GBurns

Check to see if you or any of the other affected participants have anything in writing. Get the agent's name, dates, brochures, enrollment material etc together. Especially get out your copy of the illustration and the Replacement Form. Then have each person contact your state Dept of Insurance and file a complaint. In some states there might be a separate Dept that regulates Securities including Variable Annuities, so you might have to file 2 complaints. This will get action. Variable Annuities and Group Annuities are regulated by the State Dept of Insurance (or equivalent) and the agents are licensed by that Dept. Most state regulations required an illustration or comparison that should include or cause surrender charges from the old annuity to have been disclosed or discussed. The new company although not responsible for those charges has to make you aware that they exist. This is part of what is know as the "suitability" requirement. The new agent could not have scaled this "suitability" hurdle without discussing in some way that you might be subjected to surrender charges by LF. Additionally there are prescribed formats for illustrations and most would also cause awareness of these surrender charges. There is also in many states a Replacement Form which has to be filled out whenever most insurance products are being replaced. You should have a copy. This forms also usually causes disclosure of surrender charges. In many states the sale of the new product is invalid if the Replacement Form is not filled out and filed. You also might want to seek help from the old agent. Even though he/she has lost the sale he/she should be willing to help you make the new company toe the line and do things properly. ******* I should have also suggested that you contact the NASD (National Association of Securities Dealers). They might have a local office. Some VAs used in 401(k) Plans are Registered and so would fall under SEC and NASD regulation. Here the suitability and disclosure requirements etc are even stricter.

To add to LarryM, ... These are some of the reasons why most states severely restrict MEWA and association plans. Don, So far each state regulates under its own laws regardless of what laws might exist in any contiguous state. That the "domicile" is in another state does not matter, just as it does not matter for any insurance product. For example, it does not matter that NY Life is domiciled in New York, if NYL wants to sell a product in Texas it has to get both a Certificate of Authority (or other insurer license) and get the various products filed and approved.

What do you mean by "an Association Health Plan"? Who will be the participants etc? Will it be an Association that offers health coverage to individuals as a member benefit or will it be to employers? If employers, will they be small (under 50 employees) or will they be larger? Although there is pending Federal legislation, there are existing Association Health Plans available in some states. What state are you in? California has PHA, Connecticut has CBIA, New York, Mass, Washington and others have similar Associations or allow "out of state" group health plans which are sometimes provided through "Associations". So a lot depends on what you mean by "an Association Health Plan". A VEBA is not an Association Health Plan.

If the employer does not provide the employee with the information, How will the employee know the correct amount? So to avoid extra work handling requests from employees, the amount is best shown on the employee's W2. I have no idea what most payroll systems normally show but all the major ones that I have seen in use in those areas have the amounts on the W2 as a matter of convenience for both the employee and employer..

If there are employee contributions, it will be either an FSA (through a Cafeteria Plan) or an HSA (could be through a cafeteria Plan). There is no rollover of unused money with an FSA. A standard MERP would be where the employer reimburses the employee for any out of pocket medical expenses as they are incurred and claims submitted. Since there is no funding there is nothing to rollover. It also has no employee contributions and is entirely funded by the employer as in a HRA. An HRA is a MERP with rollover of unused funds if pre-funded, no rollover if not funded. There are some charts that were published when HRAs came out and also when HSAs came out, but I do not have links readily available. Many were published in Benefits Buzz so you might want to do a search there. I recall things coming from Groom Law Group, Kilpatrick Stockton, Alston & Bird, the ECFC to mention a few. Try Haynes and Boone for a copy of what they presented at a JCEB conference and Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal (I think) for the article by Chip Kerby of Kilpatrick Stockton. If you have too much difficulty finding them let me know. If they are not what you need also let us know, someone else might have some suggestions for you.

You stated that what is desired is a "a cafeteria plan for himself" but you also stated "He would like to set up a Health Care Reimbursement account to pay for the uninsured medical expenses.". Does he really need either or both? What will be the purpose of the cafeteria Plan? Is he paying a portion of the health insurance premium or pre-taxing salary reduction contributions to the "Health Care Reimbursement account" or both? The reason for these questions are primarily caused by your use of the term "Health Care Reimbursement account" rather than FSA etc. I suspect that there might be more to this issue. Also as the only executive, it is quite possible that his insurance premium will be fully provided and he would not have an employee share to pay. It also is possible that his out-of-pocket might be covered under a standard MERP with the employer reimbursing him for any expenses incurred. If this is the case, he might not even need a cafeteria plan and what you referred to as a Health Care Reimbursement account might be a simple MERP which is employer funded. Also note that jmor99 pointed out "Yes, they can be excluded if it's bargained in good faith. But I'm not an expert in this area". The key employee issue might not be applicable if there is an Executive only (or similar) class carve-out that is possible. So let's hope that someone will chip in.

