GBurns

Here is one of the many examples that show that ERISA does not "pre-empt all state laws", whether related to fully insured or self-insured plans. It always depends on What is the issue?: http://www.ebia.com/weekly/articles/2003/ERISA030403KAHP.jsp

If you Auto Enroll people into a Plan, How do you determine how much they wish to contribute and what authorizes any salary reduction without a signed Salary Reduction Agreement? Enrollment/participation not being the same as contributing.

No. I said no such thing. ERISA pre-empts those laws that pertain to benefits not those that pertain to insurance etc. Payment of claims from providers is not a benefit issue and providers are not plan participants.

Why would they disallow something that was never deducted? You posted that the IRS is disallowing the $78,000 for the year that is being audited which is 1999 but which is also the tax return that has $0 deduction. What is the effect of the disalowance? Does it cause additional tax liability? However, you also posted that the IRS said "it was ONLY deductible in the prior year (1999)". This statement does not fit since it could only have been made if they were looking at 2000 but you said that they were auditing 1999 not 2000. Why would they be involved in years other than that which is being audited? In any event why would an amended return/returns not solve any problem?

FormsRmylife, Other than for church and such exempt orgs .. When would ERISA not be applicable?

This should fall under your state insurance laws governing late payment of claims.

Looking at CalPERS and most state reirement systems I see no connection between the amount deducted on a pre-tax basis for health insurance etc as having any effect on the eventual retirement benefit. The calculation formula is based on other factors. I think that you were either given questionable information or you might have misunderstood. I suggest that you re-examine the facts and get the calculation formula in writing and then have it explained to you by a financial planner or competent professional, if you still have a problem with what is explained to you by the Personnel or Retirement Benefits Office. This is a link to the CalPERS Q&A: http://www.calpers.ca.gov/retire/contribution-faqs.htm If you are in one of the PERAs that do not use Gross Paybut reduced the applicable salary by the section 125 deduction (such as Co or MN) 1 or even 2 years of mis-deduction should have no effect as is indicated in this link to the Colorado PERA: https://www.copera.org/secure/Calculators/hascalc.jsp Notice that there is a limit to the creditable salary: NOTE: Annual salary increases are limited to 15% per year regardless of the values entered.

You might also want to get some guidance from cases such as Express Oil Change at http://laws.findlaw.com/11th/967148opn.html Read not only the Appeal but also the initial case. There are a few other similar cases in 2 or 3 other Circuits that read almost the same.

jjer Other similarly situated persons that I have come across who also would not have understood these answers all had a common problem ... they were not filing a US Form1040 etc under the mistaken assumption that since they were in a foreign country they did not have a reporting obligation because their money was being earned and paid by a foreign based employer etc etc. Have you been filing your required US tax returns? If yes, read the answers again, look at the forms filed for the sections re IRAs etc ,and get the IRS Publication which will explain further. If, as seems very likely, that you have not been filing, seek competent tax advice ASAP.

As always the first place to start is with the SPD or explanation (employee handbook etc) that was given at time of enrollment, next the Plan Document to see if there is any conflict in information. What do these say?

I have not seen or heard of any card that codes for products only for providers and even then not very well. Which cards claim to code for products and how UPC, SKU ??

The question is not regarding co-pays which are made by the employees, it is about the reimbursements made by insurance companies, claims administrators etc to the service providers.

To me this needs more explanation than I am getting from MDG. If the company is "we are cutting your salary by $2000 and putting it in this plan." and "reduce my pay like that " then it seems, as it does to his CPA who is closer to the real facts than I am, that MDG "was really the one making the contribution." through a salary reduction agreement. If it is through a salary reduction agreement then it should not avoid FICA etc. It is also not a 1 time election being made at the start of employment and MDG has not said that it is a 401(k) or even what kind of plan it is.

MDG Is this a retirement plan? Is this a qualified plan? Are they going to just cut your salary or are they having you sign a salary reduction agreement? Will there be any restrictions on what or when you can do anything with this stock?

RTK Is it true that even if you did not have such wording in your PD, the employees would still be eligible etc because of being employed by a member of a controlled group?

