GBurns

I do not think that I understand your isssue. Benefits only apply to the plan participant. If an employee has employee only coverage and inflicts (perpetrates) injury on another person who is not your plan participant, Why would it matter what the law says since you would not be giving any benefits? Why would you be concerned about offering benefits? The person needing the benefits does not participate in your plan and could not get benefits even if you wanted to give it. If the injury is inflicted on your plan participant, What does it matter what the source was, unless there is no off the job coverage?

I have some problems with this scenario but will disregard them until I find out What it is that makes this an ERISA Plan? mbozek, If this plan has employer contributions that are subject to vesting, wouldn't there be a fiduciary duty on the part of the Plan Sponsor for those amounts? These unvested amount would not yet be owned by the participants, would they? ****** The OP stated that this is a Group Annuity contract with the PS as the "Contract Holder". I do remember some of these old contracts having such restrictive provisions but since the Board Resolution is simple, the only problem is getting participant agreement. But I suggest a re-read of that contract provision to ensure that it is there and that is what it really says. In the Group contracts that I remember, it was really the Certificate Holder (plan participant) who dictated any change. However, none of these were ERISA because of employer contribution, but because of control and selection of vendors etc. If there is an unvested employer contribution, then there could be a difference. Since this is an old plan it is very likely that some participants have not responded simply because they have not received the request because of address etc changes or simply because the explanation sent was not understood. Have you identified the reasons for no response etc?

I had 2 clients who ran into trouble a few years ago by using email. They had assigned or registered email addresses for each employee quite some time before and thought that this would be a good delivery method. The problem turned out to be that very few of the employees had internet access either on the Intranet or on the Internet. The majority did not have access or ready access to a terminal at work (even if they remembered their access codes) and only 40% had internet access at home. Luckily the problem came to light because of a notification regarding a voluntary product enrollment and while the problem was being addressed in walked the DoL. These were large hospitals that are part of a large national chain. So while it might in theory be a good idea, it might not be good in practice. To assume that employees will access the email might be incorrect. Delivery through a medium that has no proof of delivery or questionable proof of delivery might not be a good idea. I would only use email if its use and effectiveness has been verified and documented. Even if used, it should not be the sole means.

There have been some previous discussions on this. Try a search of the Board. http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...=0entry108388 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...t=0entry95341 http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?s...st=0entry6808 It might be that having a state charter might make a difference. See what the cited PLRs etc have to say. Note the reference in the last of the above links to NCUA rules that might prohibit or limit how this could be funded even if having a state charter allows a 457.

Read through the examples given in the Treas Regs and see why this change is allowable. http://www.changeofstatus.com/resources/regs.asp

I agree with Steve72. I looked back at a few of the BAs that I have signed and all of them have e-PHI language. Since these were all signed quite some time in early 2004, I now wonder why anyone would have left it out. It raises questions about proper drafting and whether anything else might be missing or not addressed.

Gary Can a non-federal governmental entity sponsor a SEP? As I understand the term "non-federal governmental agency", it means a state or local goverment and their political subdivisions etc. Am I correct that these are employers who are not eligible to sponsor a SEP?

Neither section 125 nor 129 non-discrimination or other testing have anything to do with ERISA. They are requirements of the IRC and Treas Regs.

What si normal for a 403(b) should not be normal for a 401(k). Are you also providing the investment vehicles? Are you saying that neither the 403(b) nor the 401(k) investments have any sales charges or account fees?

Aren't there going to be possibly even greater charges from the various service providers needed for a 401(k)? I am sure that the Adminstrator and/or recordkeeper, and the investment providers will all have charges. Who will do the testing and reporting etc and How much will those charges be?

Elective surgery is not always medically necessary, in fact the majority of elective surgery is not me4dically necessary. Some of the most poplular items of elective surgery include hair transplantation/replacement, liposuction, breast enhancement, nose reshaping, eyelids and eyebrows, chemical peels, face and face related lifts etc, skin resurfacing etc, none of which are medically necessary. The numbers of these outnumber the elective surgeries done for medical reasons such as cardiac surgery, hemorrhoids etc etc. The term elective surgery is what is used to describe non-essential procedures done for purely cosmetic reasons although it is also used for any surgery that is not immediately needed. Do a Google search on "elective surgery" and you will see how prevalent the use of the term is for cosmetic surgery.