I guess that it could depend on how you look at it. Orders, per se, is generally reserved for items issued by or from an authority position and which carry the force of law. Neither a party in a divorce nor their lawyer is an "authority". Nor are they in a position to issue anything that can enforce anything. What the lawyer drafts is therefore a request for an order. This would be similar to what happens frequently in court. 1 party writes what the adjudication is and the judge signs off on it. It is not an Order of Judgement or anything else but a piece of paper until the Judge signs it, then it becomes an Order. From that perspective, it must be the Court (or a statutory authority) that actually "issues" the DRO.

Aren't there still some states or taxing authorities, such as New Jersey, that require the amount be shown on the W2?

Technically your FSA should really covered "incurred" expenses and not only "paid" expenses. Incurred means creating the liability even if you have not yet been billed and have not yet paid. But that depends on how your plan is actually worded, it does not have to use the same wording as the Treasury Regulations. With the swimming expenses, try to get them to pay the pro-rated amount, that is for the months during which you were on the plan. It might work, you will not know unless you try. Do not wait until you have as much as possible to send in. Send in as you find them. Then appeal as necessary. As for receipts, Do you have the credit card statement etc? That might be acceptable for some items, although most OTC might not be covered anyhow. I am not sure that I understand what created your "confusion", but if you joined in, let us say, July, there should have been no way that you should have thought that it covered you for periods before July and I cannot see why you would have contributed an amount that included periods for which you were not doing any payroll deduction. Many forms have not only the amount per pay period, but also the annualized amount, so as to avoid as much confusion as possible. I suggest that you recheck the forms and salary reductions. There is an outside chance that you might have been misinformed and mis-enrolled, and if so your plan sponsor might accept this situation as an administrative error. You never know.

mjb Thank you for explaining my points, although you probably did not realize that you were doing so. As you correctly posted "Any actuary will tell you that computing Multiemployer liabilty requires extensive expertise in the determining liability under the rules of IRC and the PBGC". That is 1 of the points. The employer does not need to know the law that is for the advisor. The employer needs to know the consequences. The employer then looks for ways to mitigate or minimize the liability that the actuary or legal advisor determined. Those possible ways are what I outlined, that is all. And those possible ways need no in depth knowledge of ERISA etc. They are business decisions and business strategies.

You still cannot show what any knowledge of either ERISA or IRC etc would change or what the relevance would be to the employer trying to find ways to minimize the WL. Knowing ERISA does not change the business planning and decisions that have to be made, and that is what we were discussing. All you need to know is how much WL, not much else, and you do not need to know ERISA etc to find out how much WL would be involved. As usual your post has no facts just venom. When will you put forward an opinion that is relevant to the topic or an opinion that can be discussed? When will you have the morals or guts to state a position that can be either agreed with or refuted? Aren't you tired or embarassed of having your baseless attacks against me, vebaguru and others removed by Moderators? I can think of at least 3 times in the last part of 2005 alone when this has been done to you. I think that I have had only 1 post removed by a Moderator in all these years. I notice that many of your "foaming at the mouth" attacking posts are done very very late at night (very early morning), I wonder why?

That might cover the owner but what about the other employees? If the plan is "retroactive" but the only deferral for 2005 is for the owner, What would happen?

I believe in freedom of expression and freedom of thought. Ask any question get any answer. Some answers will be good, some will be bad, some will be in between. But this is the USA and everyone should be free to express their opinion, whether well reasoned or not. An opinion inherently cannot be wrong or right, because it is just an opinion and not a statement of fact. It is for the asker to decide what is useful and what is not. In the same manner, everyone should be free to ask any question. After all, not one of us knows everything about any subject, although there are some who seem to think that they are the exceptions. But after spending some time on the Forums most people realize who is who and read between the lines when some make personal attacks on others. Invariably the personal attack does not state what is wrong nor what is right, it is just a snide attack with no statement of fact. With no statement of fact, no reader is able to refute, rebut, agree or disagree with the usually vitriolic attack. This way no one can respond to the attack in a rational manner. Cowardly, yes, but it works. Fortunately quite often the Moderator will delete the attacking post. But there is no way to erase it from the minds of those who have read it, and sometimes there are those unthinking few who will use it at a future date. I cannot speak for Dave Baker or the Moderators, but I do hope that you and many others will not feel intimidated by those who like to make personal attacks, and will post any and all questions to which you need answers or help. The only dumb question is probably the one that was not asked. A Happy New Year to ALL!!!

The problem might not be with the fact that there is no enforcement. I recall that most of the reports were of lawsuits against either the employer or the Plan. It would seem that that would be the greater risk to an employer, and I do not recall that the cases were solely against large employers. If a lawsuit is brought by a participant, I would expect that somewhere sometime contact would be made with the DoL. As a result of the matter being brought to their attention, it might be that they would have no alternative but enforcement action. So reporting or not reporting might not be the thing to watch out for.

mjb Although in "theory" corporations do have an indefinite life, your client did what is not that unpopular. It is very simple to create a new entity then fold the old. Look at the corporate structures (including subs and related entities etc) and you will see that many are already set up to take advantage of this strategy whenever they need to. Where there is a will, there is a way. JanetM It is very easy to make critical comments, but harder to explain them. What would knowledge of ERISA 4203 etc have refuted in any of the options that I suggested? What would such knowledge have added? It says nothing about planning strategies, hiring strategies, corporate restructuring or anything that would affect such planning of how to minimize WL or union Fund involvement. I wish that you would show where anything in ERISA has any relevance to the discussion. When comments such as yours are made without saying what is incorrect or deficient, there is no way that any reader can either agree or disagree. There was no factual statement made. It seems cowardly to attack but while doing so, making sure that no one can point to you that you might be incorrect, missed the point or might even be irrelevant.

