masteff

Oooh, my bad! After some digging, the best answer I can come up w/ is that it may vary by State, since Medicaid is managed by the States. So, I'm going to go with: call your individual state's program and ask if it's against their rules. I will say that while Medicaid is "payer of last resort", I didn't see anything that addressed employer inducements in the same manner that the Medicare Secondary Payer rules do.

My current understanding is yes but only if it's done under a 125 plan and done for all employees, not just Medicare eligible employees. http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba...uthcheckdam.pdf http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba...uthcheckdam.pdf http://benefitblog.com/2008/using-opt-out-...-for-employers/

This is where you went astray.... plan entry date is not a legal term although it might be a defined term in your plan. What I'm guessing is that it's a term used in your TPA's software or on your auditor's check list. From your last post, what you're really trying to get at is "participation date" (which also is not a legal term). You quoted two paragraphs that begin w/ "you become a participant on".... that is your answer. Stop there and don't overthink it unless you can come back to us w/ a definition of "Plan Entry Date" that comes from your plan document.

While this reg specifically relates to the elapsed time method of crediting service, I'd argue one year of no service as being the limit. 1.410(a)-7(b)(2) "(2) Severance from service date. For purposes of this section, a “severance from service” shall occur on the earlier of— (i) The date on which an employee quits, retires, is discharged or dies; or (ii) The first anniversary of the first date of a period in which an employee remains absent from service (with or without pay) with the employer or employers maintaining the plan for any reason other than quit, retirement, discharge or death, such as vacation, holiday, sickness, disability, leave of absence or layoff."

Why try to split that hair knowing that the Service has gone after plans and participants in this type of scenario for being sham transactions? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=43314 http://www.spencerfane.com/IRS-Cautions-Ag...nts-02-27-2012/

It was debated recently in this thread: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=51935 The general consensus seemed to be that finishing out the final 4 payments was not a problem. Personally, I would and I have let the final payments run like normal and not think twice about it.

Good find! It would be easy to create a bookmark using the URL in that link: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?a...;CODE=getactive And then you'd go there every time.

See slide #26: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epcrs_plan..._phoneforum.pdf

That was my answer too but not sure where to put my finger on the source.

Yes but view new posts is only available if you're logged in. Due to various reasons (general security, internet browser settings, etc), some people do not remain logged in. And view new posts is different from past 24 hours. If you haven't logged in for a week, view new posts will show you the whole week of posts. But the software sometimes decides you've read everything (as can happen if you leave the forum open while doing something else) making it harder to get back to an earlier-in-the-day post. In just the time I've been messing w/ this thread, the software has decided that I've already read at least one post that I haven't (which I only know by scanning down the last post info on the forum index page).

Two words: collectively bargained. The PPA 417(e) rate is for calc'ing a minimum lump sum, not a maximum. A plan could provide a "greater of" formula or an extended transition. Here's just one example: http://www.cwa6201.org/attbarg.cfm Edit: Opps, sorry for repeating part of Andy's post. I got sidetracked googling examples of plans still using GATT.

Here's a prior discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=33984

http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Phone-...etirement-Plans (I actually used google to find it... typed "irs phone forums" and then it suggested "irs phone forums employee plans" which gave the link above as a result.)

Form 990-T. Page 4 of the instructions addresses "if your only reason for filing is to claim a refund".

I wonder if the nuiance about it being a "marketing" company is an attempt at a QSLOB. (Said w/out going back to look up the requirements for a QSLOB.)

I'd also note: The SF instructions state you can only use that form if the plan meets certain requirements including: "Have 100% of its assets invested in certain secure investments with a readily determinable fair value". The EZ instructions have no corresponding note.

#1 thing is to stop doing it ASAP.

Was money available in another source and did the participant otherwise qualify for an available distribution option? Which would make it a simple administrative/recordkeeping error that might be fixed in the back office?

My answer would be: The plan has been operated this way since its inception and this is the established administrative interpretation of how imputed income is to be treated. If you ultimately went the amendment route, I think your basis would be Reg 1.414(s)-1©(3). See page 21 of this document: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd304.pdf However, first, I'd closely inspect your plan language that says what benefits are included in your definition of comp... if it says something like "w-2 only including benefits under these code sections", I'd argue the "only including" (or similar such words) means other excludable benefits are in fact excluded. I'd even argue it if the word "only" (or similar) was missing; it's implied. At a former employer, we had a wet behind the ears auditor try to tell us that the wrong compensaton had been used to calc some frozen benefits 10 years prior (despite being blessed by a dozen or more actuaries and other auditors). Which is to say, most auditors w/out plan experience have no understanding what their checklist means, which puts it on us to have to educate them.

My biggest question is can your systems accomodate such a provision (ie, can the technology handle it)? Most payroll systems drive eligiblity off a single date, so you need functionality that permits it to use 2 separate dates to drive the 2 separate calcs. Don't go down the rabbit hole of administring that manually... it's bound to become a mess.

The most expedient way is to contact the Journal of Pension Benefits publisher and ask for a back issue or reprint. The article you want was in a limited distribution print journal from the mid-90's so you're going to have to go old school.

As a refresher for everyone, here's the DOL Field Assistance Bulletin on missing participants: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2004-2.html To quote it in part: "In our view, some search methods involve such nominal expense and such potential for effectiveness that a plan fiduciary must always use them, regardless of the size of the participant’s account balance. A plan fiduciary cannot distribute a missing participant’s benefits in accordance with the distribution options discussed below unless each of these methods proves ineffective in locating the missing participant." From that, I see no way around using the SSA's service. Have you called the DOL? Even if they can't give you any better answer, they need to be flooded w/ calls about this so they'll realize they need to come out w/ updated guidance. But I bet they stand by their quoted statement about "potential for effectiveness" and won't give any new guidance unless the SSA quits offering the service.

How is the parenthetic actually worded? I would take the position that you understood it to apply to the entire match, not just the deferral component.

Just to clarify your exact meaning... it doesn't matter what the money "was used for", rather what matters is the paperwork that the participant submitted when applying for the hardship. Was the paperwork to payoff an outstanding loan or for properly allowable education expenses? What is in the file? If you have proper documentation on file, once the money is out of the plan, it's between the participant and the IRS. Also, check w/ the participant to verify if absolutely no allowable education expenses were paid in the following 12 months. Money is fungible. So if the participant did pay allowable expenses then it doesn't matter if they also paid down an outstanding loan.

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-consumer-cobra.html http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/pdf/cobraemployee.pdf "A qualified beneficiary generally is an individual covered by a group health plan on the day before a qualifying event who is either an employee, the employee's spouse, or an employee's dependent child." COBRA doesn't care about the circumstances of your employment contract or how the qualifying event came to be.