oriecat

I wasn't overly concerned about the I-9s, I was more uncomfortable with handing them the entire employee file for departed individuals. And rationally, I realize that the auditors wouldn't use any of the information, they would just verify what they are looking for. I think my reaction at first was just that, a reaction to a changed procedure. And as a payroll professional, I am very protective of giving any information out, especially if I don't know why. The auditors already have access to the payroll data through their access to our plans account, so I'm used to that. I don't think I'm making a big deal out of anything, I was just wondering why they would want these things. I'm not fighting giving them what they need.

I called to talk to them about it, and they want the I-9 to verify the birth date, and the file to verify termination date. I said I wasn't comfortable giving them the whole file, but would make copies of the separation sheet or resignation so they can see the date they want, and she said that is ok.

Our auditors for our 401(k) plan are coming tomorrow, and they just faxed me a listing of requested stuff they will want to see and this year, they are asking for I-9s for new enrollees and employee files for departed participants. They have never asked for these things before and I find them very odd and I am a bit uncomfortable with this. Is this normal practice? Why would they want those things?

Do you realize this post is 3 years old and the original poster probably isn't checking this thread anymore?

Since the company can set the health FSA limits, I think it would depend upon exactly how your plan document was written. Does it say anything about limiting for couples?

I have to disagree with this. The COBRA regs are very specific about what the qualifying events are, and this does not qualify. I do agree with the beginning of your post though, and I really don't see how the carrier can just decide to term this person off. Is the person still working in the original state? Most of the insurance contracts I have seen require that the employee live OR work in the service area, and if this person will still be working there then they should still be eligible for coverage, imo.

I had the same question a couple years ago, except the change was a birth instead of a marriage. I asked my TPA and they agreed that it should not qualify, but they said their system has no way of actually tracking that, so it would get paid anyway.

Depending upon who is covered, I will send it as: Joe & Nancy Employee Joe & Nancy Employee & Covered Dependents Joe Employee & Covered Dependents

I like avatars, they break up all the blue space with some new colors.

Wow, that's really rude. People here are trying to help you understand the nuances of these insurance issues and you just get personal like that. You could have easily said, "no we have taken all of the legal steps necessary to protect ourselves, so we don't need to get married" and moved on, so why did you have to make a comment about Mary like that? I realize people have not told you the things you wanted to hear, but that's life. Deal with it and move on. Don't snap at those who took time to try and help you.

That's his handle, not his title. His title is Bounty Hunter.

According to my EBIA ERISA Compliance book, No.

Note, I am no expert in these matters, but these are my understandings... Yes, COBRA should be offered. It doesn't matter what new plan they would have been covered under if they continued employment, the fact of the matter is that they were covered under the union plan as of their termination, and therefore that plan must offer them COBRA (if they are otherwise required to offer COBRA to participants). I don't believe Medicare eligibility would have any effect, unless they are not currently enrolled and later enroll. Just like having other coverage at the time of the qualifying event does not negate your COBRA rights, Medicare is the same way.

To my understanding, the two elections are separately and must be accounted for separately and you cannot transfer funds from one to the other.

Hmm, that's interesting. We have MetLife too and I am not aware of any beneficiary restrictions. I better look into this...

I don't know anything about VEBAs! Posting a separate thread is probably a good idea.

Ignore devilliers, it's a spam post.

Hi Dave I think it's an interesting idea, I can definitely see the motivation behind doing it. I just hope you don't get overrun with spam replies. But it is always easy enough to turn off should that happen. Thanks for the explanation.

Hi, I noticed a guest post a reply on a topic. Is that supposed to happen? I thought you had to register to use the forum. Just wanted to bring it up in case it is an oversight.

I had a guy who wanted to cover his unborn child before! I said, umm No, that's healthcare for the mother, if you want her covered, then marry her. He said no, that's my baby, I should be able to have his care covered. Oy.

In today's EBIA weekly, there is an article about a case involving an adopted child and it includes a reminder about ERISA's adopted children mandate. "ERISA group health plans covering dependent children of participants or beneficiaries must provide the same benefits to such children who are placed for adoption that are provided to natural children of participants or beneficiaries. The mandate applies whether or not the adoption has become final..." The first part makes perfect sense, since a dependent is a dependent once covered, so what kind of a dependent shouldn't matter, but I don't understand the part about whether or not the adoption has become final. If the adoption isn't final, then how would the child be covered? If the adoption isn't final, then it just seems to me that they wouldn't be considered a dependent yet and couldn't be covered yet. At what point in an adoption would the child be eligible for coverage?

No, the qualifying events for COBRA for an employee are termination or reduction in hours, neither of which apply in the situation you stated.

It's not taxable income, because it falls under the exclusion from income in IRC 105.

Interesting discussion... our plan requires spousal consent for loans (I'm not sure about other inservice distributions...) so I thought that's just how it was. I guess it was a plan decision.

Even if that is true (which I don't think it is), you would still have an issue with the 25% DCAP Key employee test.