GBurns

Unfortunately, I do not have a copy of the book. I do nothing in that area that requires any in depth research or knowledge. I have been trying to imagine what sort of entity this could be. Outside of the statutory entities like the USPS etc, I cannot think of anything than would not be a political subdivision and therefore ineligible. What did I miss? Look at what happened with Credit Unions where because the operate under a federal charter, they are regarded as governmental entities. The link is even tighter outside the Federal circle, which is why I find it difficult to think of an entity that would not be a political subdivision or other ineligible entity.

WDIK Thanks for the geography lesson. It completely slipped my mind that large lakes exist in those places. Living close to the sea all my life has made me forget that there are other bodies of water. AndyH There are old saws that explain what you are seeing next door. One is .. Act enthusiastic and you will be enthusiastic. Hence, Act successful and you will be successful. Apparently, they must think that it works.

What do you do when, although the client obeys the law, their actions are questionable? For example would you still keep as a client someone who repeatedly terminates employees for the sole purpose of making them ineligible for an employer contribution of whatever sort, or so that they do not vest, or so that they are ineligible for a pension etc. When you "do what's right" Who's right is it by? This is not a personal attack or any sort of attack. I am seriously wondering what people do and why.

Yachts in Utah and Montana?

What is a retention payment? As a govermental agency, Are you sure that they are eligible for a SEP?

I am curious as to why it matters, to a RK, administrator or other service provider, that the client does not make deposits timely, or perform any other advised act? Is there liability for the actions of the Plan Sponsor/Employer? I thought that the service was to provide the advice or to fill out the forms etc. If the PS/employer does not heed the advice or make any remittances needed, Why is that a concern, except from an ethics point of view? If a tax preparer fill out the tax forms for a company and individual, and then that company or individual either does not pay the taxes or does not file the forms, there is no liability on the part of the tax preparer. If an attorney arranges a settlement and his client never send the payment stipulated, the attorney is not liable. Why then would record-keepers and service providers be held liable for the actions of the PS/employer, after the advice etc is duly given?

Not having any idea how many individually designed plans there are makes it difficult to compare with the few PLRs that might have been issued. But the same thing is true of all other items. Neither the number of issued PLRs or the lack of them gives any insight. However, it is quite possible, as with many other items, that the issued PLRs give enough pros and cons to allow you to make a decision as to the viability of applying for one for this particular plan design. Considering the cost to have an application drafted plus any IRS fee, it probably is not economically sensible. Which then raises the question of the feasibility of using an individually designed SEP in the first place. Is it really necessary and is it really individually designed? What makes you call it individually designed?

I wrote my first plan for FIBI in 1986/7, I wrote my last plan in late 1999. I do not get renewals or anything from FIBI. I have not been a FIBI agent since 2000. I also mentioned ABC. How come you did not ask about ABC? I have been through 3 audits with FIBI and read the results of many other FIBI audits of DB, SCA and municipal PW plans. I have seen the results of 4 audits of non FIBI clients. As a result I have some basis of comparison of the level of audit support needed and provided, both by FIBI and others. I also have a basis for having some idea regarding who stands the better chance of being compliant and maintaining compliance. It is not black magic, but the problem is that when/if the TPA does not get it right, the client pays. The TPA always thinks that they have it right until they learn otherwise. DB etc Plans are seemingly no different than any other plan, be it pension, health or section 125. If all these are so easy to know after a little homework etc Why then do we get so many posts regarding problems and failures? Why does any plan fail if the TPA had it right? It is very difficult to know that you do not know that you do not know. I have (had) extensive knowledge of FIBI material, ABC material ( these 2 probably cover 90% of the market) and others whom I cannot recall right now. My knowledge is based on multiple sources and their extensive resources and not on that of a less experienced source. As a result I have a basis for comparison regarding the thoroughness etc of the material, both sales and support. I referred erisafried to FIBI because of their extensive resources and experience, which is what would help him/her. I know of no other Prevailing Wage TPA with either the resources or structure that would be able to give him/her a definitive answer that could be supported by actual documents. I did not refer erisafried to ABC because it would be more difficult to get an answer from them as a stranger. Who or What would you have suggested to him/her and Why? Or is it that you think that it would serve erisafried better if I gave no tips or suggestions?

