GBurns

What is the difference? The QDRO only comes from the court because there is a dispute. Both are requests for action related to the account of the participant. One has coerced or forced consent while the other is voluntary, but both have the same purpose, namely instructions/ request for action.

Donkey Kong Feel free not to answer any. I would have been the one in charge of whackers, anyhow, especially for knee caps.

What is an "unfunded" death? What does it matter if the death is "premature" which I presume to mean death before the policy is issued? The insurance company would still pay the death benefit barring something that would have prevented a policy being issued of which there are very few things. What does it matter to the plan if death occurs after application but before issue of policy? Why would this situation be different from what happens if it was an individual purchasing the policy? Coverage is bound with the application sometimes even without the initial premium. What would the employee be cooperating about? Waiting on the completion of underwriting is no different from waiting on the issuing of a medical card or 401(k) account number etc.

Guys, Let's give it up. Don will never understand the difference between the benefits plan and the insurance coverage etc. He also will not read anything, not even the Treas Regs so as to understand what an accident and health plan is. You can lead a horse to water but you cannot make them drink. Think about it, How bad it must be that we are in agreement? And with the nature and lengths of these threads we have kept it civil. Let us close it and leave Don to his beliefs.

I guess it would depend on the interpretation of "to complete required election forms " especially "required". Is anything legally wrong with oral instructions? You can have an oral contract so why not instructions? Is anything wrong with the Plan Administrator following the stated wishes of the participant even though a form is missing? The form is only memorializing that which the PA has already been requested to do by the participant. I do not see it as that much of a stretch from a QDRO that comes in after the death of the participant. The dead person is no longer a plan plan participant at the time the QDRO is receved, but since the intention was clear, it is accepted. Is this any different from : EBIA Weekly: http://www.ebia.com/static/weekly/articles...nerId=BNL150609 Actual case: http://www.ebia.com/static/weekly/articles...nerId=BNL150609

In these plans I wonder what is conveyed to the employees in the enrollment material? Is the SPD wording comparable to that in the PD? In other words were the employees given the impression and did the employees have the interpretation that life insurance would (not may) be purchased? Did the employees feel and expect that their benefit was covered by life insurance?

Wouldn't also be true that even if there were identifiable assets a writ of replevin would also have failed if there was sufficient comingling with the other assets?

I am interested in hearing Jeff Foxworthy. Why? Not for philosophy but for Humor! He probably is being courteous and treating you similarly. There is no point going to the other Board. Apparently you do not read or understand anything that anyone sends you or tells you, so I have no interest in continuing this pointless discussion. This makes me miss MoeHoward2.

Don, I already gave you a link to www.hsainsider.com and suggested that you read and learn, but apparently you refuse to read and understand anything.But, I will try another time. The IRS issued Notice 2004-43: http://www.hsainsider.com/treasury/treasury_17.pdf Notice the title "HSA State Mandate Relief ......." As stated in the Notice, its purpose was to give transitional relief (to those who wanted to get an HSA) in states where a HDHP was not available because of State law.Look at the first section on page 1 titled "Purpose". Notice the 3rd bullet under "Background". We have tried to explain to you what state insurance law covers, now here is the IRS. Do you think that the IRS does not know whether state law is applicable to HDHPs for HSAs? Now give up, this is now ridiculous.

I do not remeber it as a required component of the letter, but the letter that you give them to send should have an address just like all letters do. It si just standard addressing protocol. They will not be mailing the letter, they will be mailing the letter in an envelope with an address from their files. The recognition of the address on your letter is up to the recipient, who could very well contact you stating that since they never had that address that you have you might have the wrong person. I was told that the IRS uses it to verify that this person is the same as the 1 they are trying to help you find. It is expected that the old address that you have should match at least 1 of the old addresses that they have on file. I guess that they could have more than 1 person with the same name and just might not have an SS# for 1, so they need an alternative for matching. Who knows. Bur since it makes no difference to you, Why bother to question why?

As others have so kindly pointed out in the other thread, you do not understand that which you have read in Travellers. It is pointlees continuing this thread since 2 moderators have provided the answers to the same issues in the other thread.

Lisha, Can you explain or cite why "If one company has had its assets acquired by another co. In this case, if B acquired the assets of A, all of A's employees are treated as terminated and rehired"? In other words what does the purchase of assets have to with the employees?

nobletorch Welcome to the Board. That was an excellent post. I wish I could have said it as well as you did. I look forward to more.

Yes they do exist and they would be capped to the available contribution.

