GBurns

Yes! The ALA employee contributions are most likely pre-tax and Yes! 501©(18)(D) applies to ALA, and again YES! like all salary reductions, the employee salary reductions are treated as employer contributions. My statement was that as per the summary on the GCIU website, these features are not in the GCIU plan. In ALA the employee contributions ARE NOT treated as union dues. Union dues are a separate and different OTHER deduction. It is spurious and incorrect to make the statement "Since the contributions are made by the employees there is no collective bargaining agreement with the employer." Any plan that involves any employer and unionized employees must be either directly collectively bargained or incorporated by reference in the CBA or adopted via a Memorandum of Understanding.

Don't you think that greater care should be taken beyond the Plan Document? What happens if the SPD and/or actual practice gives more time or a looser time frame? Bear in mind such cases as : http://www.ebia.com/weekly/articles/2000/C...0831Grande.html

I do not see any similarity between the ALA plan and the GCIU plan posted. Under the ALA Plan, the plan is established for employees (who are union members) and contributions are deducted by the employer from the employee's paycheck as follows : "Pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement between a commercial printing firm, the D.L. Terwilliger Co., Inc. ("the Company), and Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers of America ("the Union"), the Company had an obligation to deduct from its employees' paychecks contributions which, in turn, it was to forward to the Union's pension fund and Sickness & Accident Fund (collectively, "the Funds"). " In the GCIU plan, it not only appears that the members might not all have the same employer, but the participation etc is not pursuant to any collective bargaining nor employer acceptance nor salary reductions or deductions. Although it is possible that after the members of the local vote to join the GCIU Plan, then they go and collectively bargain with the employer. But there is no mention of collective bargaining on the GCIU site in contrast to the ALA website. I doubt that there is any collective bargaining because of the statement in the summary on the GCIU website that: "The fund benefits are not negotiated with any employer." Another difference between the 2 plans is the tax treatment of contributions. Members of ALA get their contributions deducted on the employer's payroll, which, although not explicitly stated, allows for standard pre-taxing. However, the ALA plan seems to have no payroll treatment leaving the members to make some sort of adjustment on their tax return. The statement in the ALA summary is: "Participants in the Inter-Local Pension Fund can deduct their contributions to the fund on their taxes. " This is not the usual tax treatment of contributions to a pension plan or a 403(b) (which is what the 2 union member posters stated that they were told by GCIU that it was).

I do not see where there has been any mention of what any insurance company has said, so that raises the real question, .. What has any insurance company said?

Can you name any of these similar union Trusts?

mbozek, The reference to 403(b0 was made by the original poster, bobmeyer58 and confirmed by river1. Re : "Howver the type of arrangemnt described is permissible as an employee funded retirement plan under IRC 501©(18)." Are non employers allowed to establish such plans? Are non-employees allowed to participate? I thought that these plans were established for employees and when set up through unions were collectively bargained. This plan seems neither collectively bargained nor employer related much less sponsored. Note the tax treatment of contributions.

If, as you state, not all locals are part of the plan, then I have to ask Why are you allowing your local to participate? In any case, this whole thing SMELLS. I am not a 403(b) expert but I cannot see how this plan can be a 403(b) plan in the first place, which is what was posted. 403(b) plans that I see have mainly individual accounts and there is no way that any sponsor can dictate what the returns etc will be. In a 403(b) and most, if not all pension plans, it does not matter whether or not there is shrinking membership. This has no bearing on the distributions. In this case, the union is making dictates that is not within the power of a plan sponsor to make, as far as I know, BUT in any case I do not see how this union can even be a Plan sponsor if this is a 403(b) or even any form of tax deductible pension plan. I am also supicious about the statement on their website, to the effect, that you can take off your contributions on your tax return. This is not what is done for Pension Plans etc. So again I have to wonder what sort of plan this is? If it were me I would be not only running away as fast as I could, but would be calling in every regulator that ever existed. I question whether or not this qualifies as a Pension Plan of any sort and I do not see where it can be a 403(b), or where it will be tax deductible and a whole bunch of etc etc etc. I hope that some of our 403(b) and pension plan readers will post some definitive opinions on this.

Are we to understand that in this 403(b) plan there will be only ONE (1) investment option???? I am also wondering whether it is the union telling you this or is it the investment??? By the way, who is sponsoring this 403(b)?? A single employer or multiple employers? Are all the employees all members of only this one union?

Most assets are never in anything. The books of account only hold the nominal value not the actual item. An asset account for a fully owned forklift does not ahve the actual forklift sitting in the account, it has the value. An investment account that invests in stocks does not have the actual stocks or stock certificates in the account it only has the value. If invested in housing it does not have the actual houses, it has the value. Like all asset accounts and their underlying assets, there is the risk of non-payment, non remittance by the employer, attachment by creditors before transfer, bankruptcy etc etc. As a result assets are insured and bonded as applicable. Why would you want to give different accounting and securitization treatment to what is just another asset account? Especially one where the Trustees might be held responsible for non-collection etc.

Isn't it a requirement of the Proposed Treas Regs, for FSAs, that there must be a separate written agreement? If so, how could you have just 1 PD?

This is not my subject but I have to ask ... What are contribution receivables? If these are monies expected to be but not yet received, why would they not be a plan asset? What makes them different from accounts receivables in the commercial sense? Commercial receivables are secured debts and an asset.

