GBurns

rcline46 Why would a non-US based company issue W2s? W2s etc are reporting forms for US payrolls and US withholdings etc. If a payroll is non-US it has no US reporting therefore no W2 or W3 etc.

Are you saying that Sal (or the above cite from Sal) is contrary or in conflict with the Regs? If so where and how?

Good point tcv!! What is the legal rationale for paying an employee (not an Independent Contractor) on a basis other than hourly, salary, commission or piece work (which I do not think is still allowed but which has/had a statutory provision)?

That should have been October 21 where you posted "Actually, a large number of Fortune 500 companies sponsor PEPs. See the IBM case mentioned above." Your post is in the present tense meaning currently. Sponsor not sponsored and yoy cied an example namely, IBM. As for the number of sponsors who have converted, that can be extrapolated from many of the reports such as the Hewitt report and exampled by IBM who "converted" in 1999. No one has said that anything about converting back to traditional and no one has said anything about any flight to safety etc.

Do you have any reference cites etc showing what each state has?

How much more costly is it to set up and to maintain using a Non-Standardized vs a Standardized? Any pointers on where to look?

Why would the document software provider be the controlling factor as to whether or not a Plan Document can be changed to better meet the needs of the Plan?

Harry O So that brings us back to the point raised in your post of August 21 in which you claimed that a large number of Fortune 500 companies sponsor PEP Plans and in which you also claimed that IBM does. I pointed out that this was not so and you argued. As per your posts, the article, the discussion and the case, IBM USED TO sponsor, in other words they do not any longer sponsor a PEP Plan, it was converted years ago. As I pointed out this seems also true of most of those who HAD a PEP Plan. As a result very few Fortune 500 companies have a PEP Plan in 2003 and few ever had.

Isn't sales tax part of the cost of the item??? Do you deduct the sales tax or other taxes and fees from the hospital or other provider charges? Do you even look to see if there are any?

One of the reasons that some discussions seem to go in circles etc etc is a difference in the definitions used etc. HarryO, You posted, "Well-drafted PEP plans have this protection spelled out in the document and well-administered PEP plans have this safeguard built into the system. This issue was discussed in the IBM case and the court ruled against IBM even though the plaintiffs could show no employee who suffered such a reduction." The problem with your post and logic is that I cannot find where the court ruled against IBM regarding a PEP Plan NOR where it was even discussed. The ruling and discussions were against the IBM Cash Balance Plan which was adopted in 1999 to replace the PEP Plan.

The funds for Terri's care including rehabilitation were already provided in the malpractice settlement awarded.

I notice that on the esop.com website they do not claim that the have actually done these ersops, instead the claim is made that they have put in over 300 of these plans but notice ERSOPs are not listed among the "these". I also see no mention of IRS or other approval of their ERSOP. And I find it curious that they did not use a sample letter as sales material. The IRS Determination Letter seems to be related to the 401(k) and Trust and NOT to the ERSOP. To me it is a site well written so as to not be specific.

I have to presume that the people at Hewitt and the lawyers, actuaries and other pension professionals who testified and provided evidence in the IBM, Xerox and other cases have as much large plan experience and familiarity as any of us, regardless of what Harry O, might think. This is a link to a Hewitt report. Notice that a differentiation is made between PEP. Cash Balance AND OTHER hybrids. In other words they are not the same things. The same differentiation is made in the IBM case and dates are given for each change. A change would also mean that there is a difference between the types of plans beyond the change of name. the fact that a plan "is a final average pay plan" does not necessarily make it a PEP plan. http://was4.hewitt.com/hewitt/resource/leg...crimination.htm By the way, the Hewitt report states 25 - 30% of Fortune 500 have converted to these hybrids. PEP plans being one of these hybrids would therefore have a portion of this 25-30%. Considering that there is public information that the majority were Cash Balance, who went PEP changed to Cash Balance, it seems that PEP plans would have a small portion of 25-30% not taking into account those that changed back to traditional. How many are still PEP and whether it is statistically significant, I do not know.

And to spend the malpractice award on making sure that Terri continues to get medical treatment after her death. After all the executor and heir has expenses that they will incurr in making sure that the money is spent for the purpose awarded.

Actually IBM does not sponsor a PEP Plan. In 1995 IBM converted their Plan to a PEP then later in 1999 converted to a Cash Balance Plan. See the IBM case transcript etc. Very few Fortune 500 companies use a PEP version.

A search on Google will give you lots of sources of information on PEP Plans.