I have no idea what you mean by "you are wrong about the knowledge of the Supreme Court" especially since I made no comment or reference to any of their decisions. The problem here is that you do not understand what the issues are and therefore can neither understand what the Supreme Court or any court has opined nor are you able to understand any of the simple issues that form the basis of the whole issue. The disrespect, my friend is in your misrepresenting by misunderstanding whatever it is. PLEASE, someone put Don to rest, for me. ****** The reason why I have not previously refrained from giving you cites and links to explanatory material was because I did not think that you would be able to understand any of them since you are so lacking at the very basic level. But I guess I should at leat point you in some direction. Attached is a simplistic explanation of some of the issues. You will have to go elsewhere for information on insurance regulations and I already told you about the IRC and Treas Regs. In the attached note the references to insurance coverage on Page 52 Items B 7 and 8, page 54 B 6 et seq in particular 15 and 16: http://www.brownrudnick.com/maze/PDF/BRBI%...uide%209-03.pdf ********* Also visit www.hsainsider.com Although you do not have a clue about insurance coverage, if you work through the "HSA Basics", the Q&A and check to see what is available in your own state, you might eventually start to understand soem of the basics.

No nothing has changed, "at risk" is still there whether cards or not. It is caveat emptor when deciding to use a debit card for your employees.

Don, You have absolutely know knowledge of the insurance regulations in addition to having little understanding of the other issues. It is pointless for me to try and explain anything with your knowledge level so low. If you had even a basic clue about the insurance regulation issue I might have continued but when this lack is added to your limitations on ERISA and benefits plans in general, it would be pointless.

"plan benefits or plan adnministrative structures" are not insurance coverage issues. The fact that the Plan has medical and dental is not an ERISA issue. The fact that the medical has a $20 copay instead of a $5 is not an ERISa issue. The fact that the plan decides to use an HMO instead of a PPO is not an ERISa issue. The fact that BCBS does not have a particular Dr in its provider network is not an ERISA issue. The fact that the plan must have Mental Health Parity is not an ERISA issue.

"Appears" is a standard term and leaves the door open for them to make any corrections. It also allows the refund to be contingent on an application/request for refund with disclosure of any other information that might have an effect. In other words its their CYA catch all phrase. You will not know if the client is really entitled until you submit the request ans see. Does it matter if it turns out that they are not entitled? No. But it will matter if you miss the refund. Issues come up when they come up. I have never heard that there is any benefit in trying to predict when or if issues will come up.

"Would you agree that for the plan to exist, that each separate piece must exist?" True, but that is not an issue. "The plan sponsor can amend his plan to correspond with the HSA/HDHP legislation, and still fully insure his plan?" True, but can only "fully insure" if there are HDHP qualified insurance coverage available. Availability depends on whether or not the State has approved any products. But then again that is not the issue.

That is not what the discussion is. I replied to your posted question: "Can the plan sponsor amend his plan to correspond with the HSA/HDHP legislation and still fully insure his plan? Don Levit " From there you went off in a tangent with irrelevant references and opinions etc. In particular regarding plan, benefits and insurance coverage. It is easy to understand the diferences, The definition of an accident and health plan starts with Treas Regs 1.105-5 which also explains that the "arrangement" can be insured or not insured. Which in plain language means that the "arrangement" or plan can have coverage that is either fully insured or self funded thereby indicating that there is a differentiation between the 2 items "plan" and "coverage". Benefits is easy, there are health, medical, STD, LTD, dental, vision, DCAP, PTO etc etc etc. of which not all are accident and health nor are all insureable. What the extent of coverage, limitations, pre-xs etc provided for each benefit depends on what the plan wishes to do. The Plan has a Plan Document and supporting material such as SPD. Again showing a differentiation between Plan and Plan Document. I am trying to point out that there are various components that are each separate, even if related, and each with their own rules etc.

If the IRS has indicated that you might be eligible for a refund and cites a source, why not use the procedures indicated by either the source or the IRS letter? Why would you want to question or challenge the IRS on this issue?

You have not used "ERISA definitions". Without quoting and/or citing all you have done is give your own interpretation, opinion, whim and fantasy. There are no cases that you can cite that would support much of anything that you have posted. That you would want to post cases without first covering the governing IRC, Treas Regs, DoL Regs indicates a lack of understanding, which is what I have been trying to point out to you. The Plan, its supporting documents (the PD and SPD etc), the scope of benefits, the coverage medium (fully insured (PPO, HMO etc) or self insured) and the provider are all separate items with separate principles, procedures, rules and regs. I do not have the time this weekend to explain benefits basics to you and hope that someone else will make the effort.

"Can the plan sponsor amend his plan to correspond with the HSA/HDHP legislation and still fully insure his plan?" Yes the benefits plan can be amended to offer an HSA/HDHP but that has nothing to do with fully insuring his plan. It is the coverage that is fully insured NOT the benefits plan.

Since this is a govermental entity, was there a "pick up" of the employee contribution? I can give some on point cites but I could not get to them now. In general if it qualifies as tax free initially it will stay with that status for life as long as the purpose of the payments stay as is for life.