GBurns

mbozek, Since you are supposed to have expertise etc in pension plans and I am not " heavy" on pension plans I decided not to respond to your comment about "the staute of limitations for making a claim for pension benefits may have expired. ", but, in yesterday's "Benefits Buzz" there was a news item about a lawsuit, Twomey vs Delta Airlines Pension Plan, wherein the retiree waited 9 years before requesting or filing for pension benefits. This caused me to look elsewhere and I could not find any references anywhere to there being any such thing as a"statute of limitations" or any required time frame. Why do you feel that there is such a limitation? Re:"a govt employee was not eligible to participate in (403(b) plans are only available to public school teachers and 501©(3) employees) is not helpful" Are you saying that governmental employees of municipalities and states who work at entities such as hospitals, schools community colleges and universities which are owned and/operated by that municipality (state, county, city) are not eligible to have a 403(b)? If that is correct then there are millions of employees who are in big trouble.

Wouldn't amending the plan to accomodate these forfeitures be a retroactive amendment? Can you make a retroactive amendment?

QDROphile, It would be helpful to many if you would elaborate on why you are making the differentiation. I, personally, wondered why you did not query the structure of the arrangement instead of the method of payment for provider services.

Thanks.

Brenda, I am not familiar with FMLA and so as not to have to thimb through the whole thing, Can you cite where you found this stop and start option?

kova7 How do you know whether or not a TPA is using a clearinghouse? Are there certain signs etc?

Now you are starting to understand the lady's dilemna. She does not know if spousal consent was needed and she clearky stated that she does not remember signing anything. She does not know what there was and City Hall is not telling her so she has to get the documents and look for herself. No one has excluded her from anything except some person at City Hall, who was/is not the Plan Administrator and whose knowledge etc is unknown. Only the documents can tell her whether or not there are spousal rights etc. Only the documents can tell her if there is a survivor benefit. Only the documents can tell her what the statute of limitations are. Why do you want this lady to guess? Do you know of any way of getting the facts other than through the documents?

Theresa, On behalf of this lady, I thank you for your input and your thoughtfulness of putting the link. This is exactly what the lady needs, some help and guidance in ways that she can easily follow.

mbozek, Since neither you nor I even together know everthing about every issue, Why should she not post to other Forums for other opinions? If the lady knew which documents were needed and what to look for she would not have posted seeking help. The lady has already stated that "City Hall said he opted ..." Which means that she spoke to someone there who gave her an answer that she is not comfortable with. The post also did not say that they had given her any sort of "proof" or support for whatever whomever told her. The post stated that "City Hall said .." which means to me that this lady is not aware that there is a Plam Administrator and since the person at "City Hall" did not direct her there, I suspect that she was not talking to a proper person. The best way that I know to find out who to contact is to look at the actual documents ans so I made that suggestion. Without any "proof" or support How is she to understand and agree? Since they gave her nothing in writing, How can she complain to anyone ? Since there is nothing in writing, How can she "prove" that this is what they really told her? That is whatt I suggested. Since neither you nor I know exactly what that Pension plan provides and how nor do we know what retirement option her husband chose, Isn't is best that she get the documents so that she can have someone explain them to her, rather than make a broad statement such as "Most govt pension plans do not require .." When something is not known as a fact or is not certain, it is best to just look at the governing documents. I know that you seem to have a problem reading, but why shoot off instead of trying to guide this lady? She needs something that she can understand and accept as proof, she should not be given baseless comments, she needs guidance. The City of Orlando has a pension plan and a Deferred Comp Plan, and used to have or might still have a 403(b) plan. What this lady refers to as a "pension plan" is even not yet clear. Many consumers lump all these plans together as retirement plans and by implication "their pension" . This lady is a beneficiary and she might not really know what her husband had and therefore could have asked the wrong questions of the wrong person at City Hall. How will she know what her exhusband really had if she does not get the documents that will show her what there was? The City Hall pension person might not be the Deferred Comp person or even know of the supplemental 403(b) but the tax return might disclose contributions or distributions. Do you know if they will or not? Since I do not know I can only suggest that she look. As you stated "You need to review the divorce decree or .." Again this is one of her documents and I suggested that she get her documents. Without all her documents she could not and should not answer your questions with any certainty. Even with the documents she should have someone interpret them for her so that she can be sure that she understands and agrees with whatever is interpreted. In a case like this I do not see how any reasonable compassionate person would be pushing this lady into giving answers to simplistic questions without knowing if she has all the facts and understands them. Since she stated that she is low income I suggested that she use someone, like the agent, who has some experience and resources to provide some help at no cost since they already made some commisiion in the past. Why would you want a person who admits to lottle or no understanding to forego seeking help. She has too much at risk, All she needs is help and guidance.

