GBurns

Line 31 of a 2004 Form 1040 is for self employer persons and should not be applicable to a Sub S Corp owner who would have had the amount of premiums added to Box 1 of the W-2. Deductions for health insurance would most likely be a schedule A item subject to the 7.5% limitation and might very well not necessarily be even deductible which would result in a tax liability for the premiums.

That an HSA has the funds held in a Trust should make no difference. So could and so do some FSAs. An HSA like an FSA or HRA should have an SPD explaining coverage, exclusions, limitations, claims procedures etc etc. Try www.hsainsider.com or similar sources includimh HSA providers and Trustees.

From a sales perspective, If the President and CEO have a negative, How would giving the HR person anything help? Are you expecting to overcome this negative with an few articles which could even be perceived as being not quite on point, or are you expecting the HR person to be able to make the sales "pitch" for you? IMHO, if you cannot get audience with the President and CEO to directly discuss the matter, explain and make your presentation, then this is not even a suspect, much less a prospect. It is unrealistic to expect the HR person to become a salesperson with a convincing presentation/explanation, just because they read a few articles and listened to you. It takes a salesperson quite some time to learn enough to be effective, it is unrealistic to expect the HR person to do so in a few minutes.

What was the original purpose of the SERP? I thought that many, if not most, SERPs were installed to rectify or compensate for this disparity? How would "rolling" (if it can be done even aside from Harry O's warning) rectify the disparity etc? How would "rolling" remove the "compensation cap" or avoid the 401 limit? Maybe I am also just not understanding your phrasing.

I suggest that you seek direction from the Bankruptcy Court itself (or Trustee). In the cases that I have seen, salary reduction/deductions were not allowed except as allowed by the Court so the fact that hours were reduced might have no bearing. I also wonder whether the Automatic Stay would prohibit you from cancelling the insurance aside from the fact that you are not the insurer and the premium is not owed to you so you are not a Creditor (nor agent of the Creditor).

I was somewhat dissappointed with Demo's offerings. I had hoped that something more meaningful would have been offered, not that it was not a good try. By meaningful, I mean funds that would be available to a fair number of 403(b) plan participants. Aside from Vanguard the other funds are rather obscure, and I doubt that even Vanguard is available in most 403(b) Plans. Maybe a few 403(b) involved persons will chip in as to whether or not these chosen funds are available in the 403(b) plans that they are familiar with.

It is still an annuity, isn't it? How is 403(b)7 applicable to this thread? Let us see what Demo uses to show "at least a dozen mutual funds with better performance, lower expenses, and at least equal, if not lower, risk."

Does anyone know why these things are being released as "Notices" rather than as Revenue Rulings etc?

Is this the Board of Directors for the client's company or is it for their 401(k) Plan?

Can you find another rationale for getting this additional employee? What would be the effect on net per FTE? Would an additional employee allow you to accept more business? Can you show that you have turned down or lost business, that you would not have had to if this additional employee had been in place? Would an additional employee free up more time for acquiring more business? Sometimes you have to gild the lily for these people.

Checking the boxes means nothing. The info on 5500s is often incorrect or misleading. It is subject to the interpretation of the person filling out the form. Some people will check the box for "General Assets" because the check that is drawn for the employer's portion of the health insurance premium is from General Assets.

1 of the big problems in healthcare is that the employee does not care about spending the employer's money. That is why employer paid premiums are regarded as an entitlement rather than a benefit. The spending (or not) of their own money is what comes into play with higher deductibles, co-pays and out-of-pocket etc. These they do not want to pay to the extent of even foregoing treatment. Although it should be "won't" rather than "can't" afford, there are millions who really cannot afford these higher costs.

So the important thing is not to force or coerce the employee into Medicare. However, if Medicare is made an available option, the employee after weighing the coverage etc, might on his own elect to enroll in Medicare and after the waiting period have Medicare as Primary and the employer plan as secondary which together would seem to be much better coverage than the current employer plan alone. Just make as much material available as possible and even get the employee to talk to a knowledgeable rep from 1 of the Medicare MCOs and someone from Medicare.

To give a proper answer I should run the scenario through a client write up system and a tax return prep system, but, I am currently deep in a website set up project and will not get to do this for a few days. I understand the salary analogy but do not agree with the health insurance analogy but should not comment without having run the scenario. Many things in accounting entries and tax prep are not straightforward but have limitations.

I still do not understand or see the connection between "a type of coverage that is experimental" and "flexibility for insurers that wish to "experiment" a little". How can an insurer "experiment" with "coverage that is experimental"? This article is somewhat related in that it shows what has happened in your stateof Texas with insurers experimenting with coverage outside of the mandates: http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/news/11595708.htm

You might also want to read some of these: http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=25522

mbozek Wouldn't the $300 be taxable income? Even then it is still better than nothing. LCChalone I might be able to find something on point but in the meantime look at Revenue Ruling 2002-3 which explains a bit about reimbursing premium that was pre-taxed. You are correct regarding a joint tax return, but that has nothing to do with what the employer sees for reimbursement or a FSA administrator.

