GBurns

You are right.. There is no "secret knowledge imparted only to these particular type of advisors." Especially any that is worth $4,000. From what you posted, I agree that it sound like you would be playing with fire. Without more details, my first impression is that it smells. Get your self a competent advisor experienced with this issue and in the taxation of IRAs in particular.

What was described is an employer paid health insurance plan with a standard section 105 MERP (Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan) and is not unusual. As pointed out by Lori and 401 Chaos there are substantiation and discrimination issues to be careful of. For an explanation see Treas Regs 1.105-5 and 1.105-11 in particular. A Google search on "Section 105 MERP" will also get you documents and other explanations and applications e.g http://www.dpath.com/products/max105.asp http://www.eflexgroup.com/products/section105/sec105.asp

Would looking at the actual Treas Regs in force each year help? http://www.gpoaccess.gov/cfr/retrieve.html

It usually does. But the issue usually would already have been addressed by counsel if there are other affiliated institutions who preceded you with any plan pension or welfare. I suggest that you also ask the conference counsel for precedent.

Doesn't an ESOP have a Trustee? How come this employer has such free control of the assets of the ESOP? Will the purchase of the building be an investment by the ESOP? Who will have ownership of the building? The fact that you stated that it was the employer who wanted to make the purchase made both the ESOP and the transaction seem questionable.

AndyH Isn't this info as to whether or not there is/was a plan on the tax returns? If you do not have them you should be able to request copies of the returns or schedules from the IRS for whatever years you might suspect. A few years ago I was able to go back 10 years with no problems. They might be able to go back even further. Call or get a Practitioner to call the Practitioner Hotline and see what they think is available.

Probably the easiest way to get it is to make a FOIA request as per the instructions on the website of the particular agency or plan. That way you get the correct name of the Records custodian and address etc.

Do you mean a copy of someone's document or do you mean a copy of a "model" or "sample" document?

Are you sure that the "20% fee hit" is for withdrawing and not for the withholding of Federal income tax? Have you tried negotiating the debt down or doing installment payments? This might be better than a lump sum payment, especially if the lump sum is going to cost you so much to get. You used the term "money management program". Is this something that is being sold to you as part of an alleged Debt Management plan?

A major problem might be the PD and related documents themselves. Many of the major suppliers of section 125 plans (MHM, Humana, Colonial and AFLAC for example) state in the documents that a Board Resolution adopting the plan must be signed before the effective date. Some even use an additional form Certifying the Board Resolution. It seems questionable to have the adoption documents dated after the effective date when the documents themselves might say that it must be done prior. What does this PD etc actually state?

grafals We are not always told when a Bill is proposed and even then sometimes there is not even time for discussion especially if it is tacked on or hidden in at the last minute, to another more prominent bill. Some politicians have already made comments. Here is a release from Senators Grassley, the Chairman of Committee on Finance and Baucus, the ranking member: http://grassley.senate.gov/index.cfm?FuseA...Release_id=4872

Kirk, If the employer made the paying of those expenses for all of the participating employees part of the Plan then it would become a business expense. If however, as implied in the post, the employer selectively pays the expenses for only 1 of the employees and not the other and it is not so stated in the Plan, then it is not a business expense. Note the terms you used in your last post "on behalf of one participant" versus "all of the participants in the plan ". TAG Lunch for an employee is not a business expense unless it meets the conditions set by the IRS. TAG and could be Read IRS pubs 525 and 535, the actual IRC and Treas Regs would be too much to ask of you. Those should give you enough basic knowledge to make a useful comment next time.

Does anyone know of any group that is starting or considering a public awareness or employer awareness campaign (or any other sort of campaign) to ensure that this proposal to eliminate the FICA excludibility of cafeteria plan salary reductions does not become law. It would spell the death of cafeteria plans and have a major impact on employer provided health coverage. It would also have a major impact on the business of TPAs, Here is the Proposal See page 71: http://www.house.gov/jct/s-2-05.pdf

Is Morningstar or any other rating service available to you so that you can look up past performance etc? Bear in mind that past performance is not and has not been a guarantee or indicator of future performance, but that is what is available. If not do a Google search on each and see what performance figures are available and any comments etc. When I searched on "NTGI Index Fund" I got 702 responses. I did not bother to do each individually since that was easily found. Check your search terms and try again.

