GBurns

I thought that that rumor aboutr Equitable life was refuted and had died long ago. There seemed to have been confusion with Equitable Life of the UK which was insolvent and which I think AXA did take over or split with Prudential PLC. The NY Insurance Dept did clarify the issue and did certify that Equitable was solvent enough for demutualization. I thought that the demutualization took place in 1991 and before the AXA investment and that AXA only became major stockholder through the IPO which took place in 1992 after the demutualization of 1991 without which there could have been no IPO. Are there any in the audience who paid attention back then and who can comment especially about the potential insolvency whether caused by RE or otherwise ?

It wasn't all that long ago, so Seasoned rather than aged might be a better choice. They were very popular as you noted prior to the Executive Life, Mutual Benefit, First Capital and the other large insurance company failures of the late 1980s and very early 1990s. Cases such as Unisys also helped to drive some plans away. eilano, Look up cases like this one to see what happened in some cases when the employer was blamed for making a choice that caused problems including high surrender charges: http://www.arnoldporter.com/publications_l...d=590&archive=1 (Scroll down to the fourth item Unisys Savings Plan Litigation) There were some other cases but that one came to mind first. As for putting the charges back into the plan to make the participants "whole" that should require some competent legal counsel even though some good advice has been posted so far.

Getting free advice can be a very effective expense reduction tool. Of course, sometimes the advice is worth that price though. Maybe the amount is not enough as yet and archimedes is just taking advantage of the match to accumulate more money. A 50% match is attractive and is a great "rate of return". archimedes It's your turn to return the favor and give us some advice. Inquiring minds wants to know, and I could use the tip.

Which Plan Document and which SPD? If the new programs are part of the program to which the PD and SPD (that you are referring to) pertain, then the new programs would have to be included that PD and SPD. If the new programs are not a part of the program to which the PD and SPD (that you are referring to) pertain, then they should have their own PD and SPD. I am assuming that these new programs are being introduced outside of regular Open Enrollment. If not they should be just another item in the "blanket" SPD but have their own PD. How else would you set the rules and parameters but with a Plan Document? How else would you communicate the new programs to the employee but with an SPD? Isn't that the reason for a Plan Document and SPD?

Don, What are you agreeing with? mjb in many posts stated: "why bother with a plan?" "Why is reimbursement of ins paid by an employee an employer plan " "does not create an employer plan" Where did mjb ever state that this was a plan or that this was not an ERISA plan? Also, It would seem that if you are saying that "In my opinion, it is a plan, for there is ongoing administration." then you would be disagreeing with what he posted, wouldn't you? And, If as you say " ..there is ongoing administration", wouldn't that cause the plan to be ERISA ?

Green92 and eilano, I have not been actively selling products for quite a while so I only have limited literature. I am curious as to which VA has/had individually selected GICs. Like vebaguru I do not think that I have never seen this especially in a 401(k). You might want to PM me if you do not want to use names on the Thread.

Since when does having a plan automatically create an ERISA plan? Aren't there such things as non-ERISA plans?

mjb Where did I make such a statement that it was an ERISA plan? You also still have not classified the "arrangement".

Why not ask the same service rep what it will cost and how best to get it done? It might cost nothing and it might only need the employer signature on a simple form to add the option.

What would you classify this arrangement as being? A payroll scheme/procedure, an accountable plan, a non-accountable plan, a fringe benefit plan, a health or accident plan, a medical expense reimbursement plan, a welfare benefit plan or what else? The employer while not selecting the insurance coverage will still have to verify that the coverage exists etc. The employer while not selecting the insurance coverage has to create and administer the plan/arrangement under which the reimbursements will be made. The employer's plan is the reimbursement arrangement not the insurance coverage. What will you classify this plan as being?

I would say that P-Jay got it right. I would also add Q&A 4 to the explanation. It seems that barring extension by the Plan, the spouse is entitled to 36 months from the date of Medicare entitlement or 18 months after the termination of employment. Zora Where did I state or imply anything about "require employees to terminate their health plan coverage when they go on Medicare "?

