GBurns

Quite often it is wherever the agent feels that the records are most readily available, which would be at the client's site. However, the site selection can be argued by the client. In this case most of the required records (originals pereferably) would be at the client's site not at the TPA's.

If salary reductions affect FICA, then of course, the IRS would want to audit the plan to protect the Revenue stream. On the average payroll FICA constitutes a larger figure than Income taxes and therefore the Trust Fund money carries more importance than income tax withholding on the payroll which is subject to final adjustments on the employee's tax return, even creating refunds for a large number of employees.

mbozek, I am from planet Earth and so is Derrin Watson and the US Supreme Court. I keep telling you that neither you nor I know everything, but for some reason you keep thinking that you do and that you are the only person allowed an opinion in this country. You also have the habit of unnecessary rudeness and I do wish the Moderator would address this. An employee is identifiable by his face regardless of his name etc. Even if he uses an alias it is still the same identifiable person. Identification for reporting purposes has nothing to do with identifying the employee, in fact that is how they knew to whom to issue work orders and give the paycheck. As for creating a mess for the true holder of the SS#: If the employee was paying the taxes due, Why would any mess be created? If the employee was doing it with the agreement and knowledge of the person and the tax returns were being done to accomodate the misuse, Why would there be a mess? To create scenarios and hysteria without the facts is spurious. To create hysteria and "doomsday" scenarios without the facts is ethically questionable. To throw cites that are irrelevant and somewtimes incorrect is immoral, dishonest and detestable.

The determination of illegal use of a SS# is not within the province of either the employer or the plan, only eligibility for employment with that employer is. This participant does not have to further identify him/herself, their identity is already well known to both the employer and the plan. The participant can direct rollover to wherever they feel (subject to acceptance etc by the recipient). There is no problem posed by any withholding, it is simply reported using the same SS# under which it was contributed. The participant might even have been properly filing, reporting and paying all due taxes under the SS# which is their business not the employer's or the plan's. Fraudulent tax returns, misreporting of income etc outside of a payroll are also not the province of employers.

Is there some law that you saw somewhere that causes you to think that immigration status prohibits participation in any plan? If so which one?

The post does not make sense to me. I have never heard or seen of any small group carrier in Florida that would not require 2 Quarters UCT-6 to be submitted with the application. The UCT-6 is the state Unemployment Compensation form. It is used instead of the IRS Form 941 (which some carriers also require) because it lists (or requires periodically) the names of each employee. If these FEINs have not been used for a while, the UCT-6 would also not have been used, How could these employers provide the filed forms for the immediate past 2 Quarters if none were ever filed because these employers had no employees or transacted any business (the post said the FEINs had not been used for a while) ?

mbozek, I thought that aggregation issues were as determined or as required by the IRC and Treas Regs and not by the Plan Document. Or are they determined by the PD as you seem to be implying?

QDROphile, I don't think you answered Blinky's question of "Where do you read there has to be the same key in both of the plans? " . The point of R Butler's post, which is not his opinion but the actual rule, is that all that is required is "a key employee " to participate in more than one plan of the same employer. It does not say "the key employee" nor "the same key employee" thereby leaving the requirement to mean any key employee whether the same key or a different key.

Being governed by an IRC code section and being covered under ERISA are separate items that have no relationship to each other. You might want to step back and reconsider your questions etc.

Does anyone know what the state securities laws say?

The items that you have mentioned and cited seem related to life insurance arrangements between an employer and employee in a general sense. However, I seem to remember that life insurance in a qualified plan had separate special rules and that insurance policies that provide post-retirement benefits also have other special rules.

I do nor understand what is hybrid in what you have posted nor do I see what could have caused the premium tax issue to have arisen in the first place. What makes this plan any different from the standard self-funded (self-insured) plans that constitute a major share of employer provided health benefits?

As you have pointed out ""The Department of Labor considers revenue generated by investments to be a plan asset.". This raises the question of, What is the source of the revenue that is being shared? IMHO, since the only things that can generate the revenue are (1) the amount invested or (2) fees charged. If the revenue that is being shared is derived from the money invested, then the answer is clear that it is a plan asset. If the revenue that is being shared is derived from fees that were charged, then although it might not be a plan asset, it certainly raises other serious issues. If from fees does that not mean that the fees were overcharged? What is the fiduciary liability for knowingly condoning an overcharge? Is it not a PT to get these fees? What services were rendered for which the fees are being shared? etc It certainly would look to many as improper rebating.