Have you asked Vanguard?

I cannot say what most companies or even many companies would do, but, it seems cheap and nit-picking not to make the increase effective at the same time as everyone else's.There are so many issues, I wonder why the company would want to consider doing otherwise. How much money would be involved to cause this to be a concern? What precedent has been set? What was told to the employees at enroolment or otherwise? What is in the employment contract, employee handbook/manual etc? What is in the SPD for the STD? It also seems that not paying at the same time creates a small problem for Payroll but enough of a problem to be not worth the effort.

But at least I read the posts and try to understand them. mal clearly stated "the different rules for construction industry employers" but he also stated that there was "the ability of a smart contractor to escape the WL monster". So BOTH the construction industry AND the trucking industry have what he calls "the WL monster". So where is there any difference in the substance? Don't they BOTH have WL? So it does not matter if there are different rule or exemptions as long as there is still WL. Unless you are saying that the construction industry has no WL because of ERISA 4203 exemption, which would then put mal's statement into question. You state "HUGE exceptions made to withdrawal rules" while mal has contractors trying to "escape the WL monster". Note his statement that he was "frustrated by the ability of a smart contractor to escape the WL monster". Isn't that the issue, How "to escape the WL monster" for those employers who are, as the OP put it, "totally exasperated".

Are you saying that the Plan Administrator received a DRO that neither you nor your lawyer ever saw and ever agreed to? Which would mean that the Court accepted a DRO submitted by 1 side only and neither you nor your lawyer were notified and neither you nor your lawyer saw that the filing of a new item had been made in the case. While I know that ex parte motions and filings are at times slipped in and accepted, it should have been caught by either you or your lawyer and an objection filed. Someone seems to have slipped up. I do not understand how come you did not know and were not aware that your lawyer "had NOT written the QDRO that I had paid him to write" ? IMHO, instead of fuming, file a motion with the court or ask the Plan Admin. to file for interpleader.

Thank you. I looked everywhere but still missed even thinking of looking there. I will blame it on that spiked eggnog.

An affected S Corp shareholder MAY/MIGHT be able to deduct some or all of the premium that was included on the W-2 depending on the particular facts and circumstances.

Being on retainer/standby is performing a service that is required by the employer. Terell Owen is still performing the services required by his contract namely the duty assigned by the employer, whether sitting on a bench, actively being on the field, or staying away whether at home or a hospital bed recuperating. While on paid vacation, an employee is still providing the services required by the employer, yet is "not at work".

Multiemployer plans can have as many quirks as they want, that is not the issue, and neither are the Code sections. The issue is how to get away from the Plan in as pragmatic as possible manner. As mal points out it is within "the ability of a smart contractor to escape the WL monster". He posted "We represent local/regional plans" so he has seen first hand that escaping the "WL monster" can be done. What he is attesting to is also done in other industries including the Trucking and Trucking related industries many times. One of the items that he points out is the same as the "phasing" out that I have been trying to explain. The issue is How can an employer do this? It does not matter that he might have Withdrawal Liability, it matters How much and whether or not the benefits outweigh the WL. It is a business decision not a matter of any Code section. The Code section only says what the guidelines etc are. The terms of the Pension Fund contract might even be more onerous. But even that does not matter. What matters is whether the benefits outweigh the costs etc. And then again there should be some employers who might not care about the cost anyhow.

First, saying that "premiums will be payroll deducted" is not the same as saying that they will be pre-taxed. So for that reason you need an agreement to have the amount pre-taxed (under section 125). Note the comments by QDROphile on this issue. Second, since pre-taxing has a potential effect on Social Security benefits, it is advisable that the employee be made aware of this. That is why forms used for pre-taxing of benefits usually have this warning/notice, even for voluntary products such as from AFLAC, Colonial, Allstate (American Heritage) etc. Look at your section 125 related forms and promotional material and you should see that most carry this warning/notice. Third, if there is no separate Salary Reduction Agreement, What do you do if the employee has a qualifying event that allows a change in pre-tax amount? Fourth, Doesn't your Cafeteria Plan Plan Document require a separate written agreement/election for salary reduction? It could be built into the enrollment form, but it might not have the space for the wording and it also would not give you as much flexibility. This is assuming that the enrollment form that you are referring to is not 1 of the health insurance application forms provided by the insurance company. The enrollment forms provided by an insurance company might not be changeable without filing with the state, which would be costly and impractical.

Does anyone know how to print a hard copy of a Thread or even a reply?