GBurns

A VEBA is a 501(c)(9) Trust for the payment of eligible medical expenses and other permissible benefits. A VEBA cannot be a 501(c)(3) organization. However, the sponsoring employer can be. A VEBA usually is not usually involved in the payment of property taxes unless it owns property, which is unusual. Qualifying for property tax exemption is more in keeping with being a 501(c)(3) than being a VEBA.

I found this Summary which explains IRS Notice 2018-99 from the employer's perspective in simpler terms. https://www.thetaxadviser.com/issues/2019/apr/qualified-transportation-fringe-benefit-loss-deduction-tax-reform.html I seems that employees can no longer use salary reduction to reduce their costs. I thought that TCJA meant "Tax Cut", as in Reducing Taxes but in many cases I am seeing a Tax Increase. Removing the pre-tax benefit eliminates this tax deduction for employees and reducing the deductability as an expense is an increase in taxation for the employer.

It might not be payable from Plan Forfeitures but this seems to qualify as a legitimate Plan Expense which would be allowed I would not look to 1.401(a)(31) which addresses the "offer": 1.401Requirement to offer direct rollover of eligible rollover distributions; questions and answers.(a)(31)-1 I would instead go by the on point : 1.402distributions; questions and answers. (f)-1 Required explanation of eligible rollover https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.402(f)-1

mal Point me to a few?

I do not have enough of the finer details to render much of an opinion, but from my experience, neither would you or the prospective client, simply because this is what I usually see in the promoting of very questionable wealth transfer or tax shelter schemes. The IRS has issued a few warnings over the years about what looks like similar schemes. I suggest that you do some searching on the issue.. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/ep-abusive-tax-transactions-s-corporation-esop-abuses-certain-business-structures-held-to-violate-code-section-409p https://www.irs.gov/irb/2004-06_IRB#RR-2004-4

I do not see why the covered individual's actual occupation is relevant. The issue is whether or not surrogacy for profit is excluded because it constitutes self-employment. If the participant is offering surrogacy services for profit, the participant is generating self-employment income. which should be reported either on Schedule C or on a 1120/1120S. It is also possible that the participant might be subject to a W-9 from the surrogacy beneficiaries which would definitely prove self-employment. In either case surrogacy for profit is self-employment.

I have to first ask Why was this included in the CBA discussions? I do not think that the signing of any agreement between 1 employer and any union can prevail over the multiemployer plan which is between a group of employers and does not include the union or the CBA. A participating employer does not have the power to bind the Plan and the Plan is not a party to the CBA. In any case, it is usual and customary for participating employers to readily be provided with detailed claims information on request. I have never heard of any Plan, TPA or Insurer, refusing to readily supply this detailed claims info. The providing of detailed claims information is required under State Insurance laws and Unfair Business Practices laws.

I thought that SUB Trusts were under 501 (c)(17) and could only pay unemployment benefits: https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/supplemental-unemployment-benefits-trust-501c17 Whereas a 501(c)(9) cannot be used for SUB payments. https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/other-non-profits/voluntary-employee-beneficiary-association-501c9 To answer your question, a stipend for bereavement leave should be acceptable if it is included as a benefit under your Welfare Benefits Plan's listing of covered welfare benefits. See Treas Reg 1.162-10 https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CFR-2015-title26-vol3/pdf/CFR-2015-title26-vol3-sec1-162-10.pdf

The problem is that: 1. Insurance premiums are quoted as a monthly rate. 2. The section 125 election is on a monthly basis. 3. The payroll is not set up to meet any whim and fancy situation that might occur. I doubt that your insurance coverage is really up on the date that you leave the job. Is this information coming from the Insurer or it it from your Benefits Dept? I would ask the Insurance company for verification.

I agree with all of the above. The issue of what is PHI is constantly disputed. However, you might find that there is an answer in either the Application for Coverage or in the HIPAA Information Release that the patient signed when the Patient was filling out the paperwork at the Doctor's Office. Either one or both should override any subsequent filing by a beneficiary to the Insurance carrier. The insurance carrier cannot override what the insured dictated. A beneficiary usually, in most cases gets only what the covered insured allows.

I do not have an answer for you but I do not see the problem. IMHO, the health plan prohibits coverage for self-employment related issues and this surrogacy is being done as such. It is therefore not covered.

