GBurns

It is irrelevant what is offered in any state. The issue is Why does 3515 think that only CPAs would or could offer the services? Why not Lawyers or EAs? In your post you stated that you have passed the Bar exam (and so I classify you as a Lawyer) and that you have done these audit. Why then would you not be qualified to answer the question that austin3515 asked, but a CPA is? Or are you inferring that you are inferior to a misc CPA in this area also? My response points out that it is not within their area of study and not within the scope of the exam. The fact that a CPA learns other things outside his required courses so as to complement and complete his professional knowledge has nothing to do with his designation. Just as you pointed out, You yourself do perform audits although as you say "even though there is no specific topic on the Bar exam for audits or pension plans for that matter". Since it was not part of your Bar exam it most likely was not part of your required course of study. Yet you learned it and must have done it outside of your course of study and outside the scope of your exam. That is what you yourself just posted so it is puzzling that you state that "[i dont understand what you mean by stating that pension plan auditing is learned outside the CPA arena since the services will be performed as part of professional accounting/auditing services". To understand what I said ALL that you have to do is to read your own post wherein you confirmed, restated and supported exactly what I said. What a CPA or any professional tells his client about his area of expertise is up to that CPA or other professional's standards of ethics and disclosure. Noone telss any client whether they got a C or an A or had to repeat courses many times. It is just not something that is readily discussed. But discussion or disclosure does not change the facts.

oriecat Thanks. I was not aware that they had it on their site and I have seen the question asked by others who never knew of it either. Is this new or has it been available for some time?

TAG I am surprised that as a CPA candidate you do not know what your course of study and the curriculum to be covered for your exam is. You can simply visit the AICPA website and see what the exam covers. As you will see the CPA exam does not cover this or any related topic, as a result this topic and related topics are not in the curriculum of study and are not in the prerequisite Baccalaureate degree programs either. Pension plans and pension plan auditing etc etc is just not within the educational range of a CPA, it is learned, if at all, outside the CPA arena. Here is a link to the actual exam: http://www.cpa-exam.org/cpa/faq004.htm

The reply by q8r is a good explanation of the "Use it or lose it" and the Uniform Coverage requirement that provide most of the required "risk". I do not know of any non-subscription site that keeps the Proposed Treasury Regulations 1.125-2 that provides the FSA "rules". Your nearest Law Library would be your best source.

Why CPAs? What makes you think that this is even within their usual area of expertise or training?

There are very few limits placed on IRAs by the IRS (see IRC 408 and the Treas Regs therefor), however, there will be restrictions placed by the Trustee/Custodian and/or Plan Administrator whether the IRA is self directed or not. But, in many cases (if the Plan permits it) all you have to do is change your Trustee etc to one that allows whatever it is that you want if there is one. Be wary of any Trustee etc that allows you to do whatever you please. Trustee etc and investment brokers have suitability and prudence etc rules that they must follow, however, there are some that will flaunt the rules just for the commission and who would not care if you made imprudent investments, lost all the money or ran afoul of the IRS and got tax penalties. Please remember that the IRS has the final say as to whether or not what you invest in affects the taxation, it is not a free for all do as you please issue. I suggest that you do a search on www.google.com looking for "investments in an IRA) etc and read the IRS Publication etc. There are a lot of articles etc available.

Whether your client is the employer or not or the plan is administered by the TPA or not is irrelevant to the questions asked etc. The employer is not the Plan. That is what some of us are trying to get you to understand.

Just out of curiousity, How much time elapsed between the deaths and why were the funds not yet distributed to the beneficiary under the will ? Did the Probate Court approve the will and distribution to the beneficiary? I also wonder what an "Affidavit of Heirship" is and does it supercede or pre-empt your state intestacy etc laws?

HIPAA removed and eliminated actively at work requirements.

vebaguru, Such as whose?

Kirk, I am without my reference materials and access to my subscription services for a while, in addition I think that a lot of our readers might not ahve access to these older documents, Is it possible to summarize?

kova7, While you seem to have accepted that there are other regulatory issues to be aware of, you semm to have missed the point regarding whether or not ANY PHI should be given to this client. The employer is not the plan, whether insured or self-funded. PHI is NOT to be given to ANY employer. As jeanine asked, but you did not answer..... Who is your client the employer or the plan?

