GBurns

In many, if not most, states any sort of inducement or enticement is unlawful. It might not be classified as rebating, but whatever it is called, it is prohibted by state insurance and possibly other laws. Look up your state insurance regulations, statutory and administrative, and you will see.

Nothing does.

Enda80 Is there some reason why ERISA is of no concern ? In both questions, you only stated the code and treas regs. I find that, for new people, the best places to start with are the IRS website and Google searches. For example the IRS EP Navigator gives booklets etc covering almost every aspect in a non-technical manner: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/online_navigator.pdf I have heard that Tax Facts is helppful, bit my preference is BNA. By the way having an incomplete or partial plan document seems somewhat like being only a little pregnant. How do you have a plan if there is no plan document ? What is being sponsored? What was adopted? What sets the rules and benefits etc, if there is no plan document sponsored or adopted ?

I know nothing about the Sexton law firm and it is not advisable to make your decision from what is on their website. In fact, I did not like what I saw. IMHO, before you choose a lawyer you should have some familiarity with the terms used so that you can better understand what you are being told. For example I have no idea why a living will would have any relevance to the ownership of property or probate. I would first seek tax advice about the most appropriate structure under which to own and invest in multiple properties before I worried about probate and transfers upon death etc.

I was not aware that more than just a few states had "Medicaid HSA" programs in place. I doubt that someone qualifying for Medicaid would have any tax issues of any sort or be in a position to have to worry about the choice.

Aren't the faxed signatures accepted by the IRS and courts etc, done under oath or subject to perjury, whereas the documents in question are not ? Aren't there some courts that require the presentation or possession of the original document, in litigation ? If so, then a wet signature would be required, would it not ?

Is it possible that you are confusing the opening of a 403(b) account with another vendor, with the actual setting up of a plan ?

Somewhat relevant comment in another thread by mcapuana : http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...c=41313&hl=

Isn't that what it is supposed to have ? And isn't that the usual claim made when denying claims ?

Hogan might not be applicable. The OP did not say if the settlement agreement included or constituted a release or waiver of claims to the benefit or inclusion in the benefit accrual formula etc

On the other hand, from my non-lawyer perspective, I see Sieve's question as a no brainer: YES. Aside from the 501 issue raised by Fiduciary Guidance Counsel, there are other issues which I faintly recall but cannot readily cite. Wasn't this behaviour by an employer addressed in the Wal-Mart cases and earlier cases which involved supermarkets? But even if not prohibited by ERISA, other laws should.

I do not understand who the custodians work for. Who interviewed and employed them ? If the custodians work for the "building and building owners", what is left for the property management company to do ? I cannot see how the property management company can manage the properties without the custodians being either ICs or employees of the management company. If the property management company provides "payroll services" for the building owners, does that mean that the cmpany gets reimbursed for the payroll specifically ?

What type of coverage ? Group or individual policy ? Who made the payments of proceeds (How was the employer involved?)?

I also wonder why any employer would want to get involved in this sort of arrangement. How and at what cost will the employer ensure continued HSA eligiblity ? I doubt that there will be any FICA savings since the payments would not be going through the payroll system. Woouldn't it be easier to do a MERP and reimburse the eligible expenses as they occur ?

Sometimes sidetrack discussions can be very helpful. In this case, it caused me think about and actually go read the cites et seq which in turn led me be able to clarify an issue for which I needed a response which had been eluding me.

Which applies to ERISAQuestioner's case ?

The subsidiary is going out of business, so why would there be a plan to take over ? Which employees would it cover, it being that since the sub is out of business it would have no employees ?

I thought that it was a requirement of law, both ERISA and state insurance law, that employees must be provided with an Outline of Coverage and a Certificate of Coverage etc. Which would mean that any employee who does not want to download a copy or who has no reasonable means of doing so, must be provided a hard copy. I also wonder if your state law allows "compulsory" or "mandatory" electronic insurance document delivery. Especially in your case where you know in advance that there are a significant number of employees who will be adversely affected.

While moto might hace no standing to bring court action, moto could very easily bring the matter to the attention of the DoL and state regulator for their action. At least this is what the clients' lawyers in my cases warned of and suggested that their client avoid at all costs.

While insurance companies etc take a long time to pay providers they only pay for those services incurred while eligible for coverage, the main condition for that coverage to be in force is that the premiums were timely paid. If premiums are not paid coverage lapses and claims are not delayed but instead not paid. moto's case seems different. It is not payment for services but payment of premium that is the issue. The premiums are not being forwarded in an acceptable manner. I think that the issue of timeliness depends not only on the contract terms but also whether or not the arrangement falls under the DoL 7 day rule. Whenever, I have cases like this I have always resolved it by pointing out that 7 day rule (or predecessor) and any relevant state law regarding payroll deductions. Sometimes they refer the matter to legal counsel, but in all of the 5 or 6 cases the eventual decision was to start remitting timelly.

He said that A plan that has not claimed deductions in excess of those allowed under 419 and 419A remains outside the scope of the Ruling. The statement has nothing to do with anything else.

Go to Google or the search engine of your choice and enter a search term such as " Howard Gleason Corp ERISA " (without the "" of course.

Isn't the DoL 7 day rule applicable ? DOL_7_day_rule_E8_3596.pdf

Note the wording of the Conclusion, "We hold that ERISA preempts New York Insurance Law § 4216(d) as applied in this case .... ". In this case. The facts and circumstances, in this case, led to this particular conclusion by this Court. Another Court in a different case might come to a different conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of that case.

IMHO, each means every individual as a separate entity. Since I have to serve notice of a lawsuit separately to each individual party, I see it as a requirement to serve (notify) each person individually regarding their COBRA rights.