Curious if anyone has any insight into tis issue.

A group health plan has 2 employers who are under common ownership. Upon renewal, one of the companies (it's a separate entity that operates separate from the other) has decided to drop the plan (no longer offer benefits to its employees). The second company is continuing to offer a plan.

Does the second company have to offer COBRA to the first company's employees? I know that, if a company discontinues a plan, COBRA doesn't have to be offered. Does the continued existence of the plan (without the first company's employees) trump this rule?

Thanks so much.

Calendar Year new comparability profit sharing plan added 401k deferral option effective 10/1/12. Can EBARS for ABPT be calculated in two pieces: One piece based on the employer base allocation based on annual comp and the second piece based on teh 401(k) deferrals based on comp from 10/1/12 to 12/131/12? If not, any help will be appreciated. Thanks.

I have looked at other posts on this, but welcome feedback on this simple scenario:

1. Plan provides for deferral contributions and matching contributions. Distribution of these amounts can be lump sum or installments, at the participant's election.

2. Plan also provides for employer non-elective contributions. Employer would like to provide that these amounts are only paid in lump sum.

The matching and non-elective contributions are aggregated under the plan aggregation rules.

Can the plan provide the desired "lump sum only" treatment for the non-elective contributions, even though installments are an option for the matching contributions?

It was my understanding that after the initial disclosures were made in 2012, there is only a requirement to provide 408(b)(2) information on an ongoing basis if there are changes to the initial information. However, a colleague of mine believes the notice is required to be sent to plan sponsors annually, even if there are no changes to the fees or services provided. We are a Registered Investment Advisor and our current Service Agreement complies with the regulations without any changes. If anyone can shed some light i'd appreciate it.

Have a DC firm who has 3 employees in the UK. They were paying from US but it was very tricky apparently so they set up a UK payroll for them in some manner. So, are they eligible for the Plan? They meet eligibility but don't earn US income. Very confused. Please help.

Thanks.

Have established my own firm but now that there are staff in other states I need a good virtual phone system and other communication programs. Can anyone save me some time and give me some advise on this. We would like a virtual receptionist and the client ability to then dial by extension or dial to any of our desks. Also looking for virtual conference software.

Any hints would be great. Of course need this yesterday.

Thank You.

have a plan that does not allow for participants to take loans from the plan. the plan has acquired a new company that allows employees to have loans and there are 2 employees that have outstanding loan balances. the assets will transfer to the new plan. Can the outstanding loan balances be transferred to the new company and continue to make payments until paid in full? Or do they have to be defaulted and taken as income before the transfer of assets occurs? They do not want to allow any new loans be taken out of the current plan.

Since many of the 2013 plans do not "fit" into the minimum value calculator (over $6,500 MOOP, etc.) and considering the carriers are not offering much assistance in this area, I am having difficulty determining whether to check the box indicating that the plans meet or not (see page 2 of the Model Notice). I understand already that half of this is contingent upon the "affordability" calculation but for those plans that do satisfy affordability, do we really need to get an actuarial review to determine the MV portion?

When reading the guidance, it seems to state that the Notice can be altered and I interpret it to possibly say that noting whether the 2013 plan meets MV can be left off completely. Here is the guidance http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr13-02.html

Thoughts? TIA!

Small employer is considering changing health insurer. The new insurer needs medical information for underwriting purposes. The employer's broker is collecting medical history forms from the employees and forwarding them to the new insurer.

The employer itself will not be receiving any PHI contained on the forms. The employer does not have a BAA with the broker not has it generally taken any steps to comply HIPAA's privacy rules

Any HIPAA privacy concerns?

Employee currently out on medical leave for non work related herniated disc and lateral recess stenosis. Employee is a CNA. Frequently lifts patients (that can weigh 100 lbs or more, carries, lots of reaching, walking, standing, personal care. She's been out several times due to this condition. She's exhausted FMLA and has started medical leave with no pay. Her spine doctor says its ok for her to return to work, no restrictions..

It's a revolving door. She works a couple of weeks then hurts her back, out a couple of weeks while she gets treatment. Gets better, comes back, works a couple weeks and then she's out again. Because she's in patient care, it's important to have a same care giver to provide continuity of care. Every time she goes out, the schedule has to be revised with the other CNAs and patients and families get upset.

The doctor was provided with a copy of her job description, but it seems he's just ignoring it. He doesn't want to tell her the bad news, which is she can no longer do this type of work and expect for her medical condition to get better.

Since I have a doctor telling me it's ok for her to return to work, do I have to let her? It's not FMLA, she's exhausted that, she on our 90 medical leave.

Which just started....

She wants to come back, but said to me that she knows that she keeps doing the same thing over and over and that expecting a different result is the definition of crazy.

Employees on medical leave are not guaranteed a position upon the end of the medical leave.

Any advice?

A Cash Balance Plan frequently amends to increase the hypothetical allocation to Non-HCEs in order to pass 401(a)(26). These amendments are adopted retroactively in accordance with Reg. 1.401(a)(4)-11(g). The required increase is not known until after testing is done at the end of the Plan Year.

Has anyone had an IRS agent reject these amendments, considering them part of a pattern of amendments being used to correct repeated failures?

