GBurns

I always suggest that questions like this, be run through www.changeofstatus.com While not authoritative, it has a good reputation and gives some logic for guidance. My thought is that she might be able to IF the promotion changed her from hourly to salary. If not, then No.

No employer has to offer anything,but that will soon change. I suggest that you visit; www.healthcare.gov and http://healthreform.kff.org/ The effect that PPACA wil have on the employer depends on the number of employees. No insurance is needed in order to have an HRA. Why does the company want to have HRAs? HRAs are usually part of the overall benefits plan design and are usually not approached in this manner. There are restrictions in about 42 states prohibiting or limiting the use of HRAs in the small employer market There are rstrictions in about 40 states prohibiting or limiting the use of individual policies in small employer groups. The relevance of these prohibitons or limits therefore, depends on the size of the company (# employees) and state in addition to whatever is applicable under PPCA.

It seems common practice for S Corps to list their major shareholders as Directors and Officers on their state Corporation Annual Report. A similar listing of LLC and Partnerhips is also done. It should be easy to sort/merge to ind employer groups. There are some data mining cmpanies that are already offering services showing overlapping business relationshi using this same database. See http://www.corporationwiki.com for an example of these visualisation services.

They figured it out: http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/OTA-T2011-04-Small-Business-Methodology-Aug-8-2011.pdfhttp://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/tax-policy/tax-analysis/Documents/OTA-T2011-04-Small-Business-Methodology-Aug-8-2011.pdf

It is a nuisance that almost every Forum has to tolerate especially when there is a new version or conversion. Eventually the system "learns" and it eventually goes away. It is only temporary.

I also have the same problem regardless of computer or location. It is intermittent. You can do a "go 'round" by using the "View New Posts" feature in the upper right beside "My Controls".

It could turn out to be somewhat problematic to call it a "Premium Reimbursement Arrangement" when it will be used not only for premiums but also ." (See OP). What you want seems to be a simple 105 Medical Reimbursement Plan with premium reimbursement included. However, it would be better to have 2 separate plans, 1 for the eligible expense and the other for the eligible insurance premiums. I would not have a cash-out option. The option to receive cash could invalidate all the arrangements. Normally when Flex Credits have a cash-out, the cash-out is not payable in cash but contributed to a 401(k) etc. I urge you to only implement any such plans after seeking competent legal advice from an independent source. I would not rely on vendor opinions even if it seems that they have done these plans before. The devil is in the details and fine print. Your facts and circumstances etc etc will not be exactly the same as someone else's. There is also the problem of State Small Group health insurance laws in some states. These laws which apply to small employers with less than 55 employees. usually prohibit or discourage the reimbursement of premiums, in many cases. There is some smell of Davis-Bacon, or other Prevailing Wage Act, if this really is a PWA scenario, seek guidance from those with extensive actual experience. The Rules are not the same.

I do not know the answer, but, I suggest that you do not call the State agency. Although you certainly would not disclose the name of the employee, the Caller ID and other things would discose the name of the Employer. I have seen many state employees spend hours following minor leads in an effort to pin an infraction of any sort on a recipient. The problem is that this employee would/should disclose this 'additional income' but most likely did not think of it as being additonal to their regular wages when they applied for Medicaid. It is also quite possible that as little as an extra $100 per month can have a significant and disproportional effect on the employee's Medicaid.

I never understood the logic of playing football using your hands. It makes me think of that famous sage Don King.

This will probably help, but he really should use the 'Orange Book' and the Cumulative Index which covers a wider period. http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ucm086229.htm

Why do you refer to it as a "new election"? If he was not available during open enrollment, he could not have made an election. If he made no election How can you be saying that "he would like to change his benefits election"? What is there to change if he was absent and therefore made no election? You cannot have it boths ways. In almost all cases that I have seen over the years, an employee is required to make an election each open enrollment. It is not a new election, it is just the election for that plan year. The "old"/previous election is expired, it is no more, it cannot be changed. If the employee does not make an election in the required time frame the Plan Document calls for a default position to take effect in lieu of the election. However, most have an actively at work or similar provision, and wording regarding the inability to make an election because of extentuating circumstances. I suggest that you make sure that your PD does not have such an extentuating conditions clause or other clause that might be applicable. Also, most open enrollments have a cut-off date that is some time after the OE date. Has this passsed? Was this employee still on the payroll? Was this employee on FMLA? Even then, unless prohibited by the Plan Document. an election can be as late as the day before the applicable pay is constructively received. Section 125 only requires that the election be prospective. Section 105 only requires that the coverage not be retroactive. So as long as there is no coverage the election can be as late as the day before the payroll period, as long as your Plan Document does not state otherwise.

