participant in ESOP) and 9% to Individual A.

Corporation B - 100% owned by Individual A, no employees except Individual A.

Corporation C - 100% owned by an irrevocable stock trust, no employees except Individual A

LLC - owned 51% by Corporation B and 49% by a truly unrelated 3rd party. Several employees work for LLC.

I guess I have two questions.

If 91% of stock in Company A is held in an ESOP, but allocated to A's account, is A treated as owning 9% of Company A or 100% of Campany A. I think the answer is 9%.

Are the employees of A required to be considered in determining if ESOP meets coverage and participation tests? I think the answer is no, as only 51% of the LLC is owned by A.

Thanks in advance for your comments.

Ed

There is an employee whose son got married May 24. The son wants to cover himself and his spouse on the insurance through COBRA.

Blue Cross says that since the COBRA starts June 1 and the marriage was prior to this date, she is not eligible to be covered.

If that is the case, no spouse of a marrying dependent would ever qualify.

Does anyone care to comment on this? I will send an appeal to be reviewed by legal, but I'm not sure what my grounds for appeal would be yet.

Employer maintains two nonaccount plans. One is an excess plan to make up for benefits limited by 415 and 401(a)(17) that provides for commencement of payments upon the later of separation from service or age 55, the earliest retirement age under the qualified plans. The form of payment is limited to equivalent annuity options. The other plan is a SERP for the very senior executives which provides for an immediate lump sum payment upon separation from service. The participants in the SERP also participate in the excess plan.

My reading of the plan aggregation rules under the final regualtions is that like kind plans are treated as one plan for all purposes except certain enumerated exceptions. Since timing and form of payment are not one of the exceptions, this would lead me to believe that the above design would not work and that there would need to be a single form and time of payment for each executive that participates in both plans.

I hope everyone disagrees.

Currently, our organization has a medical plan year that spans two calender years (07/01 - 06/30). We're in the process of considering to reverting back to a calender year plan year and have two questions....

1. Has anybody done this in the past and how did you implement it? A 18-month plan year? One six-month plan year?

2. Can an HDHP minimum deductible be pro-rated if we choose the half-year plan cycle?

Thanks!

Your thoughts would be appreciated regarding the following scenario:

A participant requested a hardship of $1,000. The plan allows hardships from the deferral source only, distribution fees are $50 (deducted from the participant's account) and the participant's eligible hardship amount is $1,000.

I have used round numbers to simplify (assume he lost money on his investments and has no residual earnings on his original deferral contributions).

Can you give the participant $1,000 as a hardship withdrawal and take the $50 distribution fee from another source or is the participant limited to $950 as a hardship assuming the $50 distribution needs to be paid out of the eligible hardship amount.

Calendar year 401k plan. The client last filed a 5500 for the 2003 plan year. The IRS sent a letter last week looking for the 2004 5500. Although the forms were prepared by the recordkeeper, they were sent to the client, who didn't realize they needed filed, so they were put in a drawer:

1) I plan on drafting a letter to the IRS, telling them the trust and asking for mercy. Are there any better ideas?

2) Is it too late to file the 2005 form through the IRS 5500 program, just paying the $750? Is that not an option since the 2004 form is on the IRS radar?

Thanks

Tomorrow the ABA's Joint Committee on Employee Benefits is going to have a 90-minute Webcast on these topics in light of the State Street decision and the more recent KSR v Teleflex decision of the Supreme Court.

Topics are:

Overview of the Patent Process

State Street Decision and Business Method Patents

Legislative Developments

Tax Shelter Issues

World of Patenting ERISA Strategies

Where do we go from here?

This looks to be of interest.

http://meetings.abanet.org/meeting/jceb/jceb061407/

Anyone who joins in might want to report here there impressions and what the implications might be for practitioners.

Individual covered under HDHP changes from family coverage to individual coverage halfway through 2007. I assume the contribution limit is calculated on monthly basis based on what coverage he has in place as of the first day of each month. Correct?

I know Rollovers are irrevocable from a QP to an IRA. I just can't find where it says so. I've searched my sources i can find secondary sources (Appleby's article on Investopedia) but can't find a primary source. I know its out there.

Please help.

Thanks

In order for a plan to be in a required aggregation group for top heavy, each plan must be one in which at least one key employee 'participates' (per ERISA Outline).

Does 'participates' have the same meaning as the coverage rules and all those eligible are 'participants' - even if they choose not to defer and have a $0 balance? Basically, do the key employees have to be specifically excluded in a 401(k) plan document in order to exclude the plan from the required aggregation group? Any cites? Thanks!

If the name of the plan sponsor changes (e.g. from "ABC Company" to "XYZ Company"), but the name change is effective after the end of the PY 2006, but before the 2006 Form 5500 is filed, does the name change need to be reported on the 2006 Form 5500?