Under this plan the retiring employee loses coverage by the act of retiring so the beneficiary also loses coverage. But doesn't the entitlement to Medicare by the retiring employee also now mean loss of coverage to the beneficiary?

I am curious as to what you would use these rates for especially the OAS part? By the way, the rates given were for employees. It is different for self employeds.

As pointed out by another poster in the other Forum, this looks like a plain vanilla section 105 medical expense reimbursement plan. You might want to look at the governing Treas Regs 1.105-11 in particular. The plan needs to be in writing (1.105-11(b)(i)). Sample PDs can be found by doing a Google search. It is also possible that if this is a fairly new company a sample might have been included in the incorporation package. Your section 125 plan administrator might also be a source.

AndyH Going live with those websites has been delayed at the request of a few "marketing" partners. Depending on final contract terms they desire to have some input (for legal compliance etc) and links etc. It is nice to know that at least 1 person is in supense or at least noticed.

I would refrain from talking about switching. Instead try to get the employer to add an option that meets your needs. Have you checked to see if what you need is available from Fidelity in your plan's offerings? If you have Fidelity's Standard 401(k) there might be the self directed brokerage option that you want already available.

The first hurdle in a fully insured plan is that almost every state insurance law that I have seen would prohibit it. Reference to the insurance laws, of your particular state, against rebates, unfair business practices etc that apply should be sufficient for you to go look them up. For self insured plans, I am not sure how many laws would prohibit it, but I am sure that there would be more than 1. Disclosure would be irrelevant.

The mention of an apology etc makes me wonder if this thread expedited or influenced the speed of the response.

There are only 2 parties involved, the client and the accountant. It seemed to me that the only reason that the TPA would be trying to get the payroll records from the accountant would be because the client did not have the records. There are only 2 types of records, originals and copies. If the client had a copy there would be no need for the TPA to ask the accountant for the records, so it appears to me that the accountant has the original and any copies. In any case the OP makes no mention of any charge for storing documents, the charge would be for "a fee to recover those records " or "to retrieve this data" . It was not for storing the documents. There is no need for any accountant to provide storage for free because there is no reason to store the clients documents unless so requested which would be a separate issue not an accounting function but a client facilitation. Requirements to store documents such as tax returns prepared etc are professional or legal requirements which are part of the cost of doing business as an accountant, tax preparer, insurance agent, lawyer etc. I cannot imagine a lawyer charging for storing his case files, he has to keep his own records. The same for a tax preparer, who has to keep copies for years even when he never sees that client again. The same for your insurance agent.

There should be no fee for providing the payroll records. The payroll and any other accounting records belong to the client and have to be maintained by the client. The accountant might have used the payroll records to facilitate doing something else but once that is finished the records should have gone back to the client. The accountant can, and in some cases has to, keep copies but the originals etc belong to the client. Have the client demand that the accountant turn over the client's property.

On the self funded plans that I have seen over the years, the stop loss commission is different from the commission on the actual plan. In many cases they are paid to different people. I even think that in some states stop loss is not even sold by health insurance agents but by someone with a P&C license. The TPA pays a commission which is either a per head per month amount or a % of the admin fee. Iusually see the per head as standard. How much this is seems to depend on what the traffic will bear. The stop loss might or might not be secured through the same Claims Administrator (TPA) and so the broker might or might not be the same, bearing licensing and appointment concerns in mind. Then there are those insurers that have ASO services. They seem to all pay something from the Admin Fee but nothing from the stop loss since that is usually an "in house" part of the contract.

From the OP I think that he is just looking for the latest "version" of Treas Regs 1.411(d)-4 and 1.411(d)6.

I can only suggest that you try a Google search and a search of the IRS website. You might find something later or relevant by looking at this list: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96688,00.html

Did this attorney specify what the 105(h) problems would be? I also wonder about your retiree plan not being able to cover a spouse who is under 65. 1 spouse is by necessity younger than the other. Many people retire before age 65. Many people who do retire and are age 65 do have a spouse who is younger than age 65. You must have had this situation many times before, so How was it handled then? I cannot believe that this is the first age 65 retiree who has a younger spouse.

DonN Is this what you are looking for? http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/cfr/waisidx...26cfr1e_05.html