I cannot think of a reason why not especially if one of the insurers provides the PD etc free.

Regardles of what the PD might say there are still the issues of constructive receipt and the deductibility as a business expense. Having the company pay his expenses would consitute taxable income to the Dr, just as it would have if the company paid his mortgage for him. It is not a legitimate business expense in that it is neither an ordinary and necessary expense of the business related to the business of the company. Personal expenses of employees/owners/officers are not deductible to the business as such and are taxable income to the employee/owner/officer.

I don't understand the problem. He missed making the additional deferral because he got the money back doesn't seem to be a problem. If the money was deducted pre-tax and he got his deferral back, he might even be better off. He might have netted more. He can now use that money to put anyhwere he wants for his retirement. Nothing says that retirement savings can and must only be done through a 401(k). He can start his own non taxable plan. Or he might set up an IRA for 2005 since even if he starts a new job he might not be eligible for a while to participate in the plan of the new employer. If he is rolling over his 401(k) rather than leaving his money in the employer plan, he might be able to add this extra money on an after tax basis.

I do not think that an employer is allowed to dictate that an employee must go on Medicare, but there is more than 1 way to skin a cat. In any case, if taking Medicare instead is in the best interests of the group, I would think that the group would not look kindly on those who would not help especially if the coverage is equivalent or better even if there was an employer subsidy needed. The subsidiy would cost less than full employer provided coverage. The employer might even be eligible for a subsidy from the government as explained in this article: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/31/politics...ner=rssuserland In any case redesign of the plan is needed urgently.

How about showing some of your wisdom one of these days?

You would still have only 1 Roth IRA. What you have are 2 investments not 2 Roth IRAs. It is the money held in a Roth that is invested NOT the Roth.

If a change in order to survive would cause "negative impact politically and affect to moral[e]" I would question the integrity and loyalty of these employees. Would they prefer to see everone lose everything rather than make a contribution for the welfare of all? I suggest that the first thing is to make all Medicare eligibles go on Medicare.Then you can change plan design. The incentive is "Go or lose everything". If you do not want to change the employer contribution, see if changing the co-pays, limiting the coverage of some items and having a limited formulary helps. An analysis of the claims experience should show whether better pre-authorization is needed, and whether disease management might help. A look at coverage availble through a spouse's employer's plan might show some duplicate coverage etc. There are many things that could possible be done to reduce premiums, employer cost and reduce utilization without affecting quality.

Therein lies the problem with definitions. In many states, if not all, some of those who are "required to be licensed as such by a professional licensing board" and who are "are regulated by the various states" or by a Licensing Board range from Real Estate persons (Board of Realtors), Cosmetologists (Board of Cosmetology), Insurance agents, Plumbers, Dietitians, Building Inspectors, Masseuses etc. Most of these even require advanced training but not a bachelor's degree.

tompaul I still do not understand who promoted and who sponsored the plan etc? Who made the initial assurances, the promoter, the plan sponsor or the enrollers?

From other posters: "APA (Accredited Pension Administrator) credential offered by NIPA (National Institute of Pension Administrators)" "the QKA (qualified 401(k) administrator) from ASPPA or APA (accredited pension administrator) designation from NIPA" "NIPA and ASPPA both offer very comprehensive programs for pension administrator" Pension administration is what pension administrators do. The term pension administrator seems very well known by many other posters, So why not ask them? The definition is widely known and generally accepted in the industry as indicated by the many designation and credentials. It is not subject to "breakdown" or debate. What does it matter what I do? That is not the topic of discussion, is it?

Add these, although the attached are related to 401(k) plans, I consider them relevant because the source is similar, namely employee salary reductions and although 401(k) plans have more specific rules, logic dictates that the treatment should be fairly similar: http://www.401khelpcenter.com/401k/perdue_401k_deposits.html http://www.401khelpcenter.com/mpower/feature_longday.html