GBurns

Most if not all public school districts are tax exempt employers, Are you saying that they can set up a 401(k)??? Or did you mean "some" rather than "any"? Why would the entity that exists after the merger be able to continue plans that it does not/did not sponsor? I do not think that it is yet clear that the entity will qualify as a successor organization. What is the arrangement being made with the employees and unions etc?

Is the new merged entity even eligible to have either of a 403(b) or 401(k)? What is the status of the resulting company?? Who is the successor employer? Does the sponsoring employer of each plan still even exist? Does either or any of the Plan Documents etc allow for survival (transfer or otherwise) upon such a merger or do the PDs require termination of the Plans when the sponsor ceases to exist as the employer or otherwise?

Isn't this precisely the problem that creates the BRF failure ..."The problem is that they will also be funding a potentially discriminatory amount for the partners throughout the year. "?

I do not see where there is an entity anywhere or that any basis for anything needs to be provided. Why shoot the messenger?. The Trustee is an individual who has been appointed to be a Trustee for Bankruptcy cases. This individual files a Schedule C. There is no state or federally licensed or chartered other "entity". It is not a dba. It is not the Schedule C Trustee who pays the employees nor is it the Trustee who withholds taxes or provides the W-2 etc but some other "entity" which uses a FEIN provided as a result of a questionable filing of a form. What is this employer "entity"? What form of corporate organization is it? Under what law does it exist as an entity? What exempts it from the various filing requirements? The last question I would expect is 1 questioning someone who questions the legality of this "entity" as explained in the 1 or 2 "original" post/posts. I would have expected that the entity would be questioned instead.

Scroll down the left side of this link to find both Internal Revenue Code section 105 and Treasury Regulations section 1.105 : http://www.legalbitstream.com/

There is nothing to be stressed out about as yet. Has he told you what the significance is and what the consequences are? Has he outlined your alternatives? Until all of these are known, there really is nothing to even think about. If he has not done these as yet I would consider changinf advisors. After all why call just to give bad news give and no solution or advice?

BNA on line and the Portfolios seems the best by far.

The answer will probably depend on how the LLC has chosen to be treated for tax purposes. Has it elected to be taxed as a Corporation or as a Partnership? If Corporation, C or S? In general, the LLC is a partnership and members in a partnership are treated as being "self-employed". Partners and the Self-employed are not eligible to participate in section 125 plans. I have never seen anything that exempts "de minimus" members or partners, but it should be researched further. Are these members listed in the ownership documents?

No, HRAs do not fall under section 125. However, in most cases they will be used in conjunction with or be related to the overall employee benefits program which most likely will have a section 125 component. Maybe you should start first by learing about HRAs etc. Using the Benefitslink Search Engine you can find many articles like this 1 : http://www.kilpatrickstockton.com/publicat...il.aspx?ID=1101 You should also read the Revenue Ruling and Notice from the IRS that explains thier position. It is quite possible that you really do not want an HRA. What are you trying to accomplish or solve and Why do you think that an HRA can help???? Yes, a Plan Document is needed but I have not yet seen 1 that I can refer you to as yet, maybe others have. I do not thinl that it is advisable to self administer, but that really depends on other factors including your plan design. Your plan design will dictate the complexity of administration and depends on what you are trying to accomplish etc with an HRA.

Agreed, but why would the employee be getting reimbursed simply because of not having enough earnings to cover salary reduction election? Is this a reimburseable expense? Re: ???? How would you have illustrated the post?

Why would you be reimbursing anything? According to my reading of your post, The employee elected to reduce monthly earnings by $300 for family medical coverage and $50 for FSA, but, as per your example only earned $0 in commissions or total earnings and therefore does not have enough to allow the salary reductions. What then do you mean by "you reimburse him only for the amount he has contributed."? What expense or loss would you be reimbursing? What "amount he has contributed" are you referring to?

"5 years ago I transfered existing whole life policies into my 401(k) profit sharing plan"... What did you classify this contribution as being??? A rollover? An elective deferral? An "Extra" incidental LI purchase? An explanation of this strategy would probably be greatly appreciated by all, I am sure.

The only increased financial liability that I can foresee is the possible increased out-of-pocket expenses that would be incurred by having to go out-of-network for services. This could easily be handled by a special separate section 105 MERP set up for those employees who travel. The employer simply picks up the eligible extra out-of-pocket expenses if incurred. This should be far less expensive that any additional insurance coverage even if available. If there is a fear that the employees might not have the money to pay and then wait for reimbursement, then some arrangement could be set up with a debit or credit card or there is always Western Union and wire transfers.

I guess that this ERSOP idea is spreading. This is a recent article that went to many accountants: http://www.accountantsworld.com/news/currn...spx?q1=43635112

What sort of two different documents?? 2 Plan documents, 2 Form 5500 ???

What does the accounting method of the employer or plan sponsor have to do with VEBA contributions? To accrue contributions as in National Presto was a different isssue as far as I can remember. It had to do with accruing (accumulating) the contibutions instead of depositing them, and had nothing to do with accounting methods (accrual or cash basis). 2 different meanings of accrual.

What do you mean by "just purchased a block of plans"?

In addition to what was suggested by jbentz, Ask if they would provide "Shock Claims" information above the minimum value that you need. This is a term that they will be more familiar with.

Usually the 403(b) in a public school is only facilitated by the school district so it is not the school's plan, it is the employee's plan. As a result the employee if free to stop and start (within the limits set) any plan as they wish provided that the new plan is one of those "approved" for use by that particular employer. In many cases the "approval" only means that the provider has a salary deduction slot on the payroll system. However, as pointed out by other posters, buying from a friend (or friend of a friend etc) or in the scenario that you have pointed out might not be a good thing to do.

I notice that the manufacturer only makes the claim that it is registered as a Medical Device but does not indicate that it was approved or given clearance etc. nor classification nor the required labeling and product information on the marketing materials on the website. All I see is an unsupported vague claim. Here is a brief idea of what is required etc in order to be or be properly called a Medical Device: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/devadvice/3122.html#introduction

It seems that the qualifier is the medical practtitioners note, which would put it in the "Allowed" list. However, it is very unlikely that the note would recommend an OTC instead of something like Peridex or Hydrogen Peroxide (32%).

Doesn't the answer depend on whether or not the Claims Administrator decides that it is for "medical care" or for personal (cosmetic) use?

What happens when an employer is served a wage garnishment from the IRS, does the deduction to satisfy the garnishment have priority over deductions for FSA etc? What orders have priority over Salary Reduction Agreements? If any (such as the IRS garnishment) takes priority does it matter that as a result the amount of the remaining usual deductions for health insurance and FSA etc would reduce the net pay to an amount that is less than minimum wage? If any have priority and cause the amount left to be insufficient to satisfy the Salary Reductions needed for health insurance or FSA etc, What do you do?

I mean no offense to anyone nor am I disparaging anyone, but I am really at a loss for a better explanation for that which I am seeking. In the world of Pension Plans there is Sal Tripodi who is regarded as an expert especially in the area of ERISA. I am trying to find the equivalent person or persons in the area of the taxation of employee accident and health benefits. Can anyone make any suggestions?

Appleby, This subject is not an area of expertise for me so I have reread so that I understand what each person posts, However, rereading still did not help me understand the point that pax was trying to make by suggesting that Sal write some of the Regs. I could only come to the conclusion that he (pax) was implying that Sal was wrong but he did not state where or how and I could not see the rationale or relevance of his statement and wondered if I had missed something.