GMK

Here's a previous discussion: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/37296-top-heavy-ratio-and-rounding/

Agreed. The flow charts are meant to address Mr. Davis' concerns. FWIW, I think the "Are you employed with employer plan available?" question in the last flow chart will be replaced with something like "Are you eligible for coverage under a plan offered by an employer?" (for when a dependent calls the exchange). It's hard to imagine that they would not include a penalty for failure to meet a pay or play requirement, but that is what it appears to be.

A flow chart of what coverages (and if subsidies/credits) are available through an exchange: http://www.naic.org/documents/committees_b_consumer_information_130319_flow_chart.pdf

You marked the contribution form as a Roth contribution. You paid the taxes. All that's left is for the custodian to call it a Roth account, and you're done. If the custodian is not correcting the account characterization, write them a letter (send it certified, delivery receipt requested). Phone calls work only sometimes.

My response is the same as before: RMD's are due from ABC retirement plan http://www.irs.gov/R...ributions-(RMDs) or are you asking if he has to start selling off his ownership?

Is this a different ABC Company from the one in your post earlier today? http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?/topic/53254-required-minimum-distributions/

RMD's are due from ABC retirement plan http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Plan-Participant,-Employee/Retirement-Topics---Required-Minimum-Distributions-(RMDs) or are you asking if he has to start selling off his ownership?

This probably doesn't matter as far as HIPAA protections are concerned, since the company is now aware of the complaint. If there's a history of other cases where the company has required that complaints be made to a company official, that may count some, but that scenario is not likely. As long as the employer has work-related reasons for firing the person and adequate documentation to show the problems and to show that the employee had been made aware of the probable consequences of the employee's continued poor performance, you have a chance of winning the retaliation claim case. But you already know all this.

My understanding is that since the person has reached age 70-1/2 in 2013, an RMD is due for 2013. The person can wait until April 1, 2014, to take the distribution, but the first portion of any distribution in 2013 is deemed to be RMD until the RMD amount for 2013 is satisfied. No? edit: typo

Tread carefully. Nowadays, an employer generally may not take adverse employment action against an employee because of an employee's actions if the employee's actions are based on what the employee reasonably believes to be a protected right, like HIPAA rights. It is reasonable to expect a retaliation claim if the reason you fire someone is that they claimed that their HIPAA rights were violated. Even if you can prove that the rights were not violated, they can claim they were acting in good faith on what they believed were their protected rights, and the odds of a happy ending go downhill from there. An employer should not expect to be given deference in such cases. The only good advice you'll get here is what Mr. Rigby says: talk to your legal counsel.

I found these flow charts helpful, especially the first one: http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basics/employer-penalty-flowchart.aspx http://healthreform.kff.org/en/the-basics/requirement-to-buy-coverage-flowchart.aspx http://healthreform.kff.org/the-basics/access-to-coverage-flowchart.aspx

As I read it, the answer is no. If the coverage offered by the employer to its workers is not affordable or does not provide minimum value (either one), then the employee can choose to buy coverage in an exchange and receive a premium tax credit. If an employee receives a credit or subsidy, the employer pays the penalty. Chaz's question is much more interesting. If no employee receives a credit or subsidy for exchange coverage, but a dependent of an employee gets coverage in an exchange and receives a credit or subsidy, is the employer penalized?

Looks like either way is OK: http://esoppartners.com/blog/bid/137168/ESOP-Administration-Release-of-Shares-Part-1-General-Rule http://esoppartners.com/blog/bid/137715/ESOP-Administration-Release-of-Shares-Part-2-Special-Rule The Plan Document will say which one applies to your plan. and there's this: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2002-1.html

An interesting construct to get the area of a circle. It's cool. I like it. Not to mention how much easier it is than having to press the pi key on the calculator or to type pi into google.

and to you, Tom. How exciting! pi continues to have a transcendental power to increase my circumference ... excercise moderates the effect, but it doesn't taste as good.

First two things that come to mind: 1. Dividends paid on stock in the ESOP go into the participants' ESOP accounts (cannot be passed through to participants). 2. Pass-through earnings to the ESOP are not taxed, of course, but are added to the basis of the stock in the ESOP. This is not too tough to do, but it's an added administrative task.

and now it's 31313! pre-Mayan and pre-Eden. mostly, Happy Hinesville, Ga, Day

I think you hit the nail on the head, leevena. Looks like HR needs to explain 125 to the employer and at a minimum fix the procedure.

google found this well written summary: http://www.mbwcpa.com/category/80/Tax_Benefits_of_Section_125_Cafeteria_Plans.htm which includes that deferred comp cannot be a benefit option, and impermissible benefits put plan qualification at risk. So if the insurance can be cancelled and the payments continue (which they must without a qualifying event), what is the qualified benefit the employee receives for these payments to nowhere?

And what is the qualified benefit the employee gets from / through the plan in place of receiving cash? Or am I missing the point?

No later than the first day of plan year after meeting eligibilty. (a)(4)(A) in this: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/410 I hear no laughing, and it's rude to point.

No clue about calendars, except I read that that Adam died in 3113 BC, and the Mayan long count calendar (whatever that is) started in August 3114 BCE (-3113). Google also found Section 3113 (sequestered in 31 USC), the purpose of which seems timely: "To provide the people of the United States with an opportunity to make gifts to the United States Government to be used to reduce the public debt" ... good thing we found that "0." Ah, and the 3113 in 40USC is about Acquisition by condemnation, but that seems a little harsh. BTW, thanks for insisting on my taking this brief break this afternoon. It's been one of those days.

Happy 3/1/13 I know! I just noticed it myself.

cool shirts, masteff. I like the mirror one: 3.14 | PI.E Maybe it's irrational, but we like the pi at this place: http://www.hubbardavenuediner.com/PIDay.aspx One of their several clever t-shirts reads: "occupi hubbard"

Not that it matters, but it could be that the plan already distributed the benefit to the beneficiary, so another distribution would be required for the last deferral/match deposit. And if there's a distribution fee, the fee might eat up the deposited amount with the beneficiary getting little or none of it. The employer could ask to have the fee waived in this case, but some chargers of fees are not accommodating. So, the employer may have a good motive, but that doesn't trump what must be done.