GBurns

Do, Isn't this exactly what Harwood suggested way back on November 17th???

mbozek Will you cite it, please?

Do's post of December 15 was: Whether this means CIGNA or not makes no difference because the investment provider could also be the payor of claims and distributions as is implied by Do's wording in the initial post. All we have is what Do puts in postings. Regardless of who does what, Do is not getting what some of us would call adequate or acceptable service which is probably why you have to wonder who does what when..

Do, While mbozek and a few others of us get caustic in our comments at times, that has nothing to do with the validity of the advice. You have a TPA who you pay to do a job. This TPA passes a part of their job to you and leaves you scrambling around for opinions. Suggestions are given and what the law allows is pointed out. Your paid TPA neither wants to use what is allowed by law nor to give you any assistance or alternative solution. If this TPA renders such poor service in this simple matter, I can only shudder to thing of how much else they either do not do for you or do less than optimally. If the service is poor now chances are it will be just as poor in the future. What will be the consequences of poor service in the future when there is a really big problem with penalties??? So all mbozek did was an attempt to look out for your future best interest by giving some sensible advice, namely, for the future get a new TPA. One who will help with problems with which they are supposed to be knowlegeable about and not pass things off to you. If you do not think that the advice is good or you love your TPA no matter what, just shrug it off.

The PLR like all other PLRs cites within its text the relevant sections of the IRC and/or Treas Regs that are applicable to any conclusions drawn and does so on an item by item basis while leading you through each fact and conclusion. The rationale of the conclusions of PLR 200450057 is based mainly on the IRC itself although there is a reference to 1.401. As you read the PLR you will see each cite of the IRC and/or Treas Regs in context.

kathye Nothing is wrong in seeking advice and you are consistent. I do not think that pax was referring to you in any way and hope that he clarifies. Pay no attention to WDIK, after all ...What Does He Know?

What does this AFLAC letter tell you to do? I have never seen one of these letters. What I have seen is a 1099 Misc sent by AFLAC to the employee.

Belgarath I cannot see what you find odd, since the PLR only explains what is already allowed in the IRC and Treas Regs. It is not as if it is interpreting or explaining a new law or Treas Regs.

Something is very wrong here. It is a standard part of the "toolkit" available to insurance agents that gives a "Cost of waiting" scenario and it is usually used to show why you should buy now instead of waiting. So I question your inability to get these figures. However, your post stated that "the LTCI companies will not give me a "ballpark" answer to my question". Since I cannot think of even 1 situation where you would have been speaking to a insurance company, I question the accuracy of your statement. Insurance quotations etc are done by insurance agents not by insurance companies. There are very few insurance companies that even have a consumer services or other section/dept that would have even spoken to you. They would rather have directed you to a licensed agent instead.

Assuming that these employers are really ASGs, a reading of the text and examples in Proposed Treas Regs 1.414(m)-2(g) seems to say that these are separate ASGs. However there is more facts and analysis that is needed to be sure that there is not aggregation.

Does anyone have anything definitive as to what "same series" means? I tried some time ago to get an answer from Guardian etc but got nothing worthwhile.

Where did you see these PBGC guidelines?

A search on the Board will bring up quite a few old threads wherin this was discussed. There was also an Amtrack case on the issue. Use the search feature at the top right of the page. Using the term "overpayment" should be sufficient.

Why would you not consider this an an eligible change based on there being a significant change in cost as per 1.125-4(f)(1)(2)(i)? Provided, of course, that the plan already allows for classifications. If not the plan would first have to be amended to allow this class. Restating or amending might provide the opportunity to have a new plan with new cost structure. It might be considered to have the remainder of the year as a short plan year. b2kates, Maybe I do not understand the use of the term "exclude" as you use it, but to me if you exclude then they would not be covered.

What is the name of this book and how can I get 1?? I do not think that anyone should either attack or support any concept until after the promoter of that concept proves that the concept. It is for the promoter to cite and relate etc nor for us to speculate. The speculation, criticism or support should come after disclosure, explanation and proof.

If these employees were first employed years ago by the leasing company and are still employed by the leasing company and whose work consists of being assigned to work temporarily at various client worksites, then you have a different issue. Normally this sort of temporary staffing is not referred to as leasing since that term is more often used for the PEO type of arrangement, rather than the Kelly type which is more often referred to as temporary staffing. However, I must admit that I really do not know what to call the type of arrangement which is not really temporary but long term. To complicate the matter the IRC uses the term "leased employee" with a somewhat different definition. I also wonder whether these are really classifiable as leased employees. Whose payroll are they on? Who gives the W2? There is an IRC provision that allows "leased employees" to be eligible if a certain number of hours are worked etc and it is possible to use eligibilty language to exclude all "leased employees". So doing that you could have a plan for regular employees only but with a 2 year eligibility which would effectively exclude them. But that raises the question of whether such a plan could pass the various tests, which I doubt. So let us see if 1 of the resident experts will chip in regarding this.

Why should it matter whether the CIGNA issue applies to only one person? It is not the number that counts its the principle. The IBM case started with 1 person, maybe other will come out of the woodwork in CIGNA too. Who knows? The principle of CIGNA and IBM etc is that some changes and plan designs will not be allowed. Will these restrictions be sufficient to assist in getting to the End of the line? Maybe.

Read Publication 969: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/p969.pdf Note the TIP at the end of page 2 which indicates that Each spouse who is an eligible individual must open a separate HSA. You cannot have a joint HSA. Note also page 3 about You or your spouse (joint filers) not being able to have other coverage that is not a HDHP. So you have the problems of : What sort of coverage does the husband have? Can the spouse contribute to an HