GBurns

You should not consider them as being anything without further investigation. They could be statutory employees, they could be misclassified employees, they might really be Independent Contractors or most likely they are employees of the leasing company. I would question the giving of 1099s to leased employees. Most leased employees are employees of the Leasing company. Was payment made to these employees or to the leasing company? If made to the employees, with whom was the leasing arrangement? If made to the employees and there is a leasing arrangement with the employee, they most likely are not ICS, but it is the case they very likely are misclassified. It is questionable that a company could directly enter into a lease arrangement with the individuals themselves.

This case seems more that the plan sponsor contributed to the trust rather than making a direct premium payment to an insurer. Which should make the contribution deductible by the plan sponsor but leaves a question as to how the Trust accounts for it. I think that is what the OP was really asking, Is it deductible and by whom? ********************** This post should have been before mwyatt's response, but we were both posting at the same time.

Fidelity bonds are more geared towards covering employee dishonesty so Fiduciary Liability insurance might be more appropriate for fiduciaries and D&O (I think there is also Trustee Liability coverage) for Trustees. So the VEBA buys Fiduciary Liability to ptotect itself from the Trustees and others, but it makes the Trustees buy Trustee Liability and the Administrators buy Fiduciary Liability. I do not think anything is required unless the by laws say so, but prudence dictates that you get insurance. You might want to get the differences from a good agent. Maybe 1 of our members with exposure to this issue will post.

Some courts treat self funded plans almost like state regulators treat insured plans: http://www.seyfarth.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/...t%206-20-01.pdf Just like state regulated plans, this court decided that the employer cannot do whatever they want with the benefits.

It started with the 2 posts by SoCal responding to Kirk and mbozek inparticular the second one quoted above to which I responded. The issue was the "protect the plan".

I wondered what you meant by "trying to steer away from consultants who have a recordkeeping arm within their organizations" after naming 2 that have exactly what you are steering away from. Most if not all of the firms with "national presence" have recordkeeping arms and those that might not, if there are any, have well established arrangements that might as well be an arm. So if you are going to maintain the integrity of your own words, I guess you should discard all the names so far, and first rethink this idea of "national presense". I am curious as to what benefit would you get from a "national presence" that very many distinguished regional firms cannot give? Size and brand image has never translated into quality.

Some courts treat self funded plans almost like state regulators treat insured plans: http://www.seyfarth.com/db30/cgi-bin/pubs/...t%206-20-01.pdf Just like state regulated plans, this court decided that the employer cannot do whatever they want with the benefits.

Then I do not understand your question. Maybe you should tell us what the words that I do not understand mean? In any case these are the statutory definitions: "Sec. 1002. Definitions For purposes of this subchapter: (1) The terms ``employee welfare benefit plan'' and ``welfare plan'' mean any plan, fund, or program which was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained by an employer or by an employee organization, or by both, to the extent that such plan, fund, or program was established or is maintained for the purpose of providing for its participants or their beneficiaries, through the purchase of insurance or otherwise, (A) medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or vacation benefits, apprenticeship or other training programs, or day care centers, scholarship funds, or prepaid legal services, or (B) any benefit described in section 186© of this title (other than pensions on retirement or death, and insurance to provide such pensions)." Where would an EAP set up the way I described and for the purpose described, fit into the ERISA definitions? The DoL has opined that EAPs are ERISA but note that is if the services are deemed as being medical treatment. As a result it would mean that there would have to be 2 EAPs and the coverage segregated to meet or beat the DoL requirements. Why do OSHA safety training programs not fall under ERISA? Now that I have given my side of a possible scenario as requested by the poster, now its your turn to state why it might not work. In any case the Original Poster asked for suggestions as to how to get around ERISA. Can you offer a suggestion or even state your reasons why no suggestions?

Even then underwriting delay has nothing to do with the insurers' liability to pay a deat claim, does it? In individual plans, in particular, the coverage is bound with the application. Also the underwriting can be and should be done in advance of the application anyhow. As a result the Plan is never "on the hook" at any time.

Without doing much looking here are a few, not that I would consider using these, but they were just easy to find: Look at the note at the bottom regarding CA law and 2-9 eligible employees. Eligible employees does not mean the number that must be covered, you could cover just 1 of the eligibles. The amount is up to $200,000 but with just a few lives it might be capped at $75,000-$100,000. This not even with a regular life insureer geared to offer in this market: http://www.bscalife.com/life.htm In the middle you have: http://www.cigna.com/group/brochures/life/UniversalLife.pdf NYLife using Group UL without special circumstances has a standard product that needs 10 participants but has higher premium requirements: http://www.newyorklife.com/cda/0,3254,10972,00.html However, most of the above would not be used by most in relation to pension, NQDC Plans or SERPs. Something more like this Pru product would be used. Note the number of lives varies by state with NY being 15 lives for GI with full underwriting for less than 15 lives. However as with NYLife etc the underwriting can be and should be done in advance: http://www.prudential.com/productsAndServi...y%253D0,00.html In between these extremes, it is the agent's job to find what is available for the group in a particular area for the particular purpose whether using Term or Cash Value insurance. Underwriting delays and delays in policy issuing are not meaningful factors nor is binding the coverage.

So what do we discuss/argue about now?

I told you it was the eggnog. I saw 2 choices wrote 3 then addressed 3. This makes me really wonder what do I really know?

