GBurns

Declaring another person as beneficiary still does not change the ownership of the asset. Even if there was a state that does not divide, Changing to another state would most likely involve having to meet those residence requirements and their taxation, which might negate any benefit from doing so. Doing so might also affect ownership etc of other assets and the taxation etc of those assets (eg deductibility of mortgage interest on primary residence vs second residence ). It might also affect not only existing mortgages and loans but also any new ones (eg your primary residence mortgage might require owner occupancy and the new home be regarded as investment property and financed at higher rates etc). In any case a change of state might possibly be construed as a fraudulent transfer or otherwise and might in litigation be restored to the original state. It most likely would not be worth the effort.

I thought that HIPAA pre-existing conditions exclusions etc required "creditable coverage" rather than any particular service provider. Where did you find mention in either state or Federal HIPAA of pre-exs being conditioned by the licensing of the service provider?

For a MPPP, are the hours counted from date of employment or from date of eligibility? What does the Plan say regarding entry etc? A new hire starting July 8 2004, with entry being 1st of the month after completing probation period of 3 months. The probation period would start July 8 and end October 8, thereby giving an entry date of November 1st. However working 40 hours per week for November and December would only be about 320 which is less than the 501. To work 501 hours this new hire would have had to be eligible and enter before October 1st which means hire date would have had to be probably before June and even May. That is why I questioned whether the benefit really had been accrued since it was stated that these were new hires. And how much has been accrued.

In todays information society it is almost impossible to hide assets from a determined searcher who already has the basic info and who has discovery rights. And when it is possible, the costs, risks and penalties quite often outweigh the benefits derived. It does not matter whose name an item is in, the source is traceable very often so designating another individual doesn't help much and is risky and expensive.

But have they accrued the benefit as yet? Are there any eligibility requirements or conditions etc that might not have been met? rfemmons is looking for a way out or the most affordable way out of this situation for the client. rfemmons, Are you sure that these new hires are eligible etc etc?

That was 1 of my questions (last item in post). Considering that the books, tax returns, contributions and 5500 etc most likely have not been done as yet, couldn't it be possible? If so, What are the penalties or consequences? If not, Why not?

I do not have an answer but some thoughts came to mind. Is there an eligibility requirement that these new employees might not have satisfied? Are there any conditions or qualifiers that have not been satisfied by the business, which could negate the contribution requirement? What would be the cost of "freezing" or discontinuing the plan for year 2004 compared to disqualification etc? Since the 2004 tax returns etc have not been done and also possibly any 5500, Can the plan still be discontinued for 2004? Is the plan year still open for changes? What would the penalties be?

star, Many posters, and I am sure many readers, are wondering what you are trying to accomplish, but for some reason you have not explained. Privacy should not be an issue since you are anonymous and have provided no info in your profile. Therefore no one knows who you are and would not be able to find out from the given info. I am suspecting that you have been approached with one of the many schemes promising special investments and increased wealth through the use of Self-Directed IRAs channeled through ESOPS (or by some other similar sounding name) or LLCs which then invest in real estate, S Corps, Forex, gold etc while giving you "check book control". You seem to possibly have some interest but are looking for a variation on the themes. If you explain better what it is that you really have in mind, why and what you hope to accomplish, you should get much better answers especially addressing the pitfalls of some of these schemes. No one here, as far as I know, will be able to sell you anything, so what you will get is a discussion of the issues and learn whatever it is that any of us have learned about these schemes along with what we think about whatever you explain to us, free of charge.

IRA contributions would not and were not made to the SIMPLE. It is being suggested that the money be taken from the SIMPLE and put to a newly established IRA (as if there had been an IRA all along, hence defacto), a recharacterization of sorts, rather than returning the money to the participants which seem to be more work and probably cause more penalties.

Could you really have a VEBA set up for vacation benefits, withhold or condition the payment of those vacation benefits, because of an amount owed for something not related to either the VEBA or the vacation benefits?

I was hoping that someone would have had the time and research resources to have researched this "hot" and interesting issue. It should be arguable that since pregnancy is treated by health plans and some state mandates, as being like any other illness or disease, then preventing it (even without a health risk) should be no different than preventing any other illness or disease. The cost of medical care for the prevention of an illness or disease is allowed by 105 and 213. As regards "safe harbor" for HDHPs (I think you might have meant HSAs), I do not know the answer but the logic should apply.

