E as in ERISA

Might also depend on whether any hces are key employees? I think what most are saying is that it's not per se discriminatory. But there are potentially some numeric tests at the cafeteria plan level that would need to be performed annually to see if it was discriminatory. So no one can tell you the answer. But the health plan benefits themselves don't present a discrimination issue because that is an insured plan. So if you don't use the cafeteria plan to pay for that benefit then you know for sure you don't have an issue.

The IRS limit is the greater of 50% or $10,000. The DOL rule says that there must be "adequate security" for the loan (but no more than 50% of the balance can be used for that purpose). However, if you use other collateral for security, the trustee should be prepared to take enforcement steps against such collateral in the event of default. So plans rules will often just use a 50% loan limit. A plan amendment could be necessary if they want to change that. Are they willing to incur $$$ to create the additional documentation for the collateral, possibly amend the plan, and then later possibly take enforcement action?

Many do because there are STATE law questions about whether they must be allowed to revoke it, etc.

That would be my reading. However, there are cases where you ignore that rule and count the ESOP shares. I'm not aware that required minimum distributions have any such exception. But I can't say that for sure.

See Section 318(a)(2)(B)(i) regarding attribution from trusts and related guidance.

Yes. And, if applicable, only one audit required.

If you charge them, you have to make sure that they are only paying their share. They can't be allocated a directed charge for their full share and then have the remainder allocated to everyone (including them) in an indirect charge. Then they'd be paying more than their share. The limit on the total is that it must be "reasonable." So you'd want to be sure its not way more than industry standards I guess. You need to inform them in advance that they'll be charged something. Then after you charge it you probably want the reports to clarify how much was charged. Depends on the plan. ERISA 404c has extra requirements re disclosure of expenses so if they're that type of plan then you have specific requirements. The plan isn't always clear about who is going to pay the expenses. Lots leave it open so either plan or sponsor can pay. So no violation if the wrong one pays. Make sure what you're doing doesn't violate current plan terms. Then consider leaving plan open. But being clear in SPD. Which is easier to update.

I thought that pax' comment covered that!

May depend on what purpose you're talking about. In order to get the deduction for the earlier year, you need to make it by the due date of the return. If you're matching 2005 contributions for calendar year company and plan then you need to make by due date of the 2005 return in order to get a deduction for tax year 2005. Otherwise you deduct it in 2006.

No. It must generally be made in advance of earning it. He can be allowed to change it using the five-year rule, etc.

So what kind of contributions are you talking about? What test failure? Matching contributions? ACP failure? Profit sharing contributions? General discrimination issue?

Wage base for Social Security? $94,200. There is a link for inflation-adjusted limits on the main page of benefitslink.com and other pages. It will take you to this. http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?name=415

Oh, I think that they were very aware of it. They just didn't care.

That doesn't make me feel good. I think that it's difficult to explain to knowledgeable persons how 409A and 457(f) jointly apply to a plan. I can't imagine these guys are going to get it...

See regulations under ERISA. 2530.200b-2(a)(2) says an hour of service includes an hour for which the employee is paid by the EMPLOYER for a period during which NO duties are performed due to incapacity (including disability). (i) says you don't have to count more than 501 of those hours. (ii) says you don't have to count the hours if paid for by disability insurance. Check your disability program and plan document.

How is the disability paid? The hours definition is not just hours worked, but generally hours for which you are paid regardless of whether worked or not worked. If the disability is paid through regular payroll, it's possible that the hours count. Depends both on how the disability and the plan define define terms and operate. Probably doesn't work. But worth checking to avoid amendment.

I'll start by saying I don't know Relius at all. But is it possible that you have to do an allocation of the expense to all participants first -- and then do an allocation of contributions to active participants only to cover their share? I understand that isn't what most want to do -- especially if the employer has historically paid the service provider outside the plan and/or doesn't want the participants to be upset seeing the fee allocation. But there is risk in doing an allocation that shows up only on the terminees accounts. As the others note, the allocation should only be their share of the expenses; they can't be paying for anyone else's share. And one of the ways to make sure that is the result is to do the allocation across the entire plan and then have it offset by a contribution in the actives accounts. From what I've seen, the ones that are just trying to charge a flat fee to terminees accounts often don't have good support or documentation for the fact that the employer is paying a like amount for the actives. That is not a good result.

Yeah. I was being sarcastic.

I wonder if he ( http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=31012 ) told the DOL that this helpful FAQ is "wrong" too. For example, the DOL thinks that courts issue DROs!!! A state authority, generally a court, must actually issue a judgment, order, or decree or otherwise formally approve a property settlement agreement before it can be a domestic relations order under ERISA. The mere fact that a property settlement is agreed to and signed by the parties will not, in and of itself, cause the agreement to be a domestic relations order. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_qdro.html

Be careful of your wording. "Published by the Commissioner" is usually a catchall phrase used to indicate that the IRS can publish rulings, notices, etc. on the topic. The Treasury Department and IRS are usually jointly involved in regulations -- with Treasury being the lead on the "publication." Funeral expenses and casualty losses were added by regulations. So make sure that your wording is such that it includes them.

These were the proposed regulations on electronic delivery from this summer: http://benefitslink.com/taxregs/elec_notices_prop_reg.pdf The bigger issue was the spousal consent issue on QJSAs.

There are lots of 5500s filed with Schedule As showing different contract years. The company benefits people like things on a calendar year basis. But insurance people don't want all contracts bunched at year end. So it is common that they don't match.

Forgive my ignorance. I haven't kept up on HSAs guidance. Just read the statute when it came out. Thought that HSAs would have to be set up as separate individual accounts set up in the name of each employee similar to an IRA or individual 403(b)s -- so they are completely portable should the employee move on to another employer. Which would be a lot of administration. Has that changed?

Are you filing? If so, post-termination amendments that are made in order to get a favorable letter may still be considered "in connection with" the termination. See page 33 of the IRS' training. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epch902.pdf

Yes, you audit the entire plan and all benefits even if some of the benefits are not funded through the trust.