GBurns

Disallowed as in not being allowed the tax benefits. I cannot believe that you are asking for a cite regarding a plan which is required by law (125(d), 1.125-1 Q&A 2 and 3, 1.125-2 Q&A 2&3) to have a written document which contains its rules of operation. What do you think the purpose of a document with rules of operation are for? Why would you question what would happen if a plan does not follow the law or its rules of operation? Operating a business outside of its by-laws can cause disallowance of tax benefits, Why would a plan be any different?

Leaving out an employer would be regarded as lying. Lying on an application is grounds for termination. Leaving them out might leave a gap that might be questioned and even held against you. It is questionable that you should think that the "TPA probably has a pretty bad reputation". This is probably quite incorrect. Most company reputations are not based on quality of product or service. In any case what you might know and think is not necessarily what other might know and think.

Any Proposed Regs are binding if that is what you decide to follow. Any plan must follow the rules that it takes or institutes for itself. Any Plan not following its own rules stands to be disallowed as a consequence.

You might want to explain better what you mean. An employee, whether President, VP or sales rep, who takes a client out for lunch or any other meal or entertainment and which meets a business purpose is a reimburseable expense. Such a lunch would not be at a hospital etc. If you mean reimbursing an employee from an FSA, then it would have to meet the medical care related "test". If an eligible person is required to have a meal for medical reasons or as part of seeking medical care, it is not necessary that the meal be in any particular place such as a hospital or medical facility aside from the fact that not all medical facilities have the ability to provide needed meals. Additionally not all hospitals allow non patients to eat in their employee cafeteria which is sometimes the only place where meals are served other than to in bed patients. As a result an outpatient would not get served patient meals and would not be able to eat in the on site cafeteria and therefore must eat elsehwere which would not be at the hospital or medical facility. Not everything that appears in any manual is correct. That is why you might want to explain the circumstances etc.

Over the last few days I have had the ooportunity to counsel a few youngsters about finances and life. It struck me that probably the best advice is that give by John G when he said: "Just do it. Don't use perfection as a standard - it can't be done" All the reading, researching and selection is meaningless if nothing is done. While we will make mistakes, we will have the opportunity to learn from those mistakes and make corrections. But to make a mistake we must first "Just do it". If we are to be successful we also have to first "Just do it". For a financial plan to be successful, time is usually needed, and so the earlier the start the better. The earlier the start, the earlier you can make corrections. The earlier the start usually the greater the reward. The greater the reward, the more and earlier you can enjoy the fruits. So do not wait on finding perfection - it can't be done, "Just do it" . Thanks John G for reminding me what is really important. Happy New Year to all!

While it is easy to determine what is "uniform" it is always open to interpretation and disagreement as to what "reasonable" "meaningful" and "significant" mean. As a result we will have sporadic attacks under code sections containing those words. So while it might be considered by some to be wide and misguided, "1.401(a)(26)-5(a)(2) clearly deems" that there is room for disagreement with interpretations. Let's see what the specifics will turn out to be of this and other cases, how wide a net is being cast and how aggressive they will be. I personally expect a major thrust in this and more areas. I do not think that are many units within the IRS that will not aggressively try to find some way to jump on the "illegal and abusive tax shelter" bandwagon. Remember, it is not our interpretations and definitions that matter. Nor is it our chance for a photo op etc.

USPS contracts are under the Service Contract Act (DBRA) and have their own prevailing wage rules that are not applicable otherwise.

That is too cheap. They might like being able to say that they pay top $$.

But what happens when the limits are miscommunicated or nor communicated? Or the limits are not applied to all similarly situated employees? And an affected employee sues. That is some of what I am looking for. Basically they all make 1 question. Do you know of any cases where the employer was sued by an employee regarding benefits?

Why did you not ask Belgarath, he posted it and I only referred you back to his post since you seem to have either missed it or misunderstood it? Anyhow, the elaboration would have to be fairly extensive and really has no place on the Thread. Suffice it to say that you cannot use the monthly Life insurance premium since it has costs, expense and retainage etc that are not part of the useable "cost of insurance". Cost of Insurance is not the premium. ILP is not the premium that you pay. Both are different and have to be calculated by the actuary for the individual subject to the plan design. Plan design varies even when using the same policy form because of age, riders, option selections (paid up adds, cash etc), dividend projection etc etc. Now go drink some more Dom. Happy New Year to you all and may next year be the best ever.

dh003i gave some good starting places on the other "newbie" thread. Start there but before you do read the other threads on this Forum since not everyone posts to every thread and some good info exists elsewhere. You also get to see questions that you might not yet have thought of along with any rebuttals etc. Good Luck and Happy New Year!

You cannot just deem an amount for the life insurance or calculate it in that manner. As Belgarath pointed out "you can't just say 2/3rds of the benefit is purchasing life insurance." There is much more to the calculation of the ILP and amount attributable to LI.

Some people seem to think that CPAs can do anything even plug leaks ( of information), repair drains (to cash flow), remove clogs (HR consulting) etc. Remember the Vision 2000 project that considered changing what CPA stood for, I wonder if anyone had submitted Certified Plumbing Artist?