An interesting but very disturbing topic was raised on the "Miscellaneous Benefits" Forum by Dave Baker. I urge and plead with all readers of this Forum to read it and give some assistance.

An interesting but very disturbing topic was raised on the "Miscellaneous Benefits" Forum by Dave Baker. I urge and plead with all readers of this Forum to read it and give some assistance.

An interesting but very disturbing topic was raised on the "Miscellaneous Benefits" Forum by Dave Baker. I urge and plead with all readers of this Forum to read it and give some assistance.

After listening to one of the family members on a radio broadcast on Saturday afternoon, I have spent a few hours reading up on this very sad case. I have since joined those who have emailed the Governor and politicians in the hope that they will intervene and get, "as one lawyer" requested, a "time out" to that the issue can be investigated and side issues resolved. This case seems not to be about the right to life or the right to die as much as it is a case of the manipulation of a failed judicial system and failed social services and criminal justice. I also place a lot of blame on Terri's friends and family. They have had years in which to have taken action to ensure that criminal investigations into the allegations regarding the husband. There was also time regarding the allegations made by the various nurses and care givers. There was time to have had the husband removed as guardian or at least monitored. There was no need for all of this to be last minute. I do hope that good sense prevails and that Terri is spared. If there is anyone reading this who has not intervened with an email to Gov Bush, a Florida politician, your Party State officials, your Senator and Congressman even if not in Florida, the US Attorney General, President Bush and the newsmedia, ANYONE, ANYWHERE, PLEASE take a few seconds and try to do something to get this matter reviewed in a timely and just manner regardless of your position on right to die etc. This is not a right to die or any other such issue, it is an issue of a miscarriage of justice. The lady needs a fair hearing, give her a chance.

True the employer can set any rules regarding who can set foot on his property, but then he might be violating his contract with other company and might only be doing so out of a misunderstanding or lack of knowledge of the contract terms of this new arrangement by whomever denied entry to John C. Most employees are not aware of the specific of the contracts that their employing companies enter into. Very often wellmeaning employees do the wrong thing. Most employees even in HR are not aware of the ramifications of non-compete agreements or restrictions on the right to employment etc of ex-employees. Trying to "reach through" and claim co-employer status is something that the employer really might want to condier carefully. Then again, we really do not know what was said and the authority etc of that person.

I would say that we do not yet know what is legal or not. To say that they would not allow you back into the building etc because you took a "package" does not give any info nor does it constitute an explanation of a denial. I suggest that the company that you are now working for should get the reasoning and legal basis for the denial of entry in writing from your ex-employer. as the first step.

When comparing you have to adjust each so that they all have the same criteria. 1, 5, 10 year is not sufficient. The start and end date, the frequency of contributions, deductions for fees etc etc makes a big difference.

aKatherine, The problem with your above example is that you are making up your own scenario and your own figures which, of course, reflect a negative or "unfair" outcome because that is what your mindset is. The reason that I did not address your previous 401(k) example was because I felt that you would not understand the tax treatment, and I was right given what you then posted, namely, "But you don't get credit under 125 discrimination rules for an employee's choice of transportation benefits under 132." Aside from the obvious What does discrimination have to do with it at this stage? question, I have to point out that the tax benefits under 132 are no different from those under 125, the employee gets to pre-tax their deduction which in turn reduces the employer's matching FICA, that basically is all there is to it. Further Re:"And you have dollar limits under 132 that you don't have under 125." This statement in your last post contradicts your previous scenario "The officer wants to spend $20,000 on retirement benefits and $4,500 on medical premiums and $500 on an FSA and $5,000 on dependent care and $2,400 a year on parking. He wants 4 weeks of vacation and holidays. The employee only wants to spend $1,200 ($100 a month) on transit passes." $500 to an FSA is a whole lot less than $1,2000 on transit passes. Since $1200 is always more than $500, What does the dollar limit matter?

Assisted suicides and mercy killings are 2 separate things. I stated that there was no "rush" regarding merck killings and your response states nothing regarding this. I stated that there were very few assisted suicides and you responded with 126 in 1 state. This is the sort of hysteria and faulty logic that clouds rational thought. How many states have not legalized assisted suicide? What percentage of the US population does that represent? Legalized marijuana covers more of our population but that still has not yet constituted a "rush" or even interest beyond a cursory level. Hurricanes affect more people but that does not have the nation trembling in fear or being righteously indignant. The actions of 1 small not very densely populated state is not cause for me to need to do reaearch, however, the fact that you do not or cannot realize the "smallness" of the issue directs the need for research and rational thought elsewhere.