GBurns

I do not think that this is an issue of "charging" plan costs but more of imposing costs at the unilateral discretion of the Plan Sponsor particulary costs that were not "incurred" or caused by any action of the participant. I can quite see the DOL taking the position that these are not plan costs but Plan Sponsor costs. Neither the Plan nor the participant has any desire, options, decision or discretion in the matter, it therefore is an arbitrary action that is being done for the benefit of the Plan Sponsor and should be a cost charged solely to the Plan Sponsor.

In general the deduction of premium alone is regarded as a payroll practice and is exempt from ERISA. BUT anything more would most likely cause the plan to fall under ERISA. Selection of vendor or policies to be offered would make it ERISA. Endorsement as being "approved" would also in most cases cause it to be ERISA. If any administration, decision making, claims or dispute arbitration or involvement in decisions, enrollment or information distribution etc would make it ERISA.

HIPAA also did away with actively at work for disability plans. I sugest that you, as most employers that I have seen do, send the material to the employees.

I omitted to point out that when if you follow the link and look for the Cal State 401(b) program you will see that it is not mentioned in the CBA. This is standard practice all around the USA. The 403(b) program in most cases is installed pursuant to a simple Memorandum of Understanding. MOU are used not only for 403(b) programs but is the standard procedure of making changes in a benefits program especially as it relates to providers, after it would be cumbersome to have to go through a new round of bargaining just to replace or add a new carrier etc etc. That is why details are not in or through the CBA. The below link shows how the 403(b) is handled in the California system: http://www.csusm.edu/HR/payroll/98.TSA403B.html provided, of course as it says, that there is a MOU with the particular union allowing those union members to participate.

Here is an example of a very typical and popular CBA structure. The inclusion of the benefit is agreed to in the CBA but the eligibility, definitions , terms, conditions etc are set by the "benefit" not by the CBA. http://www.calstate.edu/LaborRel/Contracts...Article21.shtml http://www.calstate.edu/LaborRel/Contracts...Article25.shtml It is also very popular in smaller companies to not even reference the benefits. The unionized employees get the same benefits that are available to all eligible employees. It is also very normal in trucking companies who are not part of the Teamsters Master Agreement but who have unionized workers, to not have the benefits in the CBA but only reference in the CBA that the unionized employees are eligible for the benefits if they meet the eligibility criteria set for that benefit by that benefit's PD.

Benefits are only part of the collective bargaining agreement if the agreement says so, they do not necessarily have to be part of any negotiations. You can provide benefits that are not subjected to the agreement or any negotiations.

Assuming that you could coordinate the benefits, Why would you be doing this instead of the insurer of the STD? In any case you cannot coordinate if either the law or the STD insurance policy does not clearly state so. What does the STD policy state? What empowers you to limit the WC benefit, Are you the insurer?

Is there something that you see in the enrollment/disenrollment info or SHI that would constitute PHI?

I have been surprised at the number of VEBAs that I have been running into lately, both old and recently established, that have no determination letter and no trustee. I have even seen a VEBA concept that is currently being marketed as a VEBA Plan to School Districts in the Northwest that claims that they have a Master Determination Letter so that new clients only have to sign an Adoption Agreement to fall under the Master and do not need its own Document or a Trust or Trustee (there could not be control by the members in a School district).

If I remember correctly, most of the GUL and GVUL that I saw were for NQSERPs funded as split dollar plans and for which tax deductions were taken. I do not remember them being totally owned by the employer because there were colaterral assignments and/or Rabbi Trusts etc etc. There were a lot of so-called "Advance Market" techniques being used to make the concepts seem sophisticated and complex apparently not only to cloud the legitimacy issues but also to justify the use of high commission products. I am wondering whether there would be some sort of residual tax consequence, to both the employer and employee, caused by a disallowance of the tax deductions taken, whether the plan is terminated or not. If the policies were totally employer owned, what was the benefit to the employee? If the benefit was only a promise to pay the death benefit to the employee's benificiary then there most likely a taxable benefit being received and a tax deduction being taken by the employer. If the policies were only partially owned by the employer, then the other part was owned by the employee. Again a taxable benefit with deductions taken. In both cases there is most likely a disallowance problem whether or not the policies are now terminated. If

From what you have posted I understand that there will only be reimbursement for expenses (from the employer) up to $1,000. I understand this to mean that if the employee has only $1,200 in expenses for the year, the employer would only reimburse $1,200 - 1,000 or $200. If this is so, Why do you need an HRA instead of a standard 105 MERP? The only purpose of a HRA is to allow the rollover of unused employer contributions. In your illustration there will be no unused contributions because there is no pre-funding only reimbursement of expenses.

I would love to get a few opinions on this. My personal and research experience shows me that "piercing the corporate veil" is permitted and accomplished very often through the courts. However, mbozek seems to have experienced otherwise, and so I wondered what the consensus (based on factual situations) would be.

A claimant's legal fees are not something that any plan can or could ever impose. These fees are costs incurred at the sole discretion of the claimant and are charged by the claimant's selected attorney and is therefore not a plan issue.