Let me make a suggestion. I do not know the exact nature of your work but this should get you some help. Call FIBI and pose the question to them. The should do this in house but might refer you to the senior rep in your area. They might refer you solely for the purpose of establsihuing a relationship with you in the hope of getting some business. They do not expect that many TPAs would venture to handle DB and SC plans and even if a TPA did FIBI will eventually pick up that client after an eventual DoL or other regulator audits any plans that that TPA has. FIBI has been through hundreds possibly thousands of audits. They also maintain an extensive library of audit and research material and of almost anything that the DoL or any other Prevailing Wage regulator has ever put out. If this issue has ever been addressed in any way shape or form, FIBI has it in writing. If you run into a wall because they might know of you as a TPA who tries to handle Prevailing Wage plans and do not want to help, just find out who is the Rep in your area and call him/her. If you have a problem drop me a line and I will find out for you.

Have you checked to see if any rulings have already been issued which might give some guidance as to what might be allowed?

The article that I submitted covered a large metropolitan area (Pittsburgh) and quote not only insurers such as Highmark but also large service providers (medical centers and hospitals) in large Metro areas along with industry observers from large groups also in major metropolitan areas including D.C and Atlanta. Look again at the persons quoted, who they represent and their locale. I would say that almost each and everyone of them handles more lives than you do in an area just as metropolitan as whatever area you are in. It would seem that from this, the majority would not agree with your viewpoint. There have also been a number of lawsuits involving a few BCBS carriers, Aetna and UHC over the fact that the consumer pays the deductable based on the retail price not on the discounted price. The decisions have gone both ways based on each particular set of facts. So it has nothing to do with Metropolitan areas, it has to do with the contracts.

The question might be whether or not the IRC section that you are referring to applies to this or a governmental pension plan? What IRC section has this 50% limitation? What IRC section governs this particular state pension plan?

erisafried Are you sure that they have no problem with the wage related fringe benefit or is it the employer matching contribution that they have no problem with? Vesting schedules are expected with employer match but not with employee contributions that are part of the wage. I suggest that you make sure what it is they do not have a problem with. Look at the last line of this link: http://www.fibi.com/ret.asp FIBI is by far the oldest and largest provider of bona fide fringe benefits plans for use in complying with the DBRA and SCA requirements. Notice that they even comment on the vesting in this last line. There is really no difference between DB and SCA as far as rules go, the fact that 1 is construction and the other is service has mainly to do with the job classifications and related items such as the definition of "job site" "drivers" etc. If all were put together all the time items such as the WD would be to large to handle. Union relationships are also different, construction is heavily unionized while Service is not.

In many cases (possibly the majority) insurance carrier discount is neither known by the individual nor applied to the individuals bill for purposes of reducing the insured person's share/deductible etc.

I doubt very much that his State law allows this.

tradbourne This is an example of what faces HSA users in the real world. Reports like this are frequent and becoming even moreso: http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/05072/470126.stm As it points out, in many cases (probably most) the consumer will never know the discount rate and will therefore pay at "retail". Additionally the consumer will not be able to find out prices up front or in advance so will be unable to shop around in the cases that are not emergencies. There is no shopping around in emergencies. In the cases cited, a user of an HSA would be paying more than a user of traditional insurance and it seems that there would be no savings or benefit from using an HSA/HDHP. Have you run any "What if?" scenarios to see whether or not using an HSA/HDHP would save any money and would any savings be worth the risk and effort. I have done over 3,000 What ifs and there are very few situations that favor an HSA/HDHP.

It should not seem odd, after all, another name for such a program could be Salary Continuation Plan, couldn't it? As long as the disability payment is not being calculated based on the injury and/or length of time off the job, it is not compensation for the injury or illness, but continuation of wages/salary hence W2.

