Would you be permitted to have two matches where the first match would go to everyone but the second one would only go to employees employed on the last day (meaning the active employees would get both matches).

I am trying to think if there are any discrimination issues.

Does the primary beneficiary requirement that a spouse must be named unless spousal consent is provided also apply to "common law marriage" or common law spouse?  The particular participant resides in CA as does the Plan.  

Thank you

Company A sponsors a MEP with unrelated company B adopting. During 2018, participant X, who is a non-owner employee of company A and over age 70.5, transfers to company B, .e.g they are terminated from company A and hired by company B. Is this person required to take an RMD by 4/1/2019?

I have a client ALE who has not offered coverage to any of its FTEs or FTE equivalent.  Of course they have now received a 226-J letter for 2016 because 8 ees have received a PTC on the Exchange.  Their argument is that they could not afford to offer coverage because 2018 is the first year they turned a profit (they took over a company in 2015 and never offered coverage).  I'm just curious to know if anyone has successfully made a hardship argument on behalf of a client who has never offered coverage to their employees.  Of course I am requesting W2s from the client to make sure the IRS did not mistakenly offer the PTC to these employees, but I'm afraid that they are going to get hit with penalties for the past 3 years and likely go out of business.  Thank you!

Owner of the company passed away.  Was Age 85.  Money was in pooled account and funds are requesting be disbursed to his charitable trust per beneficiary form.

Questions

1. Does the pooled account have to be revalued to date of death?  It is audited plan with 250 employees and multiple brokerage accounts.

2. How is the rmd handled before the disbursement to the charitable trust?

Thank you.

Hello,

Is the administrator allowed to change past paid COBRA premium rates (and without notice)?

For example, if our plan year runs Sep - Aug.  Premiums had been $1000 per coupons/notice.  Faithfully paid for the past year 2017 Sep year thru Aug 2018.  Everything is fine, insurance is fine.  New COBRA premiums are noted for Sep 2018 going forward, say $1500, okay. 

But can they/administrator also change the past premiums?  That is, they now, along with new forward rates, say COBRA premiums for past "2017 Sep - Aug 2018" is changed to $1100.  (without notice, just changed history in online billing)

And then either (a) ask for top-up payment for the past year of paid premiums, or (b) reassign your past payments and claim you were thus short a few months back and attempt to cancel your health insurance back to that date?

Yes, this happened to us.  And seems just wrong.  So, are past paid premiums allowed to be changed?  A pointer to any relevant official documents/paragraphs on this is appreciated to.

Thank you.

My question is about the alternative wellness credit rule and how that impacts biometric screenings in remote work locations. 

We would like to use a national Lab to do our Biometric Screenings. Unfortunately, some of our job locations do not have a national retail lab nearby them. The national lab could send electronic interfaces that would allow wellness credits to be provided to employees without using to much of the benefit department staff. Are we required to provide an alternative solution for biometric screenings for remote work sites that would not have a national lab near them or could those employees be excluded, unless they are willing to drive several hours to a lab retail location, to avoid manual payroll credit entries. In other words, possibly avoiding giving credits for each employee doctors lab work with manual upload files for small town remote locations. At some point we would like to maybe do mail order kits, but not right now.

Where a trust/trustee is located in one state, but the plan and its beneficiaries and the unrelated business are located in another state, what state law applies when considering taxation of UBIT?  

A state government offers a Section 125 cafeteria plan to state employees.  However, I have the same question even if it's a private employer.  A sales person from another company is approaching the state/employer, saying that his company can offer a second plan that will supplement or compliment the first plan.  I'm very leery of promises that seem to be too good to be true from sales people.  Can the state/employer tack on another plan without running into trouble?  Even the logistics of trying to operate 2 plans seems confusing, but just because it's beyond my scope of understanding doesn't mean it can't be done, I suppose.

In considering whether tax legislation has a realistic possibility in the lame-duck remainder of the current Congress, do we know whether Congress can use budget reconciliation to act on a simple-majority vote?  Or is once-a-year reconciliation used up (so that action in the Senate would require the cloture-granting supermajority)?

I'm skimming the regulations about whether offering different vesting schedules to different groups of employees would need to be tested for benefits rights and features. What I'm reading is that vesting schedules would not need to be tested for BRF. Is this correct? For example offering immediate vesting to HCEs but 6 year graded for NHCEs on the same allocation:

(ii)Exceptions to definition of other right or feature. Notwithstanding paragraph (e)(3)(i) of this section, a right or feature is not considered an other right or feature if it -

(A) Is an optional form of benefit or an ancillary benefit under the plan;

(B) Is one of the terms that are taken into account in determining whether separate optional forms of benefit or ancillary benefits exist, or that would be taken into account but for paragraph (e)(1)(ii) of this section (e.g., benefit formulas or the manner in which benefits vest); or

Proverbial takeover case - loan should have defaulted in 2006 at around $46,000.  Some payments have been made since but not many, and sporadically.  At 8.25%, John Hancock is carrying this at $75,000 now.

