GBurns

It is simply that it is taxable income since it is neither excludible under 125, 106 or 105.

Identify the target companies, retirement plans, banks etc contact them and request a Claim Form. You might have to actually file the claim to find out if it is denied. It probably would be prudent to state that you do not know that you are a named beneficiary but are just seeking to find out so that it is clearly documented that you are not filing fraudulently. You might also want to look at his tax returns and W2, 1099 etc. The executor should have all of this anyhow and since he diied intestate might have had to file alot of asset information with the Probate Court. Probate Court info should be viewable at the court clerk's office.

What state are you in ? I can see that there might be no notice requirement for the holders of a Certificate of Coverage from the insurer although I have my doubts, but there should be a notice requirement to the group policy holder, the employer. Then I bet that there is a requirement for notice to affected parties such as beneficiaries, in that Master policy, if not also state law. Then there are the provisions of the employee benefit plan document of which this group life is a part.

Larry I hope that you do realize that you could be wrong about what you think most lawyers think about being infallible. Also, non-lawyers probably think differently about the issue, since they see it from an objective point of view. The view could be quite different from the other side.

It seems that you are saying that the contract determines whether ERISA applies rather than the facts and circumstances, state law or even ERISA itself. I always thought that you could not "sign away" the application of a statute.

I did not understand the "twilght zone" comment, but let me try to clarify. In simple terms, To get documents into the database, the forms are scanned. Most scanning does not create a duplicate (as in an exact picture) but rather creates a "simulated copy" using OCR or other such software. The OCR or other such software interprets what it sees and tries to use "intelligence" to re-create what it thinks should be there. As a result there are additions and/or omissions and a document copy that might not be an exact duplicate. Then there is the retrieval method which does almost the same thing when extracting from the database. That is also who 2 different retrieval services can have 2 different "versions" of the same document. A similar thing can be seen with IRS docuemts such as PLRs. TA format is different from BNA etc, yet all came from the same IRS database. This is a possible reason. Especially with older systems.

Shouldn't the result of the audit trigger a Notice of Deficiency or otherwise detailing and allocating the liability and responsible party ?

I have not heard of it with FREEERISA but that could just because that sort of thing does not get noticed or discussed much. I have seen similar thing with other documents and the reason has always been the same. The copy that the client or the advisor has was not the same as the one filed with the regulator etc. It is claimed to be a copy but it always turned out to be different for a number of resaons such as noticing when inserting in the envelope that the box was unchecked, then checking it with the intention of doing the same on the copies already made, but not getting around to doing it. Another reason is that there are still some copy machines and scanners that will not copy blue ink, so if the original check mark was done in blue ink it would appear blank on copies. I just got 2 originals of an agreement with the address and ink being different on each, as a result copies will differ..

Just off the top of my head. What about: Plan Documents for the various benefits. Insurance policy and other provider contracts. Provider information Employee enrollment and change forms COBRA notices and forms. FMLA etc notices and forms.

Doesn't the cafeteria plan exemption depend on the size/number of participants ?

How can you deduct anything if the salary reduction agreement states $X per pay period (and the number of pay periods is also stated), or $X per month etc.? Doesn't the SRA also have a stated date for the first deduction ? The termination date and pay date does not seem to be a regular pay period and the SRA says nothing about pro-rating. Why even bother making a deduction ? What happens if you do make the deduction and it causes pay to fall below minimum wage ?

It is not the group health insurance plan that "allows employees to deduct pretax premiums from their paycheck". It is your employee benefits plan that adopted a cafeteria plan thereby allowing the pre-taxing.

The roles vary on a case by case and provider by provider basis. In general, a broker is a product and/or service sales representative and could represent the TPA, any service provider or both. It depends. Sales representatives (brokers) and the TPA are no different from any other business. The purpose of business is to sell product at a profit. I am sure that your company is no different. Also, a TPA like any other company sells its services and products by using sales representatives. They are sometimes called brokers. What is meant by the term "broker" in your case could be different from another case. The roles, in this case, have to be defined for you, by the broker and TPA themselves. Full disclosure of roles, compensation, relationship and product information is normally freely given and most is required by law.