These should get you everything that you might ever want: http://www.oalj.dol.gov/libdba.htm http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/FOH/index.htm http://www.dol.gov/esa/programs/dbra/index.htm http://www.dol.gov/esa/whd/contracts/sca.htm erisafried, I wish that I had the time to dig into my old files. It has been quite some time since I had anything to do with DBRA but I know that I have some info from the DoL on this exact subject. I remember that in the 1990s the main fringe benefits that were marketed were MPP or 401(k) plans. Vesting schedules were used for the sole purpose or reverting the money to the employer. The schedules were set so that no employees would be ever vest anything of consequence (of any match). This coupled with terminations of employees and plans ensured reversion to the last standing employee who was of course the contractor (owner) himself. Between 1994 and 1999 the DoL prompted by ABC etc came down very hard on this and started enforcing their requirements for "bona fide" plans and fringe benefits. Maybe ABC or Fringe Benefits has this material available.

The rules controlling Davis-Bacon are usually referred to as DBRA rules. ! of the RA (Related Acts) is the Service Contract Act. The rules that govern "bona fide" welfare plans etc, wages and fringe benefits are the same for all DBRA which makes them the same for SCA as for DB. There have been many explanations (determinations, advisories etc) published by the DoL on the issue. The entire amount of the wage determination is fully and irretrievably vested. The 401(k) should not have a vesting schedule although I have to admit that I have seem many that have a vesting schedule and which passed audit for the time being. Having a vesting schedule would only be a de facto reversion of wages. Remember it could have been paid fully in cash. Fringe benefits are only a means to reduce the employer costs. A section 125 plan used with DBRA should only be used for elective employee contributions and not for the fringe benefits that are part of the hourly wage determination so as to avoid any confusion. The logic is that if the entire wage determination had been paid as cash the employee could very well elect to contribute to an FSA and that amount would be subject to "use it or lose it" but on the other hand no portion of the wage determination amount can be subject to "strings" or forfeiture since it is subject to the wage order in its entirety. So having a section 125 election complicates the processing and auditing of certified payrolls, so steps have to be taken to keep the various items separate.

Try this site instead. Read the "Road Rules" etc and consider using "Ask the Expert": http://www.hsainsider.com

Basically FASB sets the standards for use of GAAP guidelines. I suggest that you do a Google search on "GAAP" and also look at the FASB website etc: http://www.fasb.org/facts/index.shtml There are many Partnerships and LLCs that have to use these and so I would expect that there are sole proprietorships and could be a SE or 2 that also have to. The requirement has nothing to do with entity structure as far as I can remember.

What I was getting at is that it is quite unlikely and unusual for a partner in a partnership to be an employee. If not an employee then the person cannot be on the payroll. Whereas in a SE, sole corp, dba or S corp etc the "owner" can be an employee and on the payroll.

Midas, I am confused by your terms: "an owner of a partnership". How does a person get to own a partnership? "I have a couple of self employed clients.." What is the relevance or similarity of what an SE can do with what a partner in a partnership can do? "the practice of self employed employees adding themselves to payroll to take advantage of common law employee benefits" What does this have to do with partnerships? "I have not had enough exposure to small self employed businesses to know if this is common practice" As before, but with the note that a small self employed business is not the same or close enough to a partnership. I think that you are overlapping the 2 differently treated areas and ending up with a misundertsanding of what should be.

jamescagney2000, You stated that "the client does to the Dr office, submits his card, discounts get applied.." What card is this? Tradbourne's post is regarding a Debit type card for the HSA not a coverage card for the HDHP.What is the purpose if the client is not paying at the time of service? Then you stated that "the client is sent a bill which he pays through his HSA account " Does this mean that nothing not even the office visit co-pay is paid at the time of service? In the original post tradbourne stated that he would be using a Debit type card. The procedure you outlined would render a debit card useless wouldn't it, if no debit is made at time of service.

I had not considered that there might be an employer plan. If there is and if it has a match, the first priority should be to as much as is necessary qualify for as much of the match as possible before doing the Roth even if both will be done.