I cannot believe that you read it and still ask this question. First, I must correct myself, I should have said State child support agency, instead of dept of insurance. But, that should have been obvious given the number of times reference is made to that agency. Second, there is absolutely no mention anywhere, that I can see, in the document that suggests or gives an enforcement role to the DoL, so I cannot understand why you would even have thought of going there in the first place. In the document, there is reference to "State laws". Enforcement of State laws is done by State agencies not by DoL. This should have been your first clue that DoL was not the place to go. Then there is the repeated use of the term "State child support agency" . In Q1-4 there is mention of the entities who can/might issue a medical child support order. These are almost always state agencies and which do their own enforcement. Particular note should be made of Q1-7 and Q1-8 where it refers to "laws" that the "State" must have. Enforcement of these laws would be a State matter. Then there is the second section of the document. Here I suggest that you substitute, in your thinking while reading, the word "Your" for the word "National. It is unfortunate that the author did not deem it necessary to do a section on "Local Medical Support Notices". However, the enforcement is the same.

I was not aware that this was even be a DoL issue, I have always seen it resolved through the state dept of insurance. Also this is what I found on the DoL website and this also points to the state to resolve the conflict: DoL website

The Op has stated that this will be funded by employee contributions. Where in section 129 do you find the authority to pre-tax the employee contributions?

As per the OP ... " privately owned organization ", hence POO or P O O.

And do what? How do these relate to a POO and which has only a "management relationship" and not an ownership relationship nor is it controlled by nor associated with the religious organization ?

I would think that the first person to go to would be the same person on whose legal advice you relied in making the decision to participate in this arrangement in the first place. I also do not recall any insurance companies selling such arrangements. I recall them being sold by marketing groups. This could be why you are not getting a response from the insurance company. Check your documentation before you contact that legal adviser.

My first thought is that there is confusion about and a misunderstanding of the terms "group Health plan" and also the term "health plan". As a result answering the post is not realy possible, since what you posted is not what you really mean. A provider of services, such as this vendor, and any other provider of medical services, e.g a hospital, is neither a "group health plan" nor a "health plan". It is simply a provider of services. Whether those services are provided on behalf of a "group health plan" or a "health plan" is another matter. An insurer such as Aetna or an HMO or a service such as BCBS is also not a "group health plan" nor a "health plan". These are either insurers or arrangements having the effect of insurance. The insurance policy is also not the "group health plan" not a " health plan". It is simply the insurance policy. It would seem that this telemedicine service is simply another provider of medical services, no different from any other network of doctors (such as BeechStreet), hospitals (such as HCA) or pharmacies (such as Walgreens) providing medical services.

"Dependent care assistance programs (Sec.129) can be excluded for more than 2% S-corp owners." Can be "excluded" from what? An S Corp is a passthrough entity, thus making the owner the responsible party for taxes. There should be no benefit from reducing the amount passed through from the S Corp. On the other hand eligible dependent care expenses are generally deductible by the taxpayer on Form 1040. Off the cuff, it seems more effective to take the deduction on the F 1040, but his/her tax return prearer should be in a better position to advise since there are dependent eligibility issues and info from past returns that should be looked at in order to make a rational decision.

Since this S corp owner-employee cannot utilize a section 125 plan to pretax the contributions, What is the benefit that you are trying to derive?

How is it going to be funded?

Write off, in the broad sense, means deduct as an expenditure. It is the same treatment whether for a town or for a business. Both are deducting an expenditure from income/revenue. Whether the expenditure is an expense is another issue. The only difference is that the business pays taxes on any suplus whereas the town only records a budget surplus or deficit. Concern with "write off" serves no rational purpose.

Since TPAs do not give themselves the business, it seems to me, that you should instead focus on the sources of the business. Who decides to place business with the TPA? Who decides to keep the business with the TPA?

You did not say who told the participant that they could not, nor why they could not. It could be that the participant could not meet the qualification threshold set by the brokerage or otherwise, and has nothing to do with the plan.

You seem to be conflating "policy" with "plan". Both the old critical illness benefit and the new Aflac benefit are insurance policies not plans as the term is used in "cafeteria plan" "benefit plan" etc. As benefits they should not precipitate a cafeteria plan document for themselves. They are simply benefits offered through the already existing cafeteria plan and covered by that plan document. There should have been no adopting of a new or additional cafeteria plan or cafeteria plan document when installing or for enrolling.