GBurns

Vebaguru, Why would there not be problems with the state DOI for fully-insured plans that are MEWAs? I have not seen any state that makes a differentiation and the DOL "treatise" issued earlier this year also makes no distinction that I remember seeing.

Most of the major Transit Authorities have info available. Try this link: Look for the info under the various service providers on the page. You might also want to look at the Internal Revenue Code itself (section 132) and do a search on www.ebia.com and www.google.com for "qualified transportation program" etc. Various issues have been discussed in the EBIA Recent Developmants and Question of the Week. There has also been discussions on Benefitslink such as: http://www.benefitslink.com/articles/washb...l021111.1.shtml

I do not think that they changed their mind as much as they are having problems with using Proposed Regulations as law. Now that they have to look into it they are seeing the conflicts with the IRC and other "real" Regulations First COBRA then HIPAA then 105 now 213.

RSNOW, It seems that it is very popular for "advisors" to throw out these opinions without any explanations or support for their position. Any person who responds to whatever it is that is thrown out without explanation or support, will always be fighting aloosing battle, because they really have no idea what is it that they are trying to find and cannot know when they have found it etc. Try to get the client to get this advisor to explain and support his statements, then you will have something to research. I do not recall anything being issued recently about VEBAS. However, there have been items from the DOL and a number state Depts of Insurance about alleged ERISA and "Union" health and welfare benefits plans which are sometimes MEWAs. Some were sold as being VEBAs, which is why I asked if you were sure?

mwyatt What am I missing? The original post has 2 questions and stated that # 2 was easily resolved but #1 was the problem. The query therefore centers, as per the post, on: "1) The plan was adopted/executed in October and had a retroactive effective date of the prior November 1st. The second part should be fairly easy to resolve using Section 404(a)(6). I am having trouble finding an applicable citation for the first issue. I have reread several topics that address the issue of a new business entity set up mid-calendar year and IRS spokespersons opining that a 1/1 effective date is OK" The Plan was therefore not adopted in the same year but in the next year "prior November 1st" versus adopted in October. The prior November to any October is always in the previous calendar year. We are NOT talking about a " DB plan adopted during the year" so it would not be correct to say "so this issue is moot". As I see it the problem is an issue of retroactive adoption which would affect the employee'seductions made before the effective date. The problems exist regardless of whether or not this is a DB Plan or any other type of plan. BTW, there is a very similar thread on the 401(k) Forum.

The responding posts now cause me to ask ask RSNOW.. Are you sure that this is a VEBA? Why?

Rev Ruling 81-114 talks about the Trust corpus. I read the original post as asking whether or not a Plan can be retroactively adopted as being the first issue at question. What is the effect of retroactive adoption of a Plan on the tax deductibility of the contributions, especially the employee's elections?

Anyone can say anything that they want, it is up to the Tribe to make him provide the legal cites etc for his reasoning. I would encourage the Tribe to force him to put any and all of his comments in writing. Only after this is done could a rebuttal be made. If not he will always be a few steps ahead of you and your answers will never be right. The issue requires some research of specific knowledge of such affairs and there should be someone on the Forum who could provide guidance. By the way check your cite of "IRC 7.11.1.2.1" it does not seem correct.

Chip, Just before I read your post, someone suggested that I seemed to lose my sense of humor most hours of the day. I guess although you do not know me, you came to about the same conclusion. I really never saw the irony.

Aren't there many 403(b) plans that have an employer contribution that is subject to a vesting schedule? If this is so, What happens to the unvested money when either the employee terminates or as above the plan is frozen? The money does not belong to the participant (or ex) and some posters seem to be saying that it does not belong to the employer and it does not belong to the plan since there is no Trust and no forfeiture account etc. So to whom does this belong and Why is is not an asset?

I have seen many Goverment entities that provide the guidelines and content etc that they require in AAP from their contractors, however, I have never seen any Software or mention of software. What would the software do for you? Also AAP requirements are different for many entities as caused by legal or statutory requirements and by specific local conditions, as a result I would be wary of any "boilerplates". I think that you should first find out the specific requirements of that specific Govt Agency and go by their guidance. I am also curious as to what "cab fare" or other such items have to do with AAP?

mbozek, Read your posts. You never suggested 2 options anywhere any time. You made an absolute statement on August 27 in which you put "all" the employees in a 403(b) plan, then on August 28, only after being "challenged" by Quadrophile you claimed exclusion from that same 403(b) plan for non HCEs. Neither of the 2 posts mention 2 options nor even mention anything but a single 403(b).