What have they provided as the legal rationale for the exclusion from taxation of this "gift" of stock?

In some states including Florida NPs have their own offices and practice without a Dr reviewing charts or anything else. It is not necessary that "a doctor must oversee, review and sign off on EVERYTHING that they do". NPs DO NOT need a Dr. and their patients are not subject to "You are still getting their expertise and supervision whether you see them face to face or not". The reason for private practice etc of NPs is because they have the expertise and training necessary. I think that you are confusing Nurses with NPs (it means Nurse Practitioner). By the way, NPs are reimbursed by Medicare at 85% of the physician rate, Medicare in many states ranges between 85 and 92%. As a result there should be no problem with an HMO or PPO negotiating a different reimbursement schedule for NPs as opposed to FPs whose rates are less than those for Specialists. While the CPT and ICD codes do not diffentiate, the contracted rates between the provider and the insurer or plan is different.

Again, that is the point , to "use every legal weapon at their disposal" but you cannot state any legal basis for any of your suggested actions and have suggested actions that are not legal weapons but emotional responses.

As far as I know State laws for embezzlement require at least a court order requested by the state prosecutors. There has been no mention of state prosecution, injunction or even a filing or anything else. What would be the legal basis for escrowing funds in a civil dispute of this sort? Are you implying that "I don't want to pay the money for the purpose that I deducted it so I am holding the money?" or " I do not want to send the money to where I was supposed to, so here, Mr. Clerk of the Court, you hold this money in case I win the case". as being a good course of action for Dr. B? How would escrowing the funds satisfy state and federal labor (payroll) laws? Or should they be ignored just in case Dr. B wins his case eventually? How would breaking one agreement (the salary reduction agreement) help Dr. B in claiming that Dr. A broke some alleged business agreement (the substance and terms of which are not known)?

I vote No. The depletion was properly made under the then applicable terms. This is just part of the "risk" inherent and necessary for FSAs etc.

That is the point .. Who is the responsible party??? If an employer makes a pre-tax deduction that is not proper or is not correct, then that employer is usually held responsible by the IRS and other reulators for the resulting under-withholding and the reduced employer matching FICA etc. Payroll errors are not traditionally or logically blamed on the employee who has no control over the calculation of the payroll or the calculation of withholding and payroll taxes. The fact that the employee eventually at the end of the year gets a W2 and uses that info to file a tax return with which any deficiencies might have to be made up has nothing to do with the issue the least of which is the incorrect employer matching FICA, incorrect FUTA and incorrect state Quarterly returns including unemployment taxes and possibly WC. An improper pre-tax deduction in this case could include no salary reduction agreement, incorrect amount, no legitimate 403(b) plan, no legitimate 403(b) annuity or investment provider etc. If you think about it, Why is there even a Hold Harmless Agreement? Could it be that the employer's all got legal advice indicating that this was necessary for protection? If so, protection from what? Errors, obviously, unless of course you think that Hold Harmless Agreements have no use and it was just being done foolishly or for the fun of it.

I did not think that there were any employees anywhere who pay FUTA much less FUTA withholding. FUTA is an employer tax.

First, it is not known if Dr. A really stole any money. Note that this does not even seem to be a criminal suit but a civil suit between the 2 Drs. Second, What happens if Dr. A really did not steal anything? Third, Deferrals are taken from a participant's salary and I think every state and federal labor law states that money deducted must be used only for the purpose deducted and done so expeditiously. That leaves Dr. B in a very precarious position if he does not put the deferral where it was directed by Dr. A. Refusing to fund the account on the basis that you do not have the money seems no different from telling the IRS that you could not pay the payroll tax or withholding because you did not have enough money. Dr. B is asking for BIG trouble.

IMHO, I guess that it depends on whether the weight loss program is for the treatment, cure, mitigation etc of a disease or medical condition, or is being done for cosmetic or feelgood reasons.

While I cannot understand why any employee would want to use their own FSA money to pay the full bill rather than have the insurance company pay the majority of it, Isn't is the employee's right to make that determination?