Does it violate HIPAA privacy legislation to require a doctor's note for an absence to be considered excused (this is in regards to a part time attendance adherence policy). This is with the understanding that the note would not say anything about the patients condition, treatment, or payment, simply that they saw a doctor.

I was recently informed one of my clients have been issuing a 2nd paycheck to some employees for additional pay. Not bonus pay, but compensation after the 1st check was issued.

The plan sponsor deducts 401(k) and contributes the ER Match from the 1st check but does not from the 2nd check. The plan document states the following:

"Such Matching Contribution may be made as of any payroll date or calendar quarter based on the Compensation and Salary Deferral Contribution made as of such payroll date or calendar quarter"

I work in a daily environment & the spreadsheet the client provides us only has one line item for each employee, so it appeared to us they are only receviing one check. This is an audited plan and this "2nd payroll check" was discovered when the auditors were at the client site. We, as the TPA, were unaware of this 2nd paycheck.

What the consequences to the plan? I know we can amend the plan for future payrolls, but what should the plan sponsor do for past years, especially 2004 sinde that is the year being audited?

Thanks!

what is a non qualified employer contribution ?

Thanks

The situation is a 401(k) plan in a nursing home was sold in an asset sale. The participants stopped participating in the "old" plan in the summer of 2003 and switched to the acquiring companies 401(k) plan.

There have been no contributions or distributions since 2003. The Form 5500 was not filed for 2003 because nobody was willing to pay the fee's to the auditor who pre-billed for their services. We are the TPA, and have not received payment for the 2003 audit package.

We have considered our firm no longer the TPA of record but a TPA's signature is needed to liquidate the individual participant accounts.

The acquiring entity does not feel they should have to pay for this old plan since it was an asset sale.

Would it be allowable to charge the participants our fees for administration and the auditor’s fees? It is my understanding that we can not charge the participants for any fees involved in the actual plan terminination. My concern is there are a lot of small balances which the fees could be a large percent of the total balance.

The other concern is there are people who want to get their money out of the plan.

Any advice would be appreciated. Thanks!

All right maybe I'm paranoid., or at least really REALLY cautious.

My employer offers only one 457 plan and that is through Hartford insurance. What if, many years from now when I'm ready to withdraw my 457 contributions, there are 10 major hurricanes somewhere in the U.S. and Hartford goes broke paying all those claims. Is my insurer insured?

In other words, if for example I had my money in a bank account and the bank went out of business, my account would still be FDIC insured, so I would not lose everything. Is there some analogous insurance that I could fall back on to recover my 457 money in the event that Hartford went bankrupt (not that that seems very likely presently)?

One more question and this one's very vague and open-ended: Suppose I do not take advantage of my 457 plan. Yes I know I would miss out on substantial tax savings. But just suppose hypothetically, for some crazy reason of my own, I decided not to participate in the 457 plan. And assume for the sake of argument that I do put the maximum each year in an IRA, so that's not at issue here. How should I invest the money that I would have put in the 457? My only idea would be to regularly buy some kind of federal or municipal bonds in order to get at least some tax advantage.

Thanks for any information or suggestions.

Is the maximum allowable charge still 25 cents per page?

If a sole prop set up a DB plan effective 1/1/05 and had a $200,000 deductible contribution for 2005, but did not have any self employment income in future years, but still had non-deductible contributions, upon plan termination would the entire distribution be considered taxable income or would only a portion of it be considered taxable since he did not receive a deduction since the initial contribution?? Thank you.

Our prototype document forces payout with balances under $ 1,000. My question is this, what date do you use in determining this? Termination date? PYE? Date of Distribution?

Thanks

When calculating the current liability, do you apply all of your funding assumptions?

For example, if I am valuing ancillary benefits (termination, early retirement benefits, etc) in my accrued liability, do I also value those in the current liability?

If I am assuming no pre-retirement mortality for funding, is that what I also use in the current liability calculation?

What is the absolute deadline for safe harbor contributions? Assuming a 12-31-04 Plan year end? Thanks!

Company adopts a standardized prototype plan in 1995 (calendar year plan). I don't have the opinion letter but I would assume it is a TRA 86 document. Nothing seems to have been done (document-wise) since then, although the admin, 5500s, distributions, seem to have been handled timely and properly.

The link below answers many questions in this situation:

http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=26811

I wanted to quantify for the plan sponsor what has been missed with their document. Is saying that GUST amendments, RMD amendment, and involuntary distribution amendment (although still not really late) are needed, catch everything? Secondly, if going through VCP to correct, the user fee is $750 (10 employees). Is there usually other government fees or negotiated settlements that take place in this situation?

Thanks for comments

I am currently working on a situation and need some input. Here are the facts:

Employer A owns 50% of a surgery center (the other 50% is owned by a third party). There is an ASG between the surgery center and Employer A. During the year, the surgery center was sold to another entity, effectively ending the ASG. All employees of the surgery center are now employees of the new owner. Almost all of the surgery center employees had more than 500, but less than 1,000 hours of service. The plan contains a 1000 hour/last day requirement for profit sharing contributions.

