GBurns

What type of voluntary supplemental life? What is the Death Benefit? What do you mean by employer sponsored? The answer depends on the type of plan and also the method of payment (pre or post tax). It might matter if the plan is facilitated but not sponsored.

As is stated quite often on these Forums, the onus of providing proof or support for statements or positions lies with the person making the statement. Let that lawyer provide the proof or support.

Jersey Girl The original post by EIKH states that he had "a medical reimbursement form returned to me because I had submitted a photocopy of the bill rather than a receipt for payment". According to his post it was the absence of a receipt that was the problem. This was further evidenced by his later statement " I was told that I need to provide proof that the bill was paid". You stated that what would be required at yout TPA firm would be "an EOB from your health insurance carrier showing what portion of the procedure is the patient's responsability; OR an itemized bill from the third-party who rendered the services ( i.e. doctor's office); OR, if the claim is for an office visit co-pay, a receipt showing payment of said co-pay." According to your post, your TPA firm only recognizes incurred expenses as being reimburseable except when an office visit co-pay or prescriptions are involved, for which you require a receipt for payment. Why would you not requirement for payment for some but incurred for others? EIKH I think that you need to find out exactly what language your SPD and Plan Document uses to determine whether reimbursement is based on "incurred" or "paid". "incurred" requires proof of service but not necessarily payment, whereas "paid" requires both. This should determine what you ahve to do each time and not be subject to anyone's whims or fancies of interpretation.

Why would it not be just as legal as a demand that the employee must provide and wear a specific uniform? If it is a condition of employment, you either accept it as part of the job or you do not take the job.

I am curious as to what this employer finds in this leasing arrangement that is so advantageous or beneficial that he is going to all this trouble? As mbozek points out there is not only the issues of the NLRB because of the CBA, but also the difficulty of leaving the Plan. However, it might be possible that the employees although leased could still be covered as eligible employees of the client ("former employer") because of their hours worked per year. But that would mean that the client would still stay in the MEP and still be a sponsor and contributor. I think competent legal advice and guidance is needed. By the way, INMHO, since the leasing org does not have the legal support to have already provided this client with the pros and cons etc and the actions that have to be taken etc, I would seriously question anything that they do or say about anything and would consider not doing any business with them.

Good question, Why would the union release the "former" employer? Also, Does the PD of the Multiemployer Plan accept contributions from an entity (the leasing org) who is not a party to the CBA? Does the Multiemployer Plan allow contributions fron non-sponsors?

It seems simplistic to regard 412(i) plans as being "just a defined benefit plan funded with insurance and/or annuities" although that is what it is. The problem is that "A lot of insurance guys however think they have reinvented the wheel. " and have created exotic plan designs usually based on the use of "springing cash values". I though that these would have died over 10 years ago when the IRS attacked such things, but I guess some things never go away. I decided even before then not to sell such plans even if the business was coming in the door as Richard Field puts it. Warnings such as the below are easily found through a simple web search: http://www.reish.com/publications/article_...m?ARTICLEID=365

Why the need for carving out? Why not just let the employees know that this deal is available so that those who like it can take it and those who dont't don't? Not everyone likes to have someone messing with their medication, Which brings up the question of whether or not the insurer allows such packaging and whether or not the Drs will allow it for their patients assuming that it is even practical for many of these afflicted employees. I personally would question whether or nor this packaging is even a good idea in the first place.

I saw a few such requests recently. ALL turned out to that the employees wanted to see if there was any info at all, Name address, anything.

sheilaparker, Please understand that I am not "picking" on you with this post, I am trying to understand why so many service providers, TPAs in particular, have the approach that you have. What legal support did the employer give for their position? What research was done before expressing or even forming an opinion? Does it affect the TPA etc if they carry out the wishes of their client and it turns out that the client was wrong? Would penalties be to the employer or to the TPA etc? An employer employs a TPA or any service provider to carry out certain functions that the employer either does not have the staff with which to do the thing, or which the employer wishes to distance themself from. The employer in your post wishes to something and employs a TPA etc to do it. The employer has his reasons. Instead of performing the requested service, the TPA etc instead "tells" the employer that it cannot or should not be done because the TPA etc does not believe it should or could be done the way the employer wants it. The TPA etc does not provide any legal support for their position yet takes a stand and expresses or forms an opinion. It turns out, as is very usual, the employer is correct and the law etc seems to be on his side. There seems to be nothing to support the opinion expressed by the TPA or service provider. To you specifically, I ask, What was your basis for having the opinion that "To us, it seems those employees would be treated as any other terminated participant and only services rendered through their date of termination would be eligible for reimbursement"?? My first thought in this situation iwas to wonder if this should be regarded as similar to a "successor employer", a purchase or asset purchase, or a "same desk" situation.

blackacre, It for the company making the claim to a 5 year S/L to provide the Regulation, otherwise you will never know if you found the exact Reg to which they are referring. While you can adjust a previous Quarter on a subsequent 941 and the previous year on the first 941 of the following year, there is no easy way to adjust other years that have been closed and W-2s issued etc. These previous years would require new W-2's (W-2c) along with W-3c, 941c and 940c etc etc. There should also be similar State and Municipal forms that would have to be corrected also. There should be no problem with any S/L being applicable to the employees who file with the IRS for refunds, if it is worthwhile. If this employer was my client I would tell them to shut up and quickly make the employees whole. This employer would probably have a big problem with both the IRS and the State if this was reported as improper withholding etc.