Since it is not for the benefit of the employees any more than WC is, it should not be regarded as a "wefare plan" or other ERISA covered classification. If it does not meet the statutory classification definition, then it should not be a covered item. By the way, it should be a stand alone plan and not a part of or associated with the medical plan. Neither should it be part of the employee benefits package. Its purpose would be just like OSHA safety training programs which is for the benefit of the employee (so that they do not injure, hurt or kill themselves) but is not treated as being an ERISA plan. The guise would be the same, it is for the benefit of the e mployer in order to meet safety standards thereby complying with OSHA etc while also reducing WC and other insurance premium costs. I did not say that it would fly, I am posing possible ideas. But now that I think of it, it is not so radical an idea. I wish that I had the time to check to see what certain large employers are doing in this regard.

No reference to you was intended, but I cannot truthfully say that it was a Freudian slip. I just love the moniker and wish that I had thought of it first. It very often is the phrase that is last in my mind at the end of many posts. This time I stuck it in just for the sheer release of the "tension" of it. WDIK is the epitome of what the Boards really stand for. We get to test that which we think we know and hope that if wrong someone else know enough to correct us. It is nice to know your value standards even though you stated 3 but only chose between 2, leaving me to wonder if the first is a given. It could be that we are birds of a feather since I like the extreme redundancy of that first phrase. What is this Board coming to? People agreeing with GBurns and people being of the same standards? Must be that stale left over eggnog that I gave an extra spike to so as to kill anything foreign that might have taken up permanent residence in it? Drinking enough of the "spike" keeps away sharks from my legs. And you should see what it does to lawyers. If only there was something for actuaries.

Then a Google search on "IA 71 "Individual Mortality Table" should give either the actual Tables or cases of valuation law wherein the tables are used. If not IA 71, of course substitute whatever it should be. I would think that 1 of the Estate Planning or Settlement related websites should have the qxs. Or the NAIC since they adopted the tables.

k man How do you report this severance pay? 941 and W2? 1099?

Shouldn't it be the Trustees instead?

There was a CSO IA 71 Individual Annuity Mortality Table in use around 1981 with 2 sex distinct tables. I was not around then but have seen it referenced in valuation issues. I do not remember a IA 81. What are qxs?

Does a TPA/Custodian that use their own documents in such a change of TPA/Custodian only, give any sort of guarantee or indemnification covering and possible defects etc of their documents? It seems that unless that is so, requiring use of their documents seems just an excuse to sell something. This would make their integrity etc questionable, in my mind, absent an acceptable reason. I am a cynic, But then again WDIK?

Hans (Mr Moleman?) Thank you for the kind words, but I have to warn you that as a result you might now have been classified by some as being questionable and subject to a whack. I have heard that it is a very fine line between insanity and genius. I walk with a slight limp so that concerns me greatly so I just try not to wobble but I will doddle. Enough of my rambling before you really decide.

Is this EAP part of the employee benefits plan? Is it conceivable that based on OSHA, WC and General Liability experiences or EEOC violations such as employee sexual harrassment, an employer decides to put in EAP as part of reducing its liability in those areas? Give the employees counseling so that you reduce the incidents of harassment, violence, suicide etc. If so, would this not be an expense similar to WC and GL premiums and be treated similarly, therefore no ERISA.

could be me maybe not What purpose does the Board serve for you? If you do not want to use the Boards to converse Why are you here any at all? And Yes, however it should be "knowledgeable on", since I am far from being expert in my few areas of coverage. I think I am just getting to the "competent and experienced" level.

What I gave was standard practice, best practices is still better. To get that I defer to those with more expertise. If you have been seeing less than the standard "by the book" "as per the application" and the standard new business submission guidelines that I outlined, you have not been getting "less than perfect" you have been getting negligent and possibly incompetent service.

The only time a QDRO is not coerced would be in a friendly divorce. I do not think that there are many. I do not think that there are many where 1 spouse is willing and eager to give up the money and so a compromise is arrived at so as to get it over with, hence "coerced" or "forced consent".

That is not how insurance policies are issued. Group insurance should be used for most plans and is available down to 2 lives. Almost all types are available as group insurance. Group insurance comes as guaranteed issue or simplified issue. Declineable conditions are stated on most applications. For guaranteed issue usually only terminal cases can be declined. Simplified issues has medical questions on the application the answers to which determines the level of underwriting. If there are conditions the case is rated. The agent knows in advance what is acceptable and should not submit a case that is already known as subject to decline. For rated cases, if the offer from the initial insurer is not acceptable there are many impaired risk insurers available. Guaranteed issues can be issued and very often is issued in cases where an individual application would be rated or declined. If the group is large even terminal "death bed" cases have to be issued because in larger groups very little if anything can be declined. Individual (non group) cases are medically underwritten but then again the agent should select companies that take a particular type of risk or just use an impaired risk insurer from the start. Whether group or individual insurance, the coverage is bound with the application. The case is either issued as applied for, or rated. The agent should not have submitted a declineable case to such an insurer. If the applicant dies before the policy is issued, there are very few options that the insurer has to decline paying. The few are material misrepresentation, fraud and undisclosed declineable medical condition. If the case would normally have been rated, the insurer would rate it but would still have to pay the death benefit. The Plan gets the $100,000 from the insurance company.