GBurns

It is the hearing aid that alleviates the physical defect.

One thing seems missing. What benefits are you desiring to provide?

Multiple employer plans, whether MEWAs or not , are maintained by multiple employers, whether through unions or not. Multi-employer plans are different to multiple employer plans and while usually set up through unions or subject to a CBA, this is not always so. chris4013, Please clarify what type of plan you really mean. Accuracy of decsription will get you better answers.

HIPAA does not preempt many state privacy laws, since many are more restrictive and stringent. As the HHS says HIPAA is only a "floor". See the HHS HIPAA Q&A 89, 108, 163 etc. Isn't there a Federal Law that says that SS#s should not be used for identification purposes? Isn't the SS# PHI? and even if not isn't it Private Financial Information under other laws both federal and state?

Does your state even allow MEWAs?

NC is not the only state "marching" Florida and others are also there. Florida also requires a lawyer at Real Estate closings. I wish you had gone beyond "Certainly being enrolled to practice before the IRS doesn't qualify you to advise an employer about ERISA issues" and pointed out that those enrolled to practice include CPAs, lawyers and actuaries. None of these designations, by itself, qualifies the holder to advise an employer about ERISA, employee benefits, estate planning, taxation, HR or IT etc, yet this is who I see offerring their "expertise". Getting attorneys involved will not solve the problem but most likely will aggravate it. The solution is to stop advice from being offered by someone on the basis of a credential that has nothing to do with the issue, per se, and educate the using public as to what expertise is really held by the "credentialee" as opposed to what is really needed. How to stop the hype is the problem. We also need to clean up the document providers and the TPAs. If we do not , we leave a weapon to be used by the legal profession in their effort to gain access or control of this area.

Very good advice, but I must add the warning that not all payroll companies and WC insurers are knowledgeable. Make sure any opinion and advice given is supported by official documentation etc.

Shouldn't this depend on what is in the CBA and/or the PD?

Is there a difference between "employer's contribution" and "employer's profit"? Is there a difference between the employee's elective deferral and the employer's contribution? Are the above treated differently or have different definitions in a 401(k) from in a PS pension plan?

Remember that this ruling was before 401(k) and even before pre-tax salary reductions were allowed.

Before going to the DA or State Attorney, I suggest that you resolve the issue of your standing to bring an action. The son in charge might have had no reasonable way of knowing that the payments were erroneous. The son in charge was settling the estate, should the payments have been part of the estate? If he did not include these funds in the estate but instead diverted to personal or improper use, Who is eligible to bring an action? Have you discussed the issue with the beneficiaries or the Probate Judge?

q8r One of the big challenges afced by those who represent taxpayers and those who render guidance on complex tax issues, is getting opinions from the IRS or Treasury itself. It is always a great loss whenever any IRS or Treasury official, who is willing to give opinions that are well reasoned and well supported, leaves. He will be missed by many, even those who have had problems involving him. As you so rightly pointed out, without him we will have almost nothing.

What does Circular 230 which covers "Regulations Governing Practice Before The Internal Revenue Service" have to do with this issue? While substantial authority might be the basis for claiming a deduction, that was not the question. You staed that there was such substantial authority, I asked you where ever did you find it? Apparently you either do not know what "substantial authority" is or you really have none that you can cite. I suggest that you look at section 6661 and Treas Regs 1.6661-3 et al for the definition of "substantial authority" that is provided by the IRS and which is the accepted definition in matters of taxation. I doubt that you can provide anything that meets these requirements or anything in case law. Why do you so very frequently give cites and references that have no relevance? People do check them.

The SAP and captioning ability is built into the circuitry of the TV. The hearing aid remote is not. The special telephone equipment is an instrument/appliance, the hearing aid remote is not. The use of the device by someone else was addressed, explained, dated and expanded, in my previous post, if you could only read adequately. Where have you ever seen "substantial authority under the tax law to claim a deduction as a medical expense."?

mbozek, It seems that on every Forum, I have to repeat this to you. Read the post by KaranRobertson again. Nowhere does she say that the remote control is part of the hearing aid. She said .."Usually it is worn like a watch". To wear something like a watch means that it is either in your pocket (like a pocketwatch, which would be rare) or usually, like almost all of us, it is on your forearm near your wrist. I trust that is where you do wear your watch and not around or in your ear where something that is a part of the hearing aid (such as the battery) would be worn. The remote used to be, until the mid 90s an accessory sold so as to allow others to interrupt the wearer without shouting or turning off the TV or whatever the hearing aid user might be listening to. With the advent, in the 90s, of digital and programmable hearing aids some manufacturers have made available a remote control device so that the user can control the device themself. This usually works effectively on those hearing aids that are not self-adapting and that is why the remote device is only available from a few manufacturers, with whose technology self adjusting would not conflict.The major drawback with the older technology devices is that they increase all noises at the same time. The wrist watch remote control device (most likely the Phonak ) has only been out a few years and still is not readily available or useable in the USA. This Phonak device and another device using similar technology allows selective control. To check for availability of remote control devices or to see who uses self-adjusting technology that would conflict, you could look in the Siemens catalog (maker of over 20% of all hearing aids and maker of over 50% of advanced hearing aids) plus others like Oticon or Widex, or just visit a major hearing aid store. You will find that many have never even heard of a remote control. Or ask any major insurer (preferably Medicare) or large TPA if they know of any insurance plan that covers the item. I do not know of any insurer that will pay for it. The reasons being unproven, unnecessary, other proven acceptable cost effective methods are available etc etc. Which is probably why this person is trying to use their FSA rather than seeking reimbursement or coverage from their insurance company. It says volumes to me when an insurance company will pay for a hearing aid and batteries but not for the remote control,

