GBurns

How can the time for the repairs be so open? Didn't you get an estimate of the cost? This should include a time of completion. I also do not understand why liability or WC would be issues. If he is an employee you will have to cover him which might or might not increase your premiums. If he is an IC then he would provide his own coverage which you can and should make a condition of contracting for his services. However, it seems if he is an employee and that even if he is there after one year, it would not be for very long. Considering all things, it seems very uncharitable (or unChristian, if a Christian church) to be so uptight about such a small issue, but gloss over the liability and WC. I would think that time would be better spent in planning the repairs and monitoring the rate of work to ensure that the repairs are done within one year.

I think that whether the employee pays or not is irrelevant at this point. The issue is not the payment, but the services available at the clinic. To be an eligible individual for an HSA, an individual must be covered by an HDHP and by no other health plan that provides coverage other than disregarded coverage under § 223©(1)(B) or preventive care under § 223©(2)©. See Rev. Rul. 2004-45. The IRS has taken the position that it is the scope of the services offered at the clinic that counts towards being "other coverage" . Having "other coverage" that could be counted towards the minimum deductible is not allowed. Since the clinic does offer such services it counts as "other coverage". I suggest that you read through all the examples.

As vebaguru points out " other, more important, legal and regulatory issues exist ..... so be careful." In other words while there is no harm in getting a DL, it should not be your focus.

Most employees do not have a terminal.

I doubt that it would not be deemed discriminatory etc. Since it includes possible discrimination based on national origin, I suggest legal counsel..

I doubt that there is general usage. A large % of employees still do not have access to computers and the use of smartphones has not been quantified.

I would not use the term "eligible employee" in connection with HSAs. You (and your spouse, if you have family coverage) generally cannot have any other health coverage that is not an HDHP. However, you can still be an eligible individual even if your spouse has non-HDHP coverage provided you are not covered by that plan. The problem that I see is the scope of services provided by the clinic. See Q 10: https://www.irs.gov/irb/2008-29_IRB/ar11.html#d0e929

I am concerned that the check has an initial instead of a full first name and that it does not have any reference information, such as Plan or Account #. I cannot imagine that there is no traceable info either on the check or in your records.

I think that we are talking about different things at different stages of the product cycle. The OP lamented "the fact that there is no mention of cash surrender value or death benefit on the pages as provided by the Insurnace Company." The OP did not say what the "the Schedule A information" was and was not sure whether the item was a LI or an Annuity. As a result we do not know whether the item is in a payout stage or still in force in "accumulation",

The Death Benefit of a Life Insurance policy does not exist until there is the death of a covered insured. While the policy is in force it has terms such as "Specified Amount" " Amount of Coverage" " Face Value" etc. Most policies have an adjustable death benefit payable upon death. The amount payable depends on the Payment Options and could be a Specified Amount or more likely, since the OP mentioned Cash Surrender Value, it would be the Accumulation/Account Value plus the corridor amount or the Accumulation/Account Value plus the greater of either the Specified Amount or the corridor amount or it could be another Option. In short, the insurance company cannot say how much is payable until there is a death and the selection of a Payment Option. Since, the amount is not known and since the amount is not available to the Plan, it cannot be a Plan Asset until there is a death and a selection of Option.

Until quite recently, annuities were Life Insurance products, hence the lack of differentiation. Old habits die hard. In a recent thread we discussed the reporting of CSV . If I recall correctly, we were split on the issue, but, if you look up filings you will see that very few do report CSV. This seems to be partially because the info is not readily provided by the insurance companies..DB would not be a Plan Asset until paid by the insurance company.. I suggest that you search for some of the previous threads.

I do not think that the IRS really cares. The tax exempt status of a VEBA has no bearing on its operation or compliance with state insurance laws or EBSA ERISA or HIPAA issues. As a result, there are no Determination Letters which address the issue. Unscrupulous scheme promoters usually point to the IRS Determination Letter which really has no relevance. I would be very wary of anyone who claims that the Determination Letter allows anything. Can you cite any of these checklists and PLRs etc ?

I do not think that there is any way to file an SF except through EFAST2. Why would they not qualify to file an SF? I thought that the only exemption was the value of assets being less than $250,000. What do you mean by "the composition of its assets that are not qualifying plan assets"? I was not aware that a plan could have assets that are "not qualifying assets".