Line 4 says "if the name and/or EIN of the plan sponsor has changed since the last return/report filed for this plan, enter the name . . . below:" There is no qualifier that you do this only if the name change was during the plan year; however, logic tells me that since the old name was in place during the entire plan year it would be proper to report under that name, and make the change next year, on the 2007 Form 5500 (since the name change occured during the 2007 plan year.)

Any thoughts?????

Has anyone thought up any ingenious ways of getting the 1/1/2008 funded status of all their DB plans "certified" by April 1, 2008?

Consider the regulatory ambiguities, software issues, learning curves, etc., as well as the data collection issues during FAS and 1099 season.

Dear users of the VEBA message board,

I am the BenefitsLink.com, Inc. employee who acts as the

"administrator" of these message boards. I want to keep

the boards running as a valuable, free tool for employee

benefits practitioners.

I have taken an administrative action that some of you will

not like, but which I believe to be in the best interests of every

user of the message boards.

I decided to remove a topic (a message thread) about a

particular, named VEBA service-provider whose business

practices were roundly criticized in messages in the thread.

The service-provider contacted me by email and by phone this

week and we discussed the message thread in some detail. Until

then I had not read the message thread.

The service-provider says that some of the statements posted in

the message thread are false, and that they are damaging his

reputation.

I do not know whether the statements are true or false.

If a statement is proven to be false and it harms the reputation of

an individual, the individual has a legal cause of action for defamation

against the person making the statement.

Per the ground rules that are displayed when a new user

registers, a message can be taken down if a person complains

that it is "objectionable" to him. (Also, users agree not to

post defamatory statements.) As the administrator of the message

boards it falls to me to determine in my discretion what's

"objectionable" when a party complains.

If you or some other user say to me as administrator that a

statement about you in a message is defamatory, I believe you've

pointed out a message that's objectionable to you, and that the

message should be taken down.

My reasoning is that you wouldn't want to have to defend

yourself by rebutting such statements via a public "point-counterpoint"

exchange in a thread on the message boards. Among other reasons,

it would be hard and time-consuming to put down into text all of

the things you would want to say in response, especially responses

to claims made by anonymous posters. Damage to your reputation

could be catastrophic and perhaps irreparable, because a Google search

on your name by a potential client might easily include a link to the

message thread.

Naturally, when one believes that people are being harmed by a

service-provider, he wants to be helpful by warning others. I can

appreciate how very strongly you could feel about

another service-provider's business practices, especially if

based on your first-hand experience or on other information that

you believe to be certainly and provably true. The question, though,

is whether these public message boards ought to be available to

do that. You would have other opportunities to share your opinion,

such as conversations in person, via private email, or via some

other medium that is not publicly viewable. You also could write

and publish an article on a web site that you own or operate,

if you wish to publish your opinion on the Web.

I would like to emphasize that BenefitsLink.com, Inc. has not

made any investigation into whether various statements that were

made in the message thread are true or false. That's not a role

the company has taken on. BenefitsLink.com, Inc. is not the

"publisher" of messages posted to this public message board,

pursuant to interpretations of defamation law made by several

courts, and we do not monitor messages to determine whether or

not they might be considered defamatory. But we have agreed to

take down messages that a party finds to be objectionable if the

party complains.

I know this action might offend you, especially if you put time

and thought into making one or more posts in the message thread.

I can see how you would feel offended and disappointed by this

action affecting your already-posted messages, and for that I

sincerely apologize.

I am not questioning the good faith of any of the folks who

posted messages in the thread. Also, I do not mean to imply

that posts made anonymously are unwelcome.

Thank you very much for all the great help you provide to

practitioners and plan participants through your posts on

these message boards. I hope you continue to find them

to be valuable in your practice.

Dave Baker

Email: davebaker at benefitslink.com

Here's a fun one. We took over a plan in which 2 prior TPAs appear to have done the share release incorrectly and based it on principal only when the exempt loan was for longer than 10 years. The problem is that this started back in 1993. There are other allocation corrections that need to be done so we are starting over anyway and revising the allocations for years 1993-2006. Does anyone know if 54.4975-7(b) allowed for the use of principal only share release when the loan was longer than 10 years back in 1993? I don't see anything in the history of that section and regulation that would allow but wanted to make sure I wasn't missing anything.

THANKS!

I am seeking examples of how Benefits Credits are explained to employees. It would be helpful if there were sample figures or examples.

I have a prospective client whose use of Benefits Credits has me asking questions.

For example, the Benefit Credit is $500 per month, the Health Insurance premium is $650 of which the employee share is $150.

This employer pays the $500 to the employee as Taxable Income then has the employee do a section 125 Salary Reduction of $650. The logic is that the employee is paying the difference which happens to be the same as what is the employee share of the premium.

My experience is that the $500 should not be paid but should exist as a "notional" amount which is spent down with any amount needed becoming the amount of the Salary Reduction amount.

I would greatly appreciate some input and enrollment forms with examples which I can use to explain what should be done.