If "put all employees in the 403(b) plan" where would you get those whom you propose to "exclude the non HCE's from eligibility in the 403(b) plan."? All always means "all" and would include the HCE's who could therefore not be then excluded. You cannot eat your cake and have it too.

Why would you not want to use the software supplied by the card provider?

I guess my first concernwould be whether or not the PEO even had a valid plan in which thie person was participating. Was it a Multiple employer plan and were these other COs co-sponsors etc etc?

That is only true for some plans. Many such as Hyatt are very different from Pre-Paid Legal which seems like the one you described.

Are there any sources for info related to other items offered by PEOs such as Cafeteria Plans, health insurance etc?

You should not be relying on what your friend said that the broker said. Your friend should not be relying on what that or any broker says, Ask the insurance company and check the policy. Since the brother is paralyzed, your friend needs to get Power of Attorney at least for this issue. COBRA or mini-COBRA, whether in FL or anywhere else costs more than the current insurance premium, so I do not think that your friend's brother should be trying to get on any COBRA. What he should be doing is trying to get coverage before his HIPAA period runs out for guaranteed isuue coverage. P.A means Professional Association which is a type of corporate structure used by Drs, lawyers, egineers, architects etc and should have no bearing on the issue. A call to the State Dept of Insurance will get you their answer as to whether or not being in a P.A has any relevance.

Prevailing wage laws, whether State, DB or SCA, require wages to be paid either in cash, in specified benefits or a combination. In your situation I see multiple problems that should require expert experienced advice, which seems to lacking in the drafting of the original plan and in this court settlement. The first thing that I would do is to request an amended Court Order after making sure of what the PD really says, explaining the problem to the Judge. The problem should have been foreseen by your lawyer. I think that the Judge will tell you that it is the employee's money and since you did not buy benefits at the time or earning then you must pay the cash directly. But you might get lucky. To solve your Plan service credit problem is another issue. I suggest a good re-read, first to ensure that you even have a bona fide plan (one that meets the prevailing wage law requirements), second to ensure whether there is an either/or regarding the contributions, third I question whether your plan is a db/dc plan as you state or is a dc only plan, which will make a difference e eventually. Have you looked up the requirements of your state prevailing wage law? Is Davis Bacon also applicable?

This cannot be a hypothetical situation. You either have a participating term life policy paying dividends or you do not. If the insurance company did not issue a participating policy then there can be no dividends and whatever it is that you state that is being refunded and being kept by the employer is not dividends but something else. That something else gets different treatment than dividends would. That is why it cannot be hypothetical but has to be real and true. You cannot take action on hypotheticals you can only get hypothetical answers which would serve no purpose.

Cha1, Are you saying that this is participating Group Term Life? And that the insurance company issues dividends on these policies?

I doubt that there is any such DOL Regulation. If there is regulation it most likely will be state DOI and IRS. I question your use of the term "non participating". Non-participating in life insurance means not participating in any "dividends" issued by the insurer. That is not what you are referring to. You might mean contributory and non-contributory. Group term life has fixed premiums known in advance of the employee's election to participate. Since the premiums are fixed (as filed with the State DOI etc ) and are deducted on a predetermined schedule (each payroll) and remitted on a predetermined schedule (almost always monthly) along with the employer portion for the basic coverage, Why would there be any shortfall or any surplus? What is this year end accounting of which you speak? Accounting for premiums and covered lives, whether for group life or for group health, is usually done monthly so as to reconcile the covered lives and premiums as shown on the billing statement. This way terminated employees are removed and new enrollees added. If you do not reconcile the billing statement, the insurer will be expecting payment of premium for employees who are no longer covered and will not be expecting premium or issuing coverage for the new people. This is not something that waits until the end of year.

I think that you might want to explain further. What type of benefit? Why is the money being refunded etc?

I certainly never thought that financial incentives (such as a discount on insurance) for reaching a goal such as reducing cholesterol etc was what anyone meant by a Wellness Program. lemarkley, buchanank and anyone else, Would you please explain what you mean by a Wellness Program?

What could a wellness program do that could run afoul of ADA?