I am not familiar with this "three-state safe harbor standard". Note that they are merely "Proposed Regs" which, not only because they are old, but by their very title, raises the question of their effectiveness/ usability. As far a i know a VEBA determination letter only addresses the tax exempt status of the VEBA and does not address the marketing or operation of the VEBA and so would not grant the right to expand. From what you have described, i think that you would be creating a MEWA. I suggest that you contact EBSA and BOTH state Depts of Insurance (home state and expansion state). It might only need an M-1 filing, but, better safe than very sorry.

While a Title 1 exempt plan does not have to worry about DOL sanctions and correction program, they still have to file Form 5500-SF and are subject to the IRS sanctions and corrections program, which seems like being between a rock and a hard place. http://www.irs.gov/irb/2015-24_IRB/ar08.html#ftn.d0e528

Being exempt from Title 1 has no relevance. The transaction is under IRC 4975 which would prohibit it. DOL Advisory Opinion 93-33A explains the logic etc: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/programs/ori/advisory93/93-33a.htm http://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/Retirement-Plan-Investments-FAQs http://sdirahandbook.com/self-directed-ira-401k-prohibited-transaction-disqualified-person-diagram/

hr for one. Texas seems to be the only state that allows this and this has only been possible since Senate Bill 1286 which became effective September 2013. I have not found any other state which allows this and I am surprised that the IRS and DoL have not made an issue of this. It certainly seems to create a MEWA which would need to file with the DoL etc.

I think that you are confusing Workers Comp with Unemployment regarding having no rating experience.

It is a common mistake and one which CPAs try to gloss over, to believe that a CPA is knowledgeable and competent "to not only prepare tax returns" and "to advise on tax implications of financial decisions". CPAS prior to around 2004 did not have to pass the taxation portion of the CPA Exam, and many, it seems in most years the majority, did not pass it. Currently, they do have to pass the Regulation section, of mainly theory and which is only a 3 hour examination. But, I guess 3 hours is still more than the older ( pre 1990) CPAs had which was no taxation examination. The result is that there are many CPAs who either did not have to take or did not have to pass. By comparison a JD or LLM in taxation has 28 -32 hours of examination. The old Enrolled Agent Exam was 28 hours. Also the CPA coursework does not cover personal financial planning. The end result is that most likely, your CPA did not learn tax return preparation or financial planning as a CPA, but did so outside of being a CPA.

While hr for me is correct regarding 401(k) plans, the issue is not about a 401(k) which a PEO can provide under a multiple employer agreement, the issue is about Health Plans. A co-employer situation is not allowed for Health or Welfare Plans If hr for me checks, it should be found that the PEO was NOT the employer of record or unemployment, they were just the reporting agency of record. I know of no state that bills a PEO for Unemployment Benefits for the eligible ex-employees of their clients. Also if you check the health insurance coverage and the cafeteria plan document, you will see that the PEO is only the agent NOT the Plan Sponsor.

Even if ACA is not applicable, almost every state has prohibitions against an employer reimbursing an employee. This is also prohibited by the terms of the individual health policy and almost every major carrier states this very clearly on the application. The DoL has issued many notices etc over the years stating that an HRA of any sort constitutes a group health plan. This would cause the entire arrangement including the individual health policies to fall under state group health laws thereby bringing us back to to the first issue.

As John Feldt pointed out Medicare should be a throwaway in this case. You should check his eligibility and also see if you can a premium estimate. Regarding SS Jon also advised "Best to run it through the calculator". Your spouse is 59+ and you stated that "his income in the early years was quite low" which means that his highest 35 years might not have established as much of a retirement benefit as you might think. If however, because you work with CPAs and lawyers and you "ARE working with a CPA", which you somehow think is relevant to the issues, causes you think that it is better to guess than to actually check. I wish you good luck.

Considering that the employee was never an employee of the PEO. it should.

Remember that just because you do not see it as "part of the Code or ERISA" does not make it so. That is only your opinion and none of us are correct all the time, heck, not even most of the time. If it does not pass the "smell test" it means that further investigation is warranted. Are you implying that the vast majority of these employees earn above that particular amount? Are you saying that an "Income Level" can be a classification criteria?

I think that it is dangerous to put off the resolving of issues, such as this, because of the likelihood of there still being confusion at the last minute. In most cases, people get incorrect answers from their providers because they ask the wrong person. I suggest that your client get a written answer from much higher up the food chain. The "feedback" which you are reporting is gobbledygook. The fines for getting it wrong could be relatively large. Get it resolved while there is time.