I disagree with you, the distinction is whether the hypnosis is for the treatment of the diagnosed medical condition which it is not, although it is for treatment related to that condition. Think back to the IRS rulings on cayenne pepper, obesity, handicapped transportation vehicle etc. The fact that you buy cayenne pepper does not make it deductable, you have to apportion the cost of the amount of cayenne pepper that is actually being used directly related to the medical condition, and apportion the cost of cayenne pepper that you would use in your normal cooking. In other words you can deduct only that which is directly used for the medical condition.

It does not matter whether group or individual, life settlement still is applicable. That is the choice of the investors not yours. The minmum size that is acceptable varies with the investor, not everyone has the same minimums (not very different from other investments). As to the ability to assign, that depends on the actual policy, but most plans such as what was mentioned by Blackacre are assignable and owned by the employee. Blackacre,.. Will you please clarify? An individual purchaser can cancel an individual plan even faster than an employer and neither ahve any guarantee against lapse other than as provided in the non-forfeiture provisions of that particular policy. Your reference to state law regarding the beneficiary change has no validity. The conditions that a purchaser of any policy has to satisfy is a factor that the purchaser takes into consideration whether it be viatical or life settlement. What a purchaser of anything will accept is up to that purchaser and their own risk tolerance etc not yours. What and how anyone chooses to invest is up to them not you. Just because you do not understand or know much about an item or product has no bearing on the validity of that item or product. There is much that you do not know and it is unfortunate that you do not know when you do not know and know how to act or speak accordingly . I suggest that you find out much more about life insurance policies.

Here is some introductory material, a Google search will give you more. http://info.insure.com/life/lifesettlements.html Re "who takes the risk?" see the above re private investors and see the next link regarding corporations. It is not much different in principle to the COLI policies on employee (and ex-employee) lives, the only difference is that one is financed by private investors and the other by the employer (or ex employer): http://www.benefitnews.com/detail.cfm?id=4415 By the way, the death benefit in a group term policy is assigned in the same manner as done for all other life insurance ... the insured or policy owner signs a beneficiary designation form. There are lots of buyers and the first such purchase that I saw was in 1967.

Ask the settlement company and shop around. If you think about it a group term life plan usually has a conversion or continuation and a non-forfeiture option. The settlement company can calculate the reserve needed to convert the policy in case or termination of employment and they cna find out what the conversion premiums are or non-forfeiture values such as paid-up face amount will be. From this they can make their calculations and come up with a purchase price. Whether or not the end result is attractive is determined case by case.

Steve72 probably meant a "Life Settlement" company. Terminal illness is not required etc.

monti1, If this child had been in a car accident or had a heart attack, would you require that they be mentally or physically disabled first? I also question the 18 year age restriction that oriecat points out, although I have not perused FMLA, but since FMLA is allowed for spouses etc with no age restriction I cannot see that there should be an age restriction on a child.

My granddaughter does not like to take oral medication, neither does she like injections, does that mean that the Dr should be paid extra to hold her down while administering the injection and that it is reimburseable to employ someone to assist in getting her to open her mouth for the oral medication? I think that this person "finickness" should not be catered to. What do they want the illness or the cure? Are we now going to do the same for the tens or hundreds of thousands of diabetics etc who cannot stand the sight of the needle or blood but have had to learn to put up with the nausea, the barfing, the gagging and their anxiety and fear??? There has been enough abuse in our utilization of medical care, with the resulting high costs and waste, let us not take it a step further. Tell this person ... Just take the medicine it is good for you.

I cannot see why there would be any need other than ego?? to want to make these changes retroactively. Everyone and everything already knows and shows the name as it is. As far as the adoption goes it should not be retroactive or backdated. If it comes up in an audit or litigation, it will be a major problem. If you really want to make these changes either do it currently or wait for next year. Bear in mind that you are not just making a change in name and sponsor, you seem to be either merging two plans, or terminating the old plan and allowing the 4 employees to join the other plan that has 300ees. If either of these are what you are doing, the issues are other than what your post covers.

As Katherine points out vesting is not an issue, because there is neither termination of employment or termination of plan etc. All that you have is a change in ownership, nothing more. What remains are the issues of expenses, which should be a minor isuue and the bigger issues of keeping the plans in compliance (testing etc). Note katherine's warnings about qualification and matching.

First beat senseless the person who drafted that CBA. Such rigidity was unnecessary and shortsighted. I think that adhering to the EDI requirements would violate the CBA, Why not get a MOU from the Union accepting this minor change in delivery? A violation of EDI has no bearing on the CBA and vice versa. What sort of 301 action do you see as possible?