GBurns

This is not an area of expertise for me so please forgive any foolish questions, I am trying to learn and understand. What is an FBO account? How can a 403(B) plan that has the funds invested in a mutual fund, and I assume that this is a 403(B)(7) fund, have the employer as the custodian? How can a 403(B) plan not be on a 403(B) platform, whatever that is? What would make the plan become non-ERISA ? Why would a SEP with employer contributions not be an employee plan still subject to ERISA, since apparently the entity is not ERISA exempt?

I tunderstood the question that Carolyn meant to ask as being ...whether the WC premium is based on the Gross Salary/Compensation before any pre-tax reductions for Cafeteria Plans etc. or on the net after such reductions.

Probably the best place to get proper info on this would be from someone who handles plans Davis-Bacon and related acts (DBRA) and other prevailing wage situation. I remember that most keep such info, some of it came from NCCI and some from the DOL Wage & Hour division.

Recently Indiana made it a requirement that insurers etc must make detailed claims experience info available even for small groups. Are there any other states with similar laws?

Maybe the prudent thing to do first is to get the promoter of the idea to prove their case that the limit does not apply by providing the relevant cites of IRC, Treas Regs and case law. I would also get them to do the same thing regarding using a VEBA for this purpose. If they cannot prove their case satisfactorily then there is no need for research. If they can prove it and you can verify the proof again there would be no need for research. However, if their "proof" etc is questionable, then you need to ask the questions and do the research.

Because 1.125-1 and 1.125-2 are "merely" Proposed Treasury Regulations they are not generally available and not includable in the CFR, apparently because of the lack of legal effect, but you can find them on Tax Analysts or any of the tax research subsription services. MHM fortunately also provides them through its subsidiary 125plan.com at this link: http://www.125plan.com/FlexLinks.htm

Why would either appear? Are you the plan sponsor, the claims administrator, a service provider, a fiduciary etc. ? If you are an employee or plan participant the SPD can be handed to you, faxed to you, emailed to you or mailed to you. The addressing on the medium chosen for distribution can have your name plus any other valid address that ensures delivery to you.

UIL is Uniform Issue Listing. This is a listing of all the Code sections affected by a ruling etc. In many of the research tools this is one of your good searching keys. If you are using the IRS site foe Written Determinations ( their name for PLRs) you are given 2 choices, Number or UIL. If you use UIL the site sorts all the PLRs by code section. In this case you would be looking for 105 and will get all the PLRs (1999 to Present). You should not need to go back beyond 1999, if you do let me know and I will help you get it.

This PLR 200204021 might explain best: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/pub/irs-wd/0204021.pdf

OOPS!! A few hours after I wrote my hasty response I got notice of the ruling. I wa going to email it to you, but I checked good ole benefitslink first and they already had it.

The Treas Regs would expand 105(a) further. See Treas Regs. 1.105-4, 7.105-1 and -2.

I think this is what you mean: http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/news/efoia/01-0155.pdf It is not new but yesterday's article by USA Today and a recent release by the EBIA creates the impression that this is new. The subject is also addressed in Pub. 502.

The latest issue of CFO magazine has a listing with some other info. It might be available on www.cfo.com If it is not there yet give it a day or 2.

While the exclusion of employer provided retirement planning (advice) regarding a "Qualified employer plan" is addressed at Section 665 of the Act, the question posed deals with Executive Financial Planning which is not anywhere addressed in the Act or anywhere else that I can find. There is a big difference between the 2 items.