If this was for health insurance premiums with no employee "portion" I would say that you do not need the section 125 plan, but since this is for section 129 DCAP, I really have not looked at the IRC nor looked for case law. Ken You seemed to have "confused" two items that really should be kept separate. You first referred to "a cafeteria plan is not needed to avoid constructive receipt of income" which usually refers to premium amounts, but later you refer to "the reimbursement account type of cafeteria plan" which usually means the FSA, DCAP send in your receipt for reimbursement type of arrangement. I also wondered about what the benefit was to the employer, why they wanted to go to the trouble of this arrangement in the first place?

Have you tried Blue Cross? Their rates should be better and some have a plan than allows coverage in other states. In any case, Shouldn't the age 67 ee be on Medicare even with an employer subsidy?

Search the old threads for "Double Dipping" arrangements. Do the same on Google and EBIA. Also search for "HealthIER Plan" and "Health Incentive Plan" since the full name of the plan is apparently HealthIER Incentive Employee Reimbursement Plan. You might also want to find out from them who was their predecessor, what was sold, under what names (both Plan and promoter), and what happened to get more material with which to search. Also see Revenue Rulings 2002-3.

mbozek's answer is as good a response as you can get, but your wording intrigues me. What do you mean by "so I usually take over for them to keep them happy!"? How do you do this and what do you do?

I am hoping that someone has some old information on the protracted lawsuit that the American Association of University Professors (I think??) brought against CREF back in the 1980's that caused CREF to change their very restrictive practices. The Universities using CREF were all given a time frame in which to change their plan documents that reflected the CREF restrictions. This was supposed to have prevented things such as has happened to you. However, the CREF "clout" caused many universities to have not made sufficient changes and some probably are not in compliance with the Court Order, which might eventually be what helps you. Does anyone have any info on the case or Court Order? If you have access to U Penn or any large Law Library, you might want to ask the Librarian to help you find the case. I think that this Court Order etc will be of great help to you. I used it to help a few people at UM years ago in a very similar situation.

Try looking at the actual Proposed Treas Regs that are use as guidance by most people in the industry: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-utl/tres_reg-1125-2.pdf I think that Q&A 7 should satisfy your need for direct addressing that premium should not be reimbursed through an FSA. You might also want to search the old threads. The deduction for health insurance premium on a pre-tax basis, whether for COBRA or otherwise, is not done through an FSA but through a section 125 Premium only Plan (POP). Eligibility, or lack of, re the existing health plan should not be an issue since these employees will not be participating in that health plan. However, check the eligibility requirements of the section 125 Cafeteria Plan. The health plan deals with coverage while the section 125 plan deals with pre-tax deductions. These employees do not need coverage (they already have through COBRA) they need pre-tax deductibility.

clgray, What state are you in? What state were you employed in when these contributions were made? *********** Have you actually received a hard copy of these alleged rules that the employer is referring to? Did you make your request in writing and do you have the employer's response in writing? Without these you will have a very difficult time resolving this.

JohnCheek, How would it not be a MEWA? Archimage, I am curious about your wording. It seems that not all clients participate and that the participating clients have a number of different insurance plans from a number of different insurers. Also a client seems to be able to "have" some items with the PEO and some items outside the PEO. Is this correct? Also are you asking about the filing requirement for the PEO or the filing requirement for the clients?

cease Re: "if only I had more access to organizations that can utilize these plans!" Some of the 403(b) investment providers have some good material that might help you to learn more. Most of the users that I have seen really have nothing. Shop around among the senior sales reps of a few of the companies for training material. In the past Northern Life (now Reliastar), National Western and TIAA-Cref had very good material. There was also a manual put out by a company that was taken over by National Life that had a very good manual that they gave out to clients regarding 403(b) compliance when the audits started back in the early 90's. The manual was given out by their national marketer which then was Annuity Specialists out of Waco, TX. ASI might still have copies. Most of the other manuals that are used for training and CE credits are not very good although I must point out that I am not familiar with nor have I heard anything on the book put out by Ellie Lowder who you could contact through this Forum at Benefitslink. INMHO, she is one of the few real "authorities", and probably could point you in the right direction for knowledge. You might also want to email a few of the posters to this Forum asking them what they use or would recommend. mbozek, tthurston, ScottyD and Joel Frank also come to mind as people who should have material.

A lot of people were very happy then and even more now.

I think that it is up to him to provide the basis and support for his reasoning, not for you to go find out. If he had earned the related income etc while in the UK, I could see where his exclusion amount on foreign earned income could apply, but he earned and contributed as a Resident Alien while in the U.S and therefore should be subject to the 20% withholding unless he can provide proof for other treatment.

Isn't concern about getting permission from the plan participants an issue of greater importance?

No argument here either.

DP, Although both these payments appear on the employee's W2 are they both recorded on your books and other reports as Wages? Or is the $999.35 Wages whereas the $99.29 is "Other Compensation"?