Are you sure you really mean "legal review" or did you mean performance review or service offering review?

First suggestion is to post this on a few other Boards such as "Retirement Plans in General" and "401(k)". I cannot speak for others but I would have no objection to see this request for help duplicated. Second, You need to get a copy of as much documentation as possible, read them, then give us some more info as to what type of plan it is etc. Third, make any requests for payment or for info in writing and get your responses in writing. Do not get into a telephone exchange. It will leave you without proof of anything. In the years after he retired and before the divorce what was he getting as pension and what were you getting. Do you have any of his statements from that period and do you have any copies of his retirement documents? Do you have copies of the tax returns filed during that period? If the tax returns were filed as married filing jointly, you should have copies or you should request copies from the IRS, but not just yet, I think that you will eventually need them. Do you have an insurance agent or financial planner who sold either you or your ex-husband any investments, insurance, annuities, pension supplement, 403(b) etc, get his name and telephone number ready, you might need to make him earn some of his commission.

I should also have pointed out that a number of these promoters have changed either their company name, the name of the plan or even both, in addition to shifting their legality rationale each time the IRS issues a statement or Revenue Ruling and or the negative articles become a problem to sales. Check to see what the previous names etc were, and use those in your search also.

As far as I can see it is just another item for salesmen of financial products and some benefits related jobs to use to try and get more credibility (read sales or job status). As far as benefit to the consumer, the others set up for marketing and promotion that have preceded this one have had no benefit and possibly detrement to the consumer, so I guess it all depends on whether you are seeking something of benefit to the consumer or whether you are seeking something of benefit to you in making sales or padding your resume. The annuity and LTC marketers have been successful in using these designations to spur interest among sales people, the worksite marketers are now trying, so I guess one should expect the 401(k) types to follow suit. They all need to boost sales and since the consumer is not responding sufficiently to direct response marketing, the only avenue left is to try and spur sales by creating new enthusiasm among the sales force and related job positions. The older CSA, CFP etc etc have become too popular and many consumers have now learned the hard way that they meant nothing and provided nothing extra in the way of competence, better products etc etc. If you thing that you need this to help you to make more sales then that is your decision to make. If you think that there is something that you can learn by doing their "exam" or whatever else is required, then there might be some personal value, but, I notice both your and their interest in "grandfathering". I always suspect anyone who has an easy way to collect my fee. By the way, Have you read their material or even checked their website???

The usual section 125 and/or FSA arrangement has a predetermined salary reduction which appears on a regular basis whether or not there are medical expenses. In your scenario there is no regularly scheduled salary reduction A salary reduction being a pre-tax amount). Therefore this arrangement is not being operated as per the rules usually used for section 125 plans or FSAs. However, there have been and are, a number of plans that the IRS has tried to stop by issuing Revenue Rulings 2002-3, 2002-80 and 2003-43 but without much success. The main reason is that these plans have been sold almost exclusively to small employers who did not ,or could not afford, to seek competent legal advice. Many of these plans operate as you state wherein whenever and only whenever the employee incurs a medical expense, the employer re-characterizes a portion of salary as being pre-taxed for medical expenses and the employee's paycheck is adjusted by this non-taxed addition which is claimed to be medical expense reimbursement. In the 1970s this was popular for a brief while until IRS Announcement 84-22 and Notice 84-24 (I think or reverse the numbers) which notified that these "Zero Balance" or ZEBRA plans were now outlawed pending the issuing of Section 125 which then prohibited this as part of the IRC. The Proposed Treas Regs that cafeteria plans and FSAa are operated under expand on the prohibition of these types of arrangements. Since the August 1999 ECFC Annual conference at which Mr. Harry Beker explained that these arrangements do not meet the requirements of the IRC and Treas Regs, there have been numerous articles by about everyone putting out a Tax or Benefits newsletter warning about these "Double Dipping" and similar arrangements. Probably the only reason that this employer still has this plan is because they have not seeked legal advice and have not done even the most basic research. The IRS has already announced that they will be taking serious action against the promoters and users of these plans. ALL the clients of the largest promoter were disclosed as part of the discovery related to other illegal insurance products that that promoter also sold (for which they are now according to the newspapers facing long sentences and large fines). The names of users were given to the IRS. It will only be a matter of time before the IRS comes a calling and both the employer and your wife will have a tax liability with harsh penalties if they are using one of these arrangements. You might want to do a Google search using the name of the TPA in " .." and "Double dip arrangement" , and "Health Incentive Plan" "HI Plan" plus the name of the TPA. Also go to the EBIA.com website and do a search for "Double dip arrangement".