11(g)(3)(vi) is cited.

Thanks.

ADDITION from Trekker -

Is the amendment for 401(a)(26) considered an amendment to a "Benefit, Right or Feature"? Is the hypothetical allocation in a CBP considered a BRF? The 11(g)(3)(vi) cite seems to refer to a pattern with BRF's,thus hope for this Plan's situation.

An employer has been approached by an employee who has asked for a pay reduction, which will allow the employee to qualify for Medicaid. Can/should the employer agree to this? I'm aware of prohibitions on incentivizing medicare-eligible employees from dropping their employer plans, and believe insurers cannot incentivize employees to participate in the Exchange rather than employer-sponsored coverage, but not aware of any similar prohibitions for Medicaid. The idea of it makes me uncomfortable, though.

We administer our payroll and most benefits (health care, 401k) under a PEO plan. We also have a 457(b) [and soon a 457(f)] Plan that the company administers because the PEO does not offer this plan. However, the employee contributions are reported to the PEO for reporting on the year end W2 reports and filing.

My question -- what EIN number should be used for the 457(b) and 457(f) plans - the company's or the PEO's? We set up the 457(b) Plan under the company's EIN because it was set up before we switched to the PEO. But as I am now setting up a 457(f) the question has arisen. I think it should be the company's EIN because until risk of loss is removed the assets belong to the company - but my common sense may not be what rules the day.

Advice is welcome.

I'm not sure if this is related to Andy's question earlier, which is why I'm posting it separately.

A DB plan with an early retirement subsidy is terminating. The plan was frozen in 1994 if that makes any difference.

When calculating the lump sum, is there any reason that you would NOT apply 417(e) rates to a lump sum where there is an early retirement subsidy?

I don't have a scrap of information to go onj other than what I've just posted, so this may be unanswerable without seeing what the document says, etc., but I thought I'd give the question a shot to see if it is a simple yes or no.

Thanks!

Any thoughts or advice on this issue welcomed. Parternship has cross-tested 401(k) / profit sharing plan which has all partners in a higher contribution rate group than other rate group. Partnership has last day of plan year requirement in order to receive discretionary contribution. Partnership has individual that has been an employee through the end of this month but will become a partner effective September 1st. Individual has already earned in excess of $255,000 as an employee. How should profit sharing contribution for this individual be calculated? Should the plan just use the lower percentage for the employee rate group taking into account "the first $255,000 earned" or instead try to maximize the higher contribution percentage possible from partner earnings for the period from September through December and then only fill in with employee earnings (at the lower percentage contribution) to the extent the partnership income does not reach $255,000 or instead do some pro rata apportionment based on the percentage of overall income earned as an employee versus earned income as a partner with the thought that no contribution is due and earned until the individual has satisfied the last day requirement and the partnership declared a profit sharing contribution for the year thus the partnership can look at the individual's overall earnings across the entire year?

A plan provides ye olde 1/15, 1/30 early retirement adjustment factor with e.r. as early as age 55.

The Plan is terminating and will pay lump sums. The employer is ongoing.

As I understand (possibly incorrectly), the distributions must include the early retirement subsidies, if any. That is, we should value the lump sum as the greatest of the lump sums that would start at all possible dates. For example, the lump sum to someone age 35, disregarding non-integral ages, would be valued as the greatest of the lump sums at age 35 of the pension starting at age 65 or the early retirement benefit at ages 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62. 63, and 64. This is far more unpredictable now that we have segment rates at play.

How has anyone handled this?

Not 1, but 2 participants in a small 401k plan have loans. Both now say they cannot continue to make the repayments and want to stop. They say that they will pay whatever penalties are involved, tax consequences, etc. Both are under age 50.

Can they just simply stop the loan repayments taken from their pay? Is that an option, they request through the Plan Administrator that the loan repayments cease?

Thanks

Going back to the 2006 plan year a participant has requested a hardship distribution each year and has requested another for the current year (prevent foreclosure). The sponsor is properly documenting the hardship. It seems as if the participant defers for 6 months, takes a hardship, sits out for 6 months and then starts the cycle again. What other steps should the sponsor take?

My client has the proper bond in place to cover the beginning of plan year assets and qualifies for the small plan audit waiver. During plan year 2012, they purchase real estate and as of the end of 2012, their bond did not cover 100% of the non-qualifying plan assets. Does the plan still meet the small plan audit waiver for the 2012 plan year due to the fact that the bond correctly covered the assets at the start of the plan year?

We are in the process of increasing the bond.

Thank you!

Would it be acceptable for a qualified defined benefit plan to base a pre-retirement death benefit, payable for the life of a beneficiary (who is a natural person), on the hypothetical election of a 100% joint annuity by the deceased participant, even if such a form could not actually have been elected as a retirement payment option because the beneficiary (the adult child of the deceased participant) is not the spouse and is 38 years younger than the participant ?

Presume that the participant is not survived by a spouse and the plan actually calls for such a death benefit, the beneficiary was properly designated, and that suitable actuarial adjustment factors are available and applied (including a reduction of almost 40% for the presumed election of the joint form).