Since an S Corp is a pass through entity for tax purposes, wouldn't this be a double deduction of an expense and as such not allowed? It also seems to be a wash transaction that come back to the same net effect anyhow.

Will this "specified medical insurance option" be a HDHP that is HSA eligible? The OP stated that the $300 would go to an FSA not to an HSA. and the OP also did not say that the "option" would qualify as an HDHP. It could be that the employer just wants to direct attention to this "option" just because it is not as rich or not as expensive as the current choices which for whatever reason have to be kept.

Maybe I am not understanding the OP. The premium is paid by the spouse not by the NP's employee. As a result the employee has no expense. How can you reimburse someone for an expense that they did not incur? The premium paid by the spouse is quite likley paid through a cafeteria plan. If it is you cannot reimburse a premium that was paid on a pre-tax basis anyhow. If the premiums paid by the non-employee spouse were not paid through a cafeteria plan, then if the premium payment is split so that the employee actually pays her portion of the premium, I suppose then it might be possible to reimburse her.

jsb, Shouldn't it be Medicaid instead? As I remember ESRD is quite often taken over from Medicare by Medicaid. You should also consider any secondary payer issues there also. You might want to consider making the Medicaid option available rather than trying to dictate it. It is quite possible that the Mecicaid ESRD coverage is better than that offered under your employee plan, which should make the employee's choice easier. *************************** The above post needs some correction. It turns out that the reason why I was seeing Medicaid was partly because the Medicare program as not fully functional then (pre 2001) in South Florida, and partly because of the prevalence of Medicare HMOs in this area. The Medicare ESRD program is reportedly fully functional in many areas but still not in all. Additionally, Medicare HMOs etc can deny coverage if ESRD is already diagnosed. What they then do in Florida is to get you enrolled in the Stae catastrophic program which is aimed at ESRd and administered as part of Medicaid. Drs are also allowed to do this enrollment. If there is employer provide group health, there is the COB and related issues and Medicare will not trip in as primary payer until 30 months after dialysis statrts etc http://www.cms.hhs.gov/medicare/cob/esrd/esrd.asp It seems that the employee can eventually be covered by both Medicare and the EGHP with Medicare as primary abd the EGHP as secondary and also covering anything that Medicare does not cover, as a supplement. The same applies for the Medicaid coverage although it seems that the waiting period is shorter. I would suggest that you (or the employee) not only get the Medicare booklet explaining coverage etc but also contact the Medicaid and state catastrophic coverage people. The treating Dr might be a good source for contact information along with any of the large Medicare HMOs (MCOs).

In the private sector, although there could be disparate treatment of a gender in any specfic employer group, it should not rise to discrimination hence violation, simply decause the disparate treatment would not even apply to every member of that gender group. Also I think that a violation would also have to have an intent portion and since the "carve out" applies to all employees, intent to discriminate would not exist.

Yes, they said 401(k) plans would not work. There were many many problems in the early years and there are still problems even with operational, compliance and testing issues. Some areas are still getting changes and clarification after all these years. And guess what? These are not even with the participants, these are with the experts who provide services. On the participant side there is still a big mess with lack of appreciation, undertsnading and investment choices. Large numbers will not participate or contribute because the do not understand or feel safe. Large numbers will not make even basic investment decisions. Large numbers who make the decisions, do so badly and lose much of their savings. After all these years education is still a big issue and as a result there are many who will say that 401(k)s do not work as intended. Will HSA contributions, investments and proper use (for eligible expenses) be any different? Only time will tell. Will HSAs deliver any relief from soaring medical costs and imprudent utilization? Will the concept be properly understood and used ? Who knows? Again only time will tell. Can a potential mess be avoided? Yes, If the effort is made by those promoting the concept. But the question is more Will they? So far it seems No!. The interest seems to be in getting as many signatures in whatever way for whatever reason possible regardless of need or understanding.

Please go ahead and ask Dave, BUT, to be fair have him read the thread and see if he agrees with you that there is any problem with the posts which only asked questions about what was being posted, none of which were answered. I would happilly abide by Dave's decision.

The agent sold and the person bought a "package" that consists of a HDHP and an HSA with the idea of saving money and taxes through the use of the HSA. The "pie in the sky" exists when there was no way to get the HSA (no available provider) therefore no tax benefits, no savings and increased exposure to financial loss. "Pie in the sky", something that will not be attained or received as expected. It has nothing to do with high deductibles, it has to do with there being no way to complete the "package".