The reason why I question the ability of nearly every PEO to offer benefits is because of the extensive "literature" available outside of PEO promoters that questions that ability. This literature includes many state DOI warnings and bulletins regarding employee benefits offered by PEOS and the possibility of causing a MEWA. The society of Professional Benefit Administrators also has warnings and explanations such as http://users.erols.com/spba/p0000035.html There are also a number of questions on the Q & A of Benefitslink under the 401(k) Plans, Advanced Plan Designs and Who's the Employer. The Q&A are all written by legal professionals who have researched the issue and have all seemed to come to the same conclusion that it is very unlikely and very difficult for a PEO to legitimately offer such benefits. As the NJ DOI points out it is possible but the threshold for compliance is so high that it is unlikely that any will reach it. Here are a few of the Q&A: http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi...id=41&mode=read http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi...id=64&mode=read http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi...who_is_employer http://www.benefitslink.com/cgi-bin/qa.cgi...id=42&mode=read

I have not been able to find any such item in any handbook or description of the 2001 Tax Act. I have also not been able to find anyone who has any knowledge of such an item. The closets thing has been the DOL advisory letter to SunAmerica which really is another issue. FSA 200137039 relates to income tax preparation services provided by an employer, which the IRS deemed to be not excludable even as a working condition fringe benefit. The FSA goes at length to explain the IRS position and expands into financial counseling services which it also deemed as being includable (not excludable) in the employee's gross income. It cites Rev Ruling 73-13 which held that employer provided financial counseling services are includable in the employee's gross income. It also points out that Rev Ruling 92-69 would also not allow exclusion. It also cites the House conference Report explaining at length why such an item would not be excludable. There is nothing that you have cited or that I could find that would say that the value of employer provided financial counseling or planning services would not be taxable to the employee.

I hope it works out for you, but I have to wonder why you would seek advice on your FSA from a dentist rather than the Plan Administrator? Does your dentist have special knowledge of FSAs in general and your FSA in particular?

What makes this PEO able to offer a legitimate plan in the first place, whether it be "multiple plan" (whatever that is) or any other plan? Are you claiming that this is allowed under the IRC and state laws? If so, which ones?

The original post was regarding an employee's 401(k) and the sponsoring employer's bankruptcy. The contributed (credited) assets are in a custodial account in the employee's name and cannot and could not be used by the employer in any form or manner. the account is not held or maintained by the employer and so could not be an item in the possession of the employer. In any case possession does not transfer ownership and it still would not be subject to seizure. The only attachments that have been possible are those created by the employee himself on his own behalf.

I would have expected your client to have made the "consultant" present his/her proposal THEN have you comment on it. I agree with mroberts you would be helping a lazy broker, but then again he/she might just be incompetent. I saw a similar case recently and it turned out that all the other brokers had done a very good job of negotiating with the various carriers, so the only thing that this "consultant" could find to do was to inject something new, a DC ehealth plan about which they knew nothing. It turned out that it was not even available in that state. But it certianly sounded great and cutting edge at the start. I also suggest that you repost your question to the Health Plans Board.

As mroberts points out , Where is the issue? The employee is not at risk of losing coverage as he would have been if he had participated in the employer's group plan. An employee going on COBRA has to start paying premiums out of his own pocket, which is just what this employee will now have to do. In both cases the employers contribution is now lost. The only issue that remains is to determine what is required by the "state coverage scheme" to which you referred. There does not seem to be any COBRA issue but there might be a state issue.

What values have you seen or heard of regarding these services? If as you say Congress passed legislation making it a tax free fringe benefit, then there is no issue regarding taxation even if the benefits are extensive (rather than expensive). Do you remember and can you cite the legislation?

Why would a PLR be of importance relative to the explicit wording in the Treas. Regs.? A search for relevant PLRs should be very simple not tedious. The UIL is 105.

Since you state that it is a union plan, Why did the union allow no-union members in the first place? Is it really a union plan or is it the employer's plan for the union members? If it really is a union plan or If the CBA really allows the union to demand the exclusion of non-union employees, simply set up a similar plan for the non-union employees with duplicated benefits and move the non-union participants and new employees into the new plan. If it is not a union plan but the employer's plan, then just segregate the employees into 2 classes. It might be possible to get both groups treated as one (controlled group, affiliated group or aggregated group) for purposes of getting better health insurance rates.

I think the first question should be, What do you mean by a Church Plan?