I am trying to determine if the 410(b)(6)© transition rule would kick in and allow me to ignore the surgery center employees in coverage testing for this year (and, then, exclude them from the cross-test for the year).

Any thoughts or suggestions?

Is it required the Trustee sign the SAR? or was there ever a time this was a requirement? My employer asked me to research this as he has always had the Trustee sign the SAR prior to distributing to plan participant. I have worked for several TPA's and am not aware of such requirement, nor have I seen a signature on a SAR before. So far I have not found any information documenting this is or ever was a requirement. Any input would be of great help.

Company A is a small S-corporation with an employer-provided medical insurance plan. Company A pays all medical insurance premiums and reimburses its employees for out-of-pocket expenses (for deductible, co-pay, etc) over a certain dollar amount.

The stockholders of Company A are also greater than 2% stockholders in Company B. Is Company B required to provide its employees the same coverage as Company A does?

Both companies have probably half a dozen employees, including the stockholders.

A new pension plan started in 2004 has a 5% owner over age 74.

Assume the beginning accrued benefit is $1,000 per month payable 1/1/2009 on the fifth anniversary of entry, and that the end accrued benefit is $1,200 per month (both for the 2004 plan year)

The beginning date for minimum payments in 2004 is:

1. Nothing, since the plan was signed in December 2004, or

2. Nothing, since there was no prior accrued benefit, or

3. 4/1/2005

If so, is the minimum distribution based on the reduced actuarial equivalent of the future benefit $1,000 accrued benefit or the $1,200 accrued benefit.

Does it matter that the plan is not funded for 2004 until September 2005?

I looked at the new 401a9 regs, and they don't make clear what accrued benefit to consider, nor the required beginning date for this circumstance.

A question that I have been asked a number of times since creation of health savings accounts (HSAs) is whether it is permissible for an employer with a self-insured health plan to set up higher deductible levels for certain of its executives and a lower deductible for other employees. The idea is that by limiting enrollment in the high-dedecutible portion of the health plan to highly-compensated employees, the employer can also limit its HSA contributions to the same group of executives.

On its face, I see no discrimination problems under the HSA rules. Notice 2004-50 provides that contributions to HSAs must be comparable only as to those employees who are eligible for an HSA. Because in the scenario described the non-HCEs would not be allowed to enroll in a high-deductible health plan, they would not be eligible to receive HSA contributions and therefore would not be in the class of eligible employees for testing HSA comparability. Because HSAs are not employer reimbursements, they are are not subject to Section 105(h) discrimination testing.

As for the health plan, under Section 105(h) a self insured plan may not discriminate in favor of HCEs with respect to eligiblity or benefits. The argument from employers though is that, when the health plan is viewed in isolation, separate from the HSA contributions, the HCEs are actually getting less benefits than other employees because the same items are covered by the health plan, yet the HCEs' deductible is higher. While 105(h) also has a facts and circumstances "discriminatory in operation" test, this too is geared towards ensuring that "the plan" is not actually discrimating. For example, prohibited discrimination may occur where the duration of a particular benefit coincides with the period during which a highly compensated individual utilizes the benefit. Since the plan consists only of the self-insured plan, and not the HSA, it could be argued that there is no discrimination in operation either.

Has anybody else had a chance to address this issue?

Our research indicates that qualified retirement plans which use leverage to buy real estate are exempt from the UBTI tax. On the other hand, IRAs that use this same investment strategy are NOT exempt from the UBTI on the related rental income. Is there an explanation as to why these types of plans are treated differently?

In order to qualify for exemption from the PBGC VRP under the "Fully funded plan with fewer than 500 participants", what are the requirements for calculating the vested benefits?

It seems that you have to use the Required Interest Rate, but what mortality table is required (if any)?

Can you use the decrements that are used in the actuarial assumptions for plan funding purposes? Or, is this an interest only calculation?

I have a client who wants to offer an HSA to the employees. Some employees are enrolled in a Health FSA. Can they stop their Health FSA and join the HSA in the middle of the plan year. If so, what happens if they have had more deductions than reimbursements or more reimbursements than deductions?

Please advise

Ownership of P.C.

A = 53%

B = 32%

C = 10%

D = 5% [exactly]

P.C. has employees.

Ownership of LLP

A,B,C and D each own 25%

LLP has no employees nor pays wages, and probably never will.

If P.C. adopts a standardized plan, must LLP be included as a controlled group member? If so, does that make D a key employee and an HCE? My thinking is Yes and Yes, because of the LLP ownership.

If P.C. adopts a nonstandardized plan, the LLP would not have to be a plan sponsor. Thus, under IRC 416(i)©, would this prevent D from being considered a key and highly compensated employee? [iRC 414(q) refers to IRC 416(i) for applying the 5% rule].