Why do you think that ERISA preempts salary reduction agreements in any state?

The reporting and disclosure requirements (or exemption) that most of you seem to be concerned with are those that are required by ERISA for reporting and disclosure to the DOL. However, regardless or reporting disclosing anf filing antwhere, you seem to have overlooked state labor laws and most of all the participating employee. How do you propose that an employer get employees to participate in the plan if the employees are not given explanations and disclosures? How would the plan operate without written guidelines? How would the employer explain the use of employee pay without complying with state law which in most states requires employee consent ? If there are written guidelines (a de facto Plan document) and employee consent (which would need an explanation and written agreement) there would be the pragmatic need to put together a description of what is being proposed and what will be done and how it will be done. Presto, a Summary Plan Description. Is there something wrong in my thought that the "need" for an SPD exists regardless of ERISA?

I would say that you have overridden your plan and established the precedent that this employee IS entitled to benefits. Treating him in any other manner than you would treat another ex employee should leave you open for litigation etc which I would bet that you would lose easily.

Since the providing and election of COBRA coverage is not governed by the method by which the benefits are delivered, having an HMO, PPO or POS etc is irrelevant. The ex-employee must be provided with and is free to elect COBRA coverage, whether there is a provider network for use is not relevant.

mbozek, Re "Before running off to research bankruptcy law ". I know that I am asking much, by saying that IF YOU do read the thread, you will see that my post was a response to BFree. As for the rest of your post, that is why you check with the Bankruptcy Trustee because "If still under BC, the trustee most likely will help collect ".

You might want to check and see what Bankruptcy Courts usually do when a case is submitted without full disclosure of debts especially large ones and ones that have connotations or indicia of fraud, misappropriation etc. They have been known to dismiss cases and reopen cases even after discharge. The threat of a reversal of discharge and criminal referral by a BC is the starting point re "not too difficult" since the missing money most likely is not the major debt. The IRS monitors BCs and would be very happy to get the lead from the BC for criminal action. The above also applies partially to those that have gone out of business. Somebody sold the assets, somebody took a tax deduction, somebody filed a final return. That somebody would need to be ready to mount a defense against the IRS and the BC. Going out of business does not mean you just walk away.

If you are married it does not matter to the IRS, courts or law, whether or not you wear a ring or act single, you are married period. Because they act as they do still does not make it management. If you go into many stores or fast food joints you will see an inordinate number of "Managers" and "Assistant Managers" however, none of them have any managerial authority. It is a ploy used to make the simple feel important even if it costs them money. Acting does not make it so. If you look at the DOL explanation of "exempt" employees you will see categories including Aministrative and Supervisory positions, however, since it is not the title that is important but the actual duties, the DOL provides definitions etc and point out that certain powers including the ability to hire etc is a requirement for qualifying. From your post this management company does absolutely no management and therefore bears no relevance to the issue.

What type of bankruptcy? What has been done so far? Why did it take so long to be discovered? What If the company is still in business it should not be too difficult to get the money since it would not have been discharged by the BC. If still under BC, the trustee most likely will help collect rather than have a filing that could set aside any reorganization or disposition plans already in place.

The CBAs that I have seen expire at a certain time on a certain date just like my car and house insurance. Obligations under all of these is up to that time on that date, there is no obligation after that time and date, unless of course there is accrued arrears. Withdrawal should use the same logic. So if it expires at 12:00PM (Midnight) on May 29, there is no obligation at 12:01AM which is May 30.

I too loked at their website and found that it is loaded will all relevant info plus. Why would you want membership? Why would membership be necessary? It is a certification/degignation not a social club. It is no different from LUTCF or CLU, you pay your fee, you get your study materials, you study, you pass the exam and get the designation, you use the designation to your advantage. Nothing more. What were you expectibg, tea parties?

The question is what would make them eligible for a single plan? I do not see anything, What do you see? This management company does not seem to be managing anything, all they are doing is providing outsourcing (for a fee) some of the clerical and support services.

Since we do not know exactly what kind of work the poster's husband did for the City and whether or not he worked for an entity such as a school district or hospital operated by the City, and therefore have no idea what he was a participant in and do not know the terms and conditions of that participation, I come back to the original suggestions. How do you propose that this lady find out exactly what she is entitled to or not entitled to without getting all the documents with all the details?