Is it worth the administrative effort to try and correct an employer error of this small size ? Payroll deductions as per the salary reduction agreement are prospective reductions, what you are considering would be after the fact. FSA etc contributions are supposed to be made before the expenses are incurred. To take the deductions now might be after the dact funding. The FSA election, absent an eligible change of status/event, is for the plan year. The plan year is already over and there was no eligible change of status event. To get the amoount in 2009, you would need either 1 short term SRA for the 2008 deficit and 1 SRA for the regular 2009 election or some sort of dual FSA. I cannot think of a rationale that would allow the short term SRA to either exist or be cancelled in a few months. I also wonder about the plan and payroll allowing 2 SRAs at the same time. I see other problems, but I think that the above should be enough to show why it might be better to leave it alone.

An FSA has to satisfy the rules of 125 which it is under and the new Proposed Treas Regs 1.125-5 state that 105(h) nondiscrimination rules apply to FSAs. Qualifying for the 125 while not qualifying for the FSA is an issue I have not looked at as yet. There seems to be new nondiscrimination rules for 125 at new Proposed Treas Regs 1.125-7.

I don't know why 502 would be relevant but look at the new Proposed Treas Regs 1.125-1® which is similar to the old regs.

Ethnic tongue-in-cheek humor. Note that he ends with " Shalom". Don In South Florida (especially Miami Beach) there are curiously very few shark attacks (at sea) compared to the counties to the North of us. Maybe ours are Kosher.

As J Simmons points out, look first to the PD. I recommend the general practice of many of the large insurance companies. They require the signature of the CEO or next in command as per the corporation's by-laws. Alternatively a Board Resolution authorizing a named officer. A Board Resolution form seems to have become standard in document packages. By the way, I have seen many cases where the owner is not an officer.

What made the election irrevocable ? Plan terms ? What does the PD say about changing the PY ? If you can change the PY, then you should be able to change the election to match, although it is quite possibly that by error the election terms prohibit it. Then you probably would also have to amend the plan terms governing elections.

I have not added them up, but it seems to that the tax shelter issues involving E&Y, KPMG, UBS etc etc such as BOSS, Son of BOSS, COBRA, Split-Dollar (Winn-Dixie, AEP etc) which involved over 200 of the Forune 500, and hundreds of rich persons, together add up to a loss to the Treasury (taxpayers) of more than $50B. The lawyers were circling, the Senate had hearings, the Justice Dept was up in arms. What happened there ? Not too much. I see nothing in past actions that would lead me to expect much.

That it might be nasty and sad, surely depends on perspective. Empathy, yes, sympathy no. Many of these investors did, had done, or were supposed to have done, due diligence at the outset and reviews over the years. What happened ? It surely can be only their fault. I have not heard of any empathy or sympathy for regular Joe and Jane who have lost money in many mutual funds over the years. They did not have the ability to do the due diligence that these Made-Off investors had. They got no bailout or restitution, not even an apology The hogs got slaughtered, that is all. Prosecute the commiters of the crimes, but do not reward the greedy. I have been subjected to all sorts of due diligence investigations, some even abusive. I have been subjected to more due diigence by a few of these same investors than they did for Made-Off. Contacts, image, me too attitude and greed again prevailed. This time I smile and think (reluctantly) "I thought you had the best advisors and said you knew what you were doing ?".

URGENT CORRECTION Although 106 does not address retirees, the IRS has ruled in Rev Ruling 62-199 etc that retirees shall be treated as employees for purposes of section 106.

Do you mean father and son bonding as in Made-Off and his sons ? That paternal bonding seems to have soured a bit.

If a company provides health insurance coverage on an employer pay all basis with no employee contribution and no choice of cash, there is no need for and no use for a cafeteria plan. It is a section 106 and 105 issue. An employer provided health plan only needs to have a cafeteria plan if there is a choice between cash and qualified benefits. Neither section 105 or 106 is tied of necessity to a cafeteria plan. And a cafeteria plan couldd very well exist without 105 and 106 if no health benefits were provided. A section 105 self insured MERP (including an HRA) does not need a cafeteria plan. A reference to either or both 105 and 106 does not imply that there is or has to be a cafeteria plan. Section 106 excludes from gross income, it does not pre-tax the premium.

Maybe I am not understanding the OP, but I thought that you had to carry the value as per the current or latest value which would be whatever the statement says.