The Insmark comment is obviousy written "tongue in cheek". Look at what was on the Insmark system pre Winn Dixie (pre 2000). You are right, I should know enough to have known that when you used the term "endorsement split dollar" you did not mean endorsement split dollar but meant something else. As far as being civil goes, What did you expect when you closed an intellectually dishonest post with a snide challenge? Your comment was unnecessary even if you did not understand and see the point. Why get upset at simple tit fot tat? You started it, not me. To say "I cited paragraph 7 because it says continue to use "Endorsement Split Dollar in which the policy owner is an employer..." is dishonest. First, Sole and majority shareholders are also employers in most cases, so there is no real difference in ownership status althought there might be a difference in applicability of each. Then, you cited 7(a) but disregarded the warning AFTER 7(b) which is in the same section. The warning suggests modifying existing plans and the article further states that Insmark will be making needed changes to their system. So it is "Continue to use.." BUT with modification to meet the new laws. In other words it is a target also not just "Equity" plans as you think. As far as being uninformed goes, at least my understanding of the terms is supported by Insmark and the articles in the suggested Google search.

Card Apparently you are trying to justify something while I am not. I also do not care whether you or anyone else uses split dollar funding. Note I said funding not product, the difference between the 2 things I hope you now understand. I noted that you chose to quote Item 7 (a) which is only a subsection of 1 "Bullet" and you totally disregarded the others. What happened to Items 4, 5 and 6? You also disregarded the underlined warning which appears after Item 7 (b) which states: "If you have any of these plans in force, we strongly recommend modifying them to eliminate the contingent assigment -- subject, of course, to the approval of your client's legal and tax advisers." This clearly means that whatever it is that you call "Equity Split Dollar" is not the sole target as you think. Endorsement split dollar which is the term you used in your OP INCLUDES, as is stated in the Insmark Analysis, Equity Endorsement Split Dollar which Insmark warns against in the first section titled "Do No New Business ...". That is my point. Why do you want to argue about a subject about which your knowledge is limited? Just read the articles and learn the concepts and their applications first.

Split Dollar is not an insurance product it is a method of funding premiums. The fact that a funding method remains viable does not mean that the old applications (uses) remain the same, or that the accounting remains the same, they do not.

Another term for "document" is Plan Document. As pax stated read the SPD first but if anything is not clear you might want to look at the Plan Document (PD). The definition of compensation or whatever your contributions will be based on are set out in the SPD and PD. Whether you are an HCE and have any limitations on contributions should be determined by the Plan Administrator who will tell you if there is or will be a problem.

If that is the case why have all the major players redesigned their marketing materials etc and discontinued so many plan designs? Here is what Insmark put out: http://www.insmark.com/ProducersCenter/Spl...Regs_Report.pdf Notice the number of Nos and Do nots related to endorsement split dollar starting from the very first page. A simple Google search will bring you hundreds of articles with warnings etc.

I thought it appropraite so as to indicate a possible no no situation.

Why would you ignore a Google search on the items? http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=UP84+...G=Google+Search

After the many successful attacks by the IRS and the new rules, this should be a very rare rarity.

There were some very recent threads on this issue. Try a search.

Who knows for some people maybe ever little digit counts, while some others are able to extend the outcome.

Have you ever seen the results of any repricing on any EOB that you have ever received while under any insurance plan?

In your American Community scenario, When does the money get taken from the card and When do you know how much it will be? How long does it take for the Drs Office to submit the claim? Will you know what was claimed? In your Golden Rule scenario, How long does it take for the Drs Office to submit the claim? Will you know what was claimed? The problem is that if you do not know what the result of the re-pricing is you will not know whether or not you were charged at the re-priced amount or at the retail amount. What happens if the claim is denied partially or in full?

It probably would be best to contact the issuers of the cards to see what is necessary to become an authorized merchant. MBI, Benny Card and Flex Convenience Card are the major card providers that come to mind.

What makes it an "ERISA" account? Since it was the consultant who made the suggestion and also said that it was done all the time, it should be the consultant providing the references and proff rather than you looking for something that you are not sure what it is.