GBurns

There was a fairly similar discussion on this Message Board re " Black our periods". It might be informative to look back at some of the answers given, although I done agree with some.

In the audit of 2 fairly large groups in S Florida the auditors looked at "average" repayment per reporting period. This meant each year over a 5 year period, so I guess they really dont nit pick unless offended.

Can you explain what you mean by an" in lieu of 125 plan" ?

The way I have been told that they work is 1. The request for payment is the same as a request for reimbursement. 2, The request for payment comes via the service provider (merchant) thereby giving third party verification.

Mr. Mapes ....When and where and in what form did the IRS say no to these cards??

What do you mean by "Welfare Benefit Plan"??

I agree with Kip. You will need a consultant and the cost should be a wash. I have seen a number of RFPs which had the cost of the consultant embedded in the cost of the enrollment materials which were paid for on a pro rated basis by the selected providers. It is all subject to negotiation. Please dont use a consulting actuary.This is not their area.

For what reason is this "revenue Share" paid. For services rendered?? Sales commission? Under whose NASD license is it paid?

ERISA Section 1144 (a) Except as provided in subsection (B)... Section 1144(B)2(A) Except as provided in subparagraph (B) nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or releive any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking or securities. To state that ERISA preempts state law because it says so is a misreading of ERISA. ERISA explicitly state WHEN and HOW it can , will or MIGHT preempt. Preemption is not an absolute. There have been many recent court cases in which the courts have ruled that State law is not preempted. There is no conflict between State law and IRC regarding section 125. State law deals with State taxes, IRS deals with federal income tax. Not the same tax.

Thanks ..Lisa. Inslady.. one of the major problems I see and hear of is the public perception that anything they see on the internet or www is true. People read comments and take action as if the comment was "god sent". Without the cite etc the info is unverifiable. I apologize if I sounded harsh. You should see my caseload of IRS disputes correspondence and court cases caused by situations such as this.

To inslady.... usually when someone find out something , such as that the IRS allows something, there is a cite or reference, otherwise it is "gossip". Can you tell us where and what this finding out that the IRS allows this sort of thing is ?

Joe... What is the difference between my scenario and yours. In both cases if the balance in the account is not sufficient it is repleneshed from the general assets. In all cases it is the employer advancing any temporary shortfall.

Dawn... You cant use an insurance co booklet as a plan. The booklet can be used as a SPD if it is appropriately worded and descriptive. A plan is a different issue and at the least must have a corporate resolution.

The TPA goes to the employer.

Where can these "Top ten questions..." be found?

Try unclefed.com

Yes.It says what HCEs get not what non HCEs get.It says that it "shall not be treated as discriminatory if"... then it relates what HCEs can get not what the non HCEs get in relation.

I suggest that you review the First Union case and the Georgia Pacific case. There you will see the references to previous rulings by courts, DOL and IRS on these issues, including the issue of the info in SPDs etc vs what is required to do the calculation. There is also extensive coverage of fiduciary responsibility in the selection of investment vehicles etc etc. The same issue of what is needed is also addressed in the IRs and Congressional investigation into Cash Balance Plans. The IRS has issued TAMs etc on the problem of calculation etc. Another case to look up is the IBM case. The point is that many many courts, the IRS, DOL and Congress all say that the SPD and PD dont have the needed info. I would not try to second guess them.

davef... can you please explain COE. Hoard1...You cant condition any aspect of plan participation on any condition of employment and vice versa. It would be a violation of IRC 408 and ERISA 510. A case to review that cited many other cases would be ..Garatt, Lisbeth v. John S. Walker, 121 F.3d 565 (10th Circuit 1997), US Court of Appeals 10th Circuit, docket No. 96-1470, Tax Analyst citation 1998TNT240-11.

PBGC covers insolvent or underfunded plans and would not be applicable. An employee is not expected to be able to do the calculations. That is why Actuaries etc are required by law to perform these. Neither a Notice of Plan Benefits, an SPD nor Plan Documents have the needed info and would not help. The Plan Admin. in doing everthing that they should, should have as a fiduciary responsibility, applied "prudent man" principles and calculated all likely scenarios and given the participants a choice (individually or by majority). If not, the employee should bring in the DOL then possibly sue. As for precedent, there are volumes of them. An easy one to start with would be any of the Executive Life cases, theycite many of the others.

Are you saying that your plan is pre-empting Treas Regs such as 1.125-2 Q&A 7 (5)? I have never before seen a Plan Document that set the law.Am I missing something?

You have me confused. What does the requirements for HCEs have to do with part time vs full time? An employer can have more than 1 Cafeteria plan. An employer can have classes of employees. Each class can have different benefits. You have also confused employer contributions with an FSA.An employer can contribute to a Cafeteria plan without there being an FSA. Most Cafeteria plans are Premium Only (POP) or premium Conversion and dont have the FSA component.

If the effective date of the discontinuance has not yet arrived, the Notice can be rescinded. Dont let the insurer bluff you. A lot of companies are trying to reduce their GIC risk, especially since WEISS has been threatening to downgrade those with large exposure. This came critical after General American filed for protection as a result of these GICs. See the Weiss site they should still have the notices and articles up.

Even in a "typical group term dependent policy" (whatever that is)the acceptable beneficiaries are either 1)the estate or 2) a NAMED beneficiary. I have never seen nor have I been able to find a company or State that allows a beneficiary by occupation or title etc. If the employee is the named beneficiary he will get paid, divorced or not.Ask any Dept of Ins or any agent.

Carole ....You are self administered and also have an insurance company to whom you say the claim is to be submitted. How does this work and what does their claims dept do?