I'm referring this to an attorney, but just curious what BL mavens have to say as likely outcomes under VCP, or other thoughts.

Client withdrew funds from IRA, intending to redeposit that amount within 60 days and avoid the tax.  She is not going to be able to meet the 60-day deadline.

Can she withdraw an additional amount, then turn around and deposit it back into the IRA to cover the first withdrawal within the first 60-day period,  starting a new 60-day clock on the second withdrawal?  She thinks she will have the funds to cover it before the end of the second 60-day period.

Thanks!

the following showed up under the category Predictions by 2030

The problem is there are 2 parts to this one. the second part went 'unanswered'.

The first part is easy, Who are the Detroit Lions?

Seems to me a correct response to the second part would be

"No. Never ever. Even if hell freezes over. Even if they gave the Lions a 30 point lead to start the game. Even if the refs were bribed (more so than usual)"

Can an employer REQUIRE employees, thru payroll deduction, to contribute toward the cost of a self-insured MERP?  

I have an employer purchasing a high deductible plan from a carrier with a $2500 deductible.  They are having a TPA make that plan perform like a $500 deductible to each EE.  The 85% of the premium from the carrier is being paid by the employer and 15% is paid by the EE.  The employer wants to use a "Premium Equivalent" for the cost of the MERP, and have the EEs pay 15% of that as well.  

Does this sound compliant?  I've had 3 large TPAs tell me it is not.  Those TPAs don't support self-insured MERP plans either.  Would anyone be able to recommend a TPA in Illinois that support's self-insured MERPs?

thanks.

I recently came across an article (here) which suggested that including independent contractors in governmental 457(b) plans could cause those plans to lose their ERISA exemption.  The author contends that, while independent contractors are permitted to participate in 457 plans, the ERISA exemption applies to "governmental plans," which are defined in ERISA 3(32) as plans that cover employees.  (He acknowledges that plans that cover only independent contractors would be exempt in their own right because they don't cover any employees, but indicates that the governmental employer must maintain separate plans for employees and independent contractors in order for them both to be exempt from ERISA).

While I follow his logic, I can't say that I've seen any other support for (or even discussion of) this position.  Does anyone else agree or disagree with his position?

I have a plan that needs 414s testing.  For coverage purposes the plan is run disaggregated (applying the under 21/1 yos tested separately), for 414s, do I need to run the test disaggregated?

We have a 401(k) plan which is sponsored by an entity (Entity A). Entity A is owned by 3 other entities (Entity B, Entity C and Entity D) each with the same ownership % of 33.33%. Entity B and Entity D are disregarded entities, Entity C is just another partnership. The plan document does not list any controlled/affiliated group members.

Would the individuals owning 100% of the two disregarded entities be able to include the compensation earned from the disregarded entities in 401(a)(17) compensation for the 401(k) plan sponsored by entity A?

Participant A owns 100% of XYZ corp which sponsors the XYZ Plan.  As of 1/1/19, participant A will acquire a significant percentage of ABC corp, which sponsors the ABC Plan.  ABC and XYZ will be a controlled group as of 1/1/19.  XYZ corp is mostly management, ABC Corp is mostly non-skilled labor.

The ABC Plan and the XYZ Plan are both at the same recordkeeper, and the plans will have the same plan design and availability.  The only difference is that the ABC Plan has higher recordkeeping fees.  As of right now, they would prefer to keep the plans separate. 

I had a chat with the financial advisor (same advisor on both plans) the other day, and his concern is whether different pricing could be a nondiscrimination issue. 

My assumption is that the pricing difference is not arbitrary but based on assets, participation rates, and so forth. I believe that all participant features like loans and distributions have identical pricing.

It “feels” like a discrimination issue because the plan with mostly low paid labor is priced higher than the plan with mostly higher paid management, but each plan is priced on its own merits.

Maybe the turkey leftovers is making me overthink this...  Anyone see an issue with keeping the two plans separate based on the difference in pricing?

Hello,

I switched jobs earlier this year. Coverage with old employer (no HSA but has employer provided HRA) ends 11/30. New employer has only HDHP plans and I have signed up for a HSA - coverage begins 12/1. Is there a problem contributing to HSA starting 12/1 or should I defer to the 1st of the new year? Thanks.