I have never thought about this issue simply because I was long ago warned of the problems caused by mixing DB or any Prevailing Wage employees with regular employees. After having my first payroll audit failing because of mixing, i never questioned the warning.

In order to be deductible or to be excluded from being treated as taxable income an item must be either be a health insurance plan or a medical expense. This is determined under section 105 which defines and explains each item. I suggest that you first read the 1.105 Treasury Regs. rather than go by anyone's explanation.

Be sure that you really are getting correct and complete info from this client, especially about this "grant". I have never heard of such a 'grant" and think that it might be a misunderstanding by your client of a contract which falls under Davis-Bacon (DBRA) or SCA. These are Prevailing Wage jobs which dictate hourly wages and eligible benefits. The employee has no choice. It is entirely up to the employer and must cover all employees. I have heard that there are some States, Counties, Cities and a few other public entities who dictate similar "Prevailing Wage" and "Living Wage" contracts which have the same or similar requirements.

The definition and the eligibility of any employee health benefit whether insured, or self-funded is determined under IRC 105.

The K-1 is for distributed "income" or the beneficiary's share of trust income, deductions, credits etc.. "Distributed income" is defined as per governing state law and the documents. Payment of expenses from assets are not income distributions. I do not see the applicability here even if for some reason a taxable trust is used.

I think that your question should be " In the real world, does an employer separately account for participant contributions, employer contributions, administrative expenses and stop-loss policy premiums?" To which the answer is YES. Every accounting system provides such separate accounting, for example, the employee contributions would first appear on the Payroll Report as an item under Payroll Payables (or very similar name). It is necessary or reconciling each payroll etc. The Stop-Loss Premium would appear in an Accounts Payable Account most likely under the name of the Insurer who submitted the Invoice.

I distinguish that recent ERISA Advisory Opinion because the case under discussion does not refer to payments from the stop loss policy but instead refers to the "rebate" as coming from less than expected claims. My opinion is that since the employee share is a % of the total amount "set aside" for the "expected claims", it is subject to the same % of any reduction of that amount that was "set aside".

Remember that the insurance contract (which is stste regulated) is not the employer's health plan (which is ERISA regulated). The insurance contract is only the way that the benefits under the employer's health plan is provided. These are 2 different issues.

Zorro1k. You must be kidding. There is no state that does not already have and pay for a section 125 plan. Since they do pay those fees, it stands to reason that there would be no law against paying for an FSA to be included, if not already built in but just not used. I also cannot think of any state that does not have an FSA..

I don't know much about the issue, but, I have to wonder why the sale is of concern. You stated that the dental practice was a Corporation. The sale was a sale of the ownership of the stock certificates, so all that happened was a change of ownership. What does this have to do with the continuation of the Plans? You also mentioned that ".... we have a partial termination.... ". Why ? Why do you have a "short" plan year? I do not see the relevance of being "employed on the date of the sale".

Bird How do you account for the "sudden influx of money" that comes from a Death Benefit? There is no connection between the CSV and Premiums which you would have recorded and the DB.

While you are correct that Form 8928 has been in place since 2010, it was effective for plan years beginning on or after January 01, 2010 which would make the first reporting year be 2011 which is why I think that it is too new to have caused any audits. I noticed that Part IV Tax Due or Overpayment Line 41 makes no provision for an exactly $0 Tax Due return; 41. Tax due. Subtract line 40 from line 39. If less than zero, enter -0-, and go to line 42. If the result is greater than zero, enter here and attach a check or money order payable to “United States Treasury. Write your name, identifying number, plan number, and “Form 8928” on your payment

I should have asked you, How do you know that they are really 1099 IC and not employees? How was this determined? Just because they get 1099s mean that this is their correct classification. Classification is not detemined by either the Moving Company or the person, There are rules set by the state and the IRS. Penalties for misclassification are very severe.

I doubt it plus the cost to set up the Trust and to maintain it should be prohibitive since there are only 80 contractors. The main problem is that being ICs they are each an employer which would create a MEWA. It is possible for the moving company to include ICs in their medical coverage, but that would need an amendment to the Plan Document and approval by the insurance company. Also, state insurance law has to allow it and there are a few which do not, but, the insurer should know. Remember that the ICs cannot participate in the Cafeteria Plan, so their premiums would be after tax, but they can deduct on their 1040.