Theresa, In your scenario the late charges were caused by the employers negligence and therefore it should bear the brunt not the employee. The credit card fee is not, according to the post, for the convenience of the employer but the TPA trying to facilitate the ex-employees. The post had nothing to do with the employer.

Nope, it only makes the figures less understandable. Maybe someone else will comment. It might help if you told what the paystub looks like when there is no Med Reimb. Medical Reimbursements do not usually appear on a pay stub because they are usually paid by a separate check.

That was the basis of the question, How and Why would you save taxes? If that was the case everyone would pay everything through a company. The child might be your but that does not make payment of every item a tax benefit. Buying clothes is not tax free. I suggest that you get the IRS Publication 970 that covers education programs and credits such as Hope, Lifetime and Coverdell. The IRC code sections should be 127, 529 and 162. You might also look at your state 529 Plans. Paying anything that is not specifically exempted from income, will make that amount be included in your income and therefore subject to being taxed.

If the child is not an employee and not participating in an employer provided plan, how would this be of any benefit to you?

I think that you should review the pay stubs and any other explanatory material again. I suspect that you misunderstand the plan and I could not follow your arithmetic in particular: "Med Reimb +$P (addition to gross pay) S125 FSA -$Q (reduction in gross pay). where Q was slighly higher than P (can't figure out the mathematical relationship between P & Q)."

Do an addendum stating and clarifying the dates. A vast number of the plans that I see have the same situation, it is very common, mainly because very few companies started their plan at the start of a calendar year and many companies have a fiscal year that is not calendar year. These coupled with the requirements that the employee makes an election for the year (usually regarded as calendar year) and that the W2 is for the calendar year and in the old days many states did not recognize the section 125 deduction and I think that NJ and a few still do not plus there is the 401(k) reporting . The deductible has nothing to do with your plan year. Did you check out this TPA before you hired them? I would have thought that they would have had enough experience to amend this simple matter without causing you any concerns etc.

It is not the cite that was the problem it was the relevance to this issue. 1563 is good for some tax issues. 414 is good for profit sharing etc. 318 and 1372 are good for cafeteria plans and fringe benefits. Any cite given by anyone, even reference material, should be read and placed in context and relevancy.

You are really looking for Fiduciary Liability Insurance not E &O.

I have never thought about this before, but it comes to my mind that even though you can only charge 102% max. for COBRA, if an employee paid with acheck that bounced, you are allowed to charge him a "bounced check" fee and collection expenses. You are therefore able to go beyond 102% because the "extra" is not a charge related to the insurance coverage but is a charge related to a separate item, the physical check. Using that logic, it seems reasonable to charge the credit card fee. Bear in mind that the employer is not really charging the employee the fee, but is in reality only collecting the fee on behalf of the credit card company. The employer does not get to keep the fee so it is really not a charge by the employer. The 2% is kepy by the employer the credit card charge is not. This is analogous to sales tax, We misstate when we say that we charge sales tax on purchases, in reality and under the law, the seller only coolects on behalf of the state and has to turn over the sales tax collected (although we say charged). The sales tax is not kept by the seller neither is the credit card charge. The sales tax is not imposed by the seller neither is the credit card charge imposed by the employer. In both cases it is only being collected on behalf of some other entity.

Depending on the region there is PanAmerican Life, Colonial, Allstate( American Heritage), Security Life and a few of the large "TPA" marketing groups such as AIC and ASI. Check Brokers World, Insurance Selling, Agents Insurance Journal, your local NAHU office and groups like Mass Marketing Insurance Institute for leads

How else could do you think this could be done? The employer/plan sponsor is the one responsible for paying the fees for service and the one with the checkbook. Who else has the ability to pay the fees? Who else but the Plan Administrator has the info? Other than the person who has the info, who else would be able to turn it over? Who should be held responsible for turning the info over in a timely manner?