Other than 404 disclosure compliance, there are the NASD, SEC and state securities law compliance requirements. Registered Reps and the investments are required to provide the prospectus at time of solicitation. So regardless of what the Plan Sponsor does the provider of the investment still have requirements to meet. I do not remember ever seeing any litigation that faulted or penalized the Plan Sponsor/Employer for the non providing of a prospectus, but I have seem much against the Rep and Investment for not providing it. I have even seen NASD disciplinary action for providing a prospectus that was not current. I do not think that it is the Plan's or the employer's responsibility to provide the prospectus since this is something that they would not have and in fact is something that the SEC, NASD etc prohibits a non Registered person (which includes employers) from having.

I think that you do have a problem. HIPAA or no HIPAA this PHI is not something that is or should be given to any employer at any time for any reason. If you are fully insured then there are usually also state laws that also prohibit employers getting this PHI. Summary data is okay PHI is not. I suspect that you have been getting this in error and suggest that you get legal advice immediately if not before. By the way, Why would you have wanted this PHI in the first place and of what benefit has it been to you?

I guess that I do not understand your post. RE: Whos's the Employer: Q&A 211 among others answers your Q 1 re excluding the employees of the PEO. Q&A 182 and others address "mid year" and other conversions. Q&A 209 etc addresses CO termination. In general there are multiple Q&As that discuss Rev Proc 2002-21 and its requirements etc, which in turn addresses the questions that you posted. I found clear answers or discussions to your questions in the Q & A (Who's the Employer, 401(k) and Advanced Plan Design) very very easily.

Have you looked in the Q&A Columns for some input? S. Derrin Watson has some insights in "Who's the Employer" and there are other insights in "Advanced Plan Design" and "401(k)".

How would you establish rights, obligations, duties etc etc between the employers etc and scope of coverages to be provided etc without a Plan Document? How would you establish the appointment, termination, duties, obligations, responsibilities of the Trustees and other parties without a Trust Agreement etc etc? An SPD meets the requirements re the employees and nothing else. So whether ERISA requires it or not should have nothing to do with the prudent need for such documents. 29USC1102 (a)(1) ERISA 402 states that evey employee benefit plan shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written agreement. This refers to the PD etc and not to the SPD. This also refers to the Plan itself and not the underlying coverages which have their own requirements.

This link has some IRS comments that are relevant. http://www.ebia.com/weekly/articles/2003/C...af030320IRS.jsp Sheesh!!!!!!!!!!!

You might want to ask the supplement provider for some legal documentation on the subject. Benefits from most supplemental plans are not coordinated with anything and many pay benefits that are not related to or derived from medical expenses. They pay their benefits on account of a personal physical injury or illness. This is no different from the payment under a personal injury case or a disability claim. It has nothing to do with medical expenses. The benefits are tax free only if the employee paid the premium. If the premium was paid through a Cafeteria Plan (on a tax free basis) that is treated under the tax code as being employer paid NOT employee paid. If the premiums were pre-taxed, the benefits are taxable income. If the premiums are paid with after tax dollars the benefits are tax free. You might want to read IRS Technical Advice Memorandum 199936046 which explains the tax free nature of benefits from a supplemental cancer plan.

Your particular state law definitions of "group" and "association" will govern. I doubt that there are any states that allow a "group" or "association" for this purpose. It seems that this "group" would be too small to enjoy any "spreading of risk" and derive any savings. There are some existing "associations" and "group" plans being sold by some of the large TPAs which might suit this purpose. Try Benefitsmall.com and look in publications such as Broker World and Insurance Selling. Also contact your local NAHU office for regional providers and recommendations.

On the other hand you have not yet recognized the very first issue which is the most important issue, namely, whether or not this PEO can even offer the Cafeteria Plan and/or the underlying benefits. The IRC does not recognize a "co-employer". As per the guidance issued for 401(k) plans it might be possible to use a Multiple employer plan. However, that could and should bring up the issue of a MEWA and your state law which might actually prohibit MEWAs in the first place. Again even if a multiple employer plan (MEWA or not) is used you still need the insurance providers to be willing to issue coverage to such an arrangement. If they will not then there would be no benefits to offer under the Plans even if you set up the plans.

It does not make any difference whether this form is in an employee or an employer file. The employer should not have a copy of the enrollment form. If the employee is "not enrolling" Why would they need to answer any questions at all?????? Enrollment forms have no need for medical questions. I think that you might have the forms mixed up or something but your forms do not seem right. I do not know of any state that has approved a form such as the one that you have described. The "broker" as a licensed insurance agent is required by most states to keep a copy of many forms including (in most cases) a copy of the application. Under no circumstances is this the employer's business. If this employer keeps a copy of this form with medical questions, I think that they need some serious legal advice re HIPAA, general privacy and state insurance law.

SLuskin, Your post "We have allowed pretaxing on private individual health premiums for a long time. We set up a separate reimbursement account - separate from the medical FSA." You clearly stated "pretaxing" and "reimbursement" with regard to the same premium. Sheesh??

Group Variable Universal Life.