While mbozek brings up a good analogy, I would still not reimburse. The reason being, that while the batteries are a necessary part of the hearing aid for the benefit of the use, the remote is not. It is an accessory for use by someone other than the user of the hearing aid and for the convenience of someone other than the hearing aid user.

If you eventually, this year or next, allow him out, please get him to sign a document outlining his reasons and your explanation. I have seen a few cases where the employees have come back after a number of years claiming that because the tax benefits or the impact on SS was not sufficiently well explained to them, they were led to a bad decision and either lost money or lost SS benefits.

Without a trust to protect the employee's balances, the employer might not be able to make the now substantial "rollover" balances available in any form anyhow. If the employer pays out the balances as a "bonus" or otherwise to the employees I believe that this would disqualify the whole plan, and most likely retroactively. vebaguru, Do you have any concrete info as to whether or not these Definity, Lumenos Aetna etc plans are really "unfunded" or "phantom". I have been getting conflicting reports, although I think that the reason is that many people have bought a "pig in a poke". They have no idea what it is that they got.

I do not think that the members of the association cause any problem but the relationship between the client and the Association should. Would not a controlled group exist between the Client and the Association itself (which owns 100% of the client)?

Since most group health plans (I assume this to be medical insurance) are guaranteed issue, how would you exclude this employee? Also what would be the point of the employer excluding the employee if the insurance company does not require it and gives no reduction in premium etc for the exclusion? What empowers any employer to exclude any employee based on a physical impairment, disability or illness? What empowers any employer from excluding an employee for medical reasons especially when the insurer does not?

Most if not all public school districts in Kansas do offer a 403(b) program. Information is usually available from either HR or the Benefits Dept. Call and ask them for an enrollment package which would have the information, a salary reduction agreement and an Investment selection/provider list. You will then have to call a selected few for further info. You are most likely eligible to participate in a 403(b) plan.

Note that it clearly states "if feasible" and "if such return or destruction is not feasible". Because of state insurance laws and the agent's insurance contract destruction or return without copying is not very feasible. Also bear in mind that the employer or plan sponsor IS NOT the Plan and most likely should not even be requesting muchless getting this PHI.

I cannot think of areason to support even thinking of accepting this as reimburseable, liberal as I am.

Aside from the fact that the employer cannot arbitrarily attach the employee's 401(k), has this employer considered that the employee has not been convicted as yet, in fact, not tried or even charged as yet? What happens if this employer starts raising a stink, starts bad mouthing the employee, starts trying to take action, THEN the employee either does not get charged or even if charged does not get convicted? This employer would be well advised to shut up and let his lawyer handle the issues or else he could very well end up with this employee as his new "boss".

I do not remember anything in HIPAA about BAs returning or destroying anything. You did not state whether this client was the employer or the plan. I do not think that HIPAA gives the employer any right to PHI, whether the plan is fully insured or self-insured. The employer is not the plan. Even if the client was subject to HIPAA, you, as an agent are required by your state insurance licensing law and most likely your contracts with the insurers, to retain copies of the documents. Certain items might be none of their business including correspondence with employees, commission statements and most correspondence with your insurers.

It seems like fairly standard cost allocation. If the employees in the 12% states have to bear the full 12% you run the risk of many dropping coverage because it is too expensive. The employer might then have increased labor costs from increased absenteeism and increased rates next time from the insurer because of the smaller group. What happens if next year the states gets reversed?? Spreading it across the entire population seems fairest in the long run. However, I am not saying that 8% is fair, that is for your company to calculate bearing in mind the number of participants in each state.

I think that the problem is the "cash out". As long as there is the option of getting cash or some other taxable item it most likely will not be ragarded as non-elective and be taxable income.

Without addressing the other discrepancies in your posts .. Where did you ever read that "The contributions were originally deducted as union dues to avoid the inference that there was any bargaining over the contributions under the labor law which would make them a condition of employment in an employer sponsored plan." ?? The following was excerpted from a recent case since I do not have their documents on file, only in hard copy.. "Under that collective bargaining agreement, the Company also was obligated to deduct from its employees' paychecks Union dues and assessments (collectively, "the dues"), which it was to forward to the Union." The standard practice for ALA and ALL unions has ALWAYS been to deduct dues etc as dues etc and not to misrepresent any deduction by fraudulently claiming it as something else.