What is an "Administrator" in a TPA consulting firm? What is a "401(k) TPA consulting firm"? Do you provide services to 401(k) TPA's? Or do you consult on 401(k) plans to plan sponsors? Or are you a Plan Administrator, which begs the question of what does an administrator do for an administrator? Is this like your Office Manager?

angie8179 Do yourself a big favor and stop believing what sales reps tell you. Agents of a company, whether sales or not ,are there for the sole purpose of getting you to do business with them. As a result everything they tell you is for that purpose and not for the purpose of educating you or even telling you the truth. Take what is said with a grain of salt, ask for written proof, then go and verify what was said yourself through some other source. I suggest that you do more research before jumping to any conclusions. This includes jumping to the conclusion that any particular fund is good or any particular type is better or that you cannot go wrong. For example you have now found out that no-load does not mean low fees (costs) which is not what you had heard and thought. There will be many more such "surprises" and you have a choice to make regarding paying for any mistakes that you might make. Do you want to pay for the mistake or do want to try and avoid the mistake by learning first?

I am looking for a few cases in which the employer was sued for not having a particular benefit or not communicating its vailability. For example, the employer requested that a particular item say, bypass surgery, be limited to a maximum lifetime benefit of $50,000 on a plan that pays 80% of Schedule. This limit does not affect the premiums so it was not a decision based on cost. An employee needs more than $50,000 woth of treatment but cannot afford it, so foregoes or delays treatment which causes a bigger more expensive problem. The employee sues. Or the item would have been employee paid, but the employee was never given the option. Or the employer waives EAP with no cost savings or it was employee paid anyhow, and similar situation develops. Or the employer has EAP or the limit, but neither the employee enrollment material, the SPD or Certificate of Coverage makes mention, so the employee is not aware and does not get adequate or timely treatment then discovers that it had been available all along so sues. Does anyone know of any such cases?

This sounds like a single premium Bonus annuity. Accumulator sounds like an Allianz product. I do not like the agent's description. Ask for a sample policy so that you can see contractually how this will work. Sample annuity policies are readily available to agents for free. Also get an official illustration. An illustration in a state approved format which shows both guarantees and projections is required by law in many states. It is free and it is required that he give it to you at time of solicitation NOT at time of sale, so you should already have this, if not Why not?

You do have to try and smile sometimes. It will do wonders for an aggressive personality. My face to face arguments are more intense than my internet arguments.

I wonder what you mean by "We deal with single employer/ single participant plans for small businesses". In any case if you "deal" in any way with any thing, Shouldn't you already know about that thing? Doesn't your plan document state what can be held?

To support the real issue in Grande there was deliberation and study of the applicable law. It is in the explanation of the conclusion that you will find the rationale as to the conclusion. Among the rationale was the statement that it was "His money". It was not the main issue it was part of the logic of the opinion. There are reasons why the employer cannot do as he wishes and why he could or would be held accountable before the end of the year. First for it to be determined at the end of the year would mean that there was a cessation of reimbursements at whatever time before the end of the year that the money was not available for whatever reason. This would be failure of the plan under the "Uniform coverage ..." rules of 1.125-2 Q.7(b)(2) which says that the money "must be available at all times". How difficult would it be to meet this standard if the funds are anywhere else other than the general checking account? Under most state labor laws, salary reductions and deductions, must be used for the purpose intended within a specified time. If audited by the State anything other than immediate availability should cause a problem. If you claim that ERISA preempts state labor laws regarding a Salary Reduction Agreement in an FSA, this employer would then possibly have more stringent standards imposed such as a Trust , PT and fiduciary requirements etc. I can just imagine what the DoL would have to say about the employer freewheeling with the money and the payment of claims. What happens if the employer does as he wishes with the money and it loses value? Can the employer just make an ad hoc make up contribution? Can the Plan accept an ad hoc contribution or an unscheduled contribution? If there was only employee elective contributions allowed in the Plan, Can the Plan accept an employer non elective contribution? So there are the issues of availability, potential loss, non acceptance of an employer make up, state law. There are other issues but these should be sufficient.

I do apologize, I did not notice that you had stated "in your case" in reference to the mbozek case. In fact, I also missed "Unlike the fact pattern ..." 3 martini lunches? I should learn to reread in those circumstances. I love lawyers, some are even friends. Lawyers, I know what to do with them, It is attorneys that I dislike. Arguments can be good therapy just like hot women, they keep the heart working and the blood flowing. It beats pumping iron.

That is the point. It is the employee's money that he could have taken in cash but instead had it set aside under an explicit provision of the Code for specific purpose determined by the employee subject to certain rules. If the employee does not meet the rules then "use it or lose it" applies. But even then it does not revert to the employer under the "FSA Experience gain" rules but might partially come back to the employee. Under the "FSA Experience Gain" rules of 1.125-2 Q7(b)(7)amounts left in the FSA revert to the premium payers and even uses the phrase "the participants for premium paid by salary reduction or employer contrinutions" to define premium payers. Why would there be the word "return" if the FSA Salary Reduction amount was not the employee's money? You can only "return" something to where it came from. Read the Court Opinion then go tell that to the Judge if you still do not agree with the reasoning behind the interpretation of the Treas Regs etc.

I had forgotten how valuable the things pointed out by SoCalActuary are, especially those in the last paragraph. How easy it is to forget the things that really got many of us to where we are. Take the advice very seriously. This just came to my notice and goes along with SoCalActuary's other paragraphs. http://www.webcpa.com/article.cfm?articleid=10169

Whether you never ever contribute any more money to your Roth or any other plan is irrelevant. As long as you have money in an account whether Roth, 401(k), or cash under the mattress, you should be making it work for you earning interest, dividends or whatever. What were you doing with the money that you had contributed to the Roth in the past? Have you asked your Roth custodian or the investment vehicle, these questions? That should have been your first port of call to see what they have as contribution limits and rollover restrictions.

How did the employer get to be the injured party? The employer made the offer and the employer rescinded the offer. There was no action by the applicant and there was no action by the applicant prior to the rescinding? The alleged cause for action is the rescinding of the offer. What is that you see that no one else seems to have seen?