Like mbozek, I woder what kind of plan this really is etc. While mandatory participation is highly unlikely, unless there is an employer contribution, employee election to contibute most likely cannot be mandatory unless enough union members vote in such a requirement. For the majority to vote that requirement in would indicate that they see some great benefit that you do not see. In addition, you state that when you retire "they will only give me my money back, NO INTEREST". This does not make sense, the money contributed must be invested somewhere and must or should earn an investment return. The investment return on vested money must belong to you. I suggest that you reread and review the material that has been distributed to make sure that you understand the plan and ask some questions.

Your ability to make these deductions is going to be limited by your SPD, Plan Document and usual payroll practice. Is acceleration of premium, excess deductions, multiple deductions etc even allowed? I looked at a similar plan and guess what?? Only the current deduction is allowed.

QDROphile, Thanks. I read your post to mean having a "wrap plan" and filing a single Form 5500 has nothing to do with the various plans having their own documents. ****** Therefore, although you could have all the component plans under a single welfare plan, that does not remove the need for the components to have their own Plan Documents which are incorporated by reference. There is no connection between the 5500 (single or not) and the Plan Documents.

I do not have any of my legal references online, so I just did asimple Google search, here is some of what I found that might help; http://www.ncf.ca/ncf/execdir/2001/may/2001-03.txt http://www.asands.com/wn_transactional.html http://www.stoel.com/resources/articles/en...news-mar-2.shtm http://www.reevesjournal.com/CDA/ArticleIn...5,80594,00.html There are thousands of articles on the subject that are easily found

There is a big difference between the signing of a contract and the decision to put any plan in place. A corporate resolution is required, according to most corporate by-laws, to take an action that is not part of the day to day operation of the company. Most of these by-laws also limit who can sign to the President only unless there is specific Board authorization. There are specific stae laws that determine who can bind a company. It would be foolish to get an agreement or contract signed by someone with no power to bind the company. The decision to start a plan just like the decision to open a bank account is not part of the day to day operation of the company and needs a Board decision. Board decisions are usually issued as Board Resolutions. Ask your local banker what they require for the opening of a bank account and you will easily see the requirement for a Board Resolution, A welfare benefit plan gets no different treatment. The fact that you might have seen persons signing some contracts does not mean that they were not given the authority by the Board or that the Board did not issue a Board Resolution. They just might not ahve told you and you just did not know that it existed. You might want to do something as simple as looking at the documentation that is required by Aflac, Colonial etc( for voluntary benefits) or Corbel or MHM (for Cafeteria plans etc). Among the documents is a Board Resolution, A a Certificate of Board Resolution and an Adoption Agreement. The reason why these forms are there is simply because they are needed so as to establish the plan and have the contracts be binding. Kirk, Look for authority to bind the corporation, but not limited to any context.

Steve72 Other than on this Board I have never heard of a "wrap Plan" in this context, What is it and where can you suggest that I go look for information?

Complicated but I do not see why this cost change imposed by the plan sponsor would not satisfy the requirements.

It does not matter what your client's lawyer says, it matters only what the court appointed Trustee and Judge say. Have you filed your claim for the pre-bankruptcy debt and have you approached the bankruptcy Trustee or judge re the current situation and for approval of a pay as you go basis?

It has become very popular to cite statutes and case law etc that are either irrelevant or plain erroneous. I guess it makes the request or argument seem valid and seems to be done because it is not expected that the cite or quote etc will be checked. My opinion is that they are trying to con you into something. If the cite is not relevant I would respond by telling that the request was not valid and was without reason. Are you sure that this person is really representing the Fund and that your response is going to the Fund and not some marketing group trying to expand their database?

vebaguru Are you charging the employee a premium for participating in the HRA? Or, Are you charging the employee part of the health insurance premium which they pay through the Cafeteria Plan or POP plan etc?

A Revenue Ruling is not and never will be the law nor will it ever replace the IRC or Treas Regs. It is simply the statement of the IRS position on the IRC and Treas Regs as they pertain to the specific facts and circumstances of the particular case or issue being addressed in that Revenue Ruling. I suggest that you consider why 61-146 includes in its last paragraph the mention of the fact that "the employers had no accident or health plan of their own in effect" and what the statement means. How does an employer put a "plan of their own in effect "? What authorizes the officers of a company to start a plan or to even open a bank account? The Answers.. A BOARD RESOLUTION and an ADOPTION AGREEMENT.

I would say that this is way beyond endorsement, this definitely is employer participation, selection and about everything else. Why is this not a MEWA under your state law? If not a MEWA have you checked the M1 at the DOL ? I doubt that this could ever be non ERISA. I also question the ability to participate in the Trust just because the application and certificate say so.

Since there was a purpose, other than gratuitousness or inheritance, for having given the employee the money, section 102 would not be relevant. Applying 61-146 etc would show how to make the payments not taxable to the employees. Since retroactive adoption of a plan is not allowed, I suggest that you review When and How this practice was started and whether or not there was a Board resolution authorizing this. A Plan does not need to be in writing (under many circumstances) but it needs to have been adopted by the company and communicated to the employees, see Treas Regs 105. The employer also needs to obtain verification that the money was and is used solely and totally for insurance premiums or medical (dental) expense reimbursement.

If there are certificates issued it means that this is a group product, To whom is the Master Group policy issued? Re these certificates: Does it define ""Participating Entity"? Does the employee's name appear anywhere? Where?