Many STD plans have automatic waiver of premium that is effective once benefits are triggered. Have you checked to see if premiums were really paid? I am also curious as to whether the benefits were taxed/taxable, which they should be if the employer paid the premium or the employee paid on a pre-tax basis through salary reduction. If the employer did pay premiums (and which are not going to be refunded by the insurance company under a ROP rider or because of WP having been in effect) and the employer then recovers those employer paid premiums from the employee, wouldn't that create a tax scenario that might be difficult to resolve? In that recovering premiums from the employee would make the coverage employee paid and the benefits not taxable BUT the benefits were already taxed either at each benefit payment or already reported on a 1099 for year 2004 by the insurance company. How would you get the insurance company to correct the 1099 or refund any withholdings etc? Trying to adjust on the employee's 1040 would not work effectively unless the employee was willing to lose amount of the taxes paid. By the way, Where did you find ""Because paid leave provided under a plan covering temporary disabilities (including workers' compensation) is not unpaid, recovery of health insurance premiums does not apply to such paid leave."?

I see many small employers who were notified that they were now required to use EFTPS but ignored the notice since they also got the FTD coupons. Now they are screaming at having been fined for their regular Withholding deposits. EFTPS also applies to non-payroll withholding etc.

Are you saying that this consultant wants his fee in advance? Is this a flat fee or is it based on an hourly rate? If it is an hourly rate, How can he know how many hours it will take in advance of doing the job? If he can estimate the hours he certainly should be able to estimate the savings. I know that quite often lawyers demand an upfront retainer, but that is then related to the eventual billed hours, however, this seems different and suspicious. Didn't he provide any legal basis for deducting from the plan participant's accounts. If he did not give any legal basis, at least the DoL FAB, then I would question his ability etc.

Yes. You might want to walk it through www.changeofstatus.com to see the result using their logic.

http://www.aspenpublishers.com/product.asp...alog_Name=Aspen But you might prefer chosing fom here: http://www.aspenpublishers.com/newwelcome.asp

What are you comparing it to? What else are you considering using?

Blinky, Where can the side fund money be put? Could it be put in an annuity?

Pre natal treatment is a separate issue from delivery. In fact the pre natal is covered under pregnancy which is treated as any other illness, whereas, delivery falls under maternity benefits which might not even be covered by the health plan.

Since the total amount is reported on the W2 and should equate with 8% of gross sales, it seems that in the scenario posted by HFOSTER there is an underreporting and under withholding issue. If the Total weekly earnings (Tips+) = $700 FICA etc should be withheld on that $700 but as described by HFOSTER only (10-20%) $70 - $140 is used for withholding and deduction purposes. Isn't this misreporting and under withholding?

Wages, W2 and benefits would not apply here, these apparently are payments made to service providers. CIGNA adjudicates the provider claims , makes the payments and then is reimbursed by the health plan. It should CIGNA's checks that are uncashed and CIGNA has not been reimbursed by the health plan because the checks were not cashed. So CIGNA has not had an expense and neither has either the health plan nor the employer. Essentially it should be on the books as a provider claim with an uncashed check that is now stale dated but which was never received by the service provider.

The OP made a point of stating that "no actual service is being preformed" and that "the payments that have already been made". Normal prenatal visits would be covered under any health plan, since pregnancy is treated as any other illness. Other payments other than simple co-pay for office visits, that would be significant enough to need installment payments, would be related to either the delivery or infant care and if there is no maternity coverage or limited coverage would create the situation described.

I do not quite understand. I will assume that your really meant claims administrator/payer and not insurance carrier since you did say that this was a self-funded plan. I understand your post as saying that The claims were made against the self-funded health plan not the employer and the checks were issued by CIGNA not by either the employer or the health plan. Since the checks were issued by CIGNA, how is the employer responsible for reporting that a check that was not theirs was uncashed? If state unclaimed property is applicable, what would this employer have that could be turned over?

Accidents do happen.

I would say that it is not reimburseable because the service has not yet been rendered, so the expense has not yet been incurred although pre-payment has been made. Also the arrangement has a chance of not being completed. What would happen if, heaven forbid, she had a miscarriage and so never uses the OB? She would get her money back from the OB and would also have been reimbursed by the FSA. Some service should at the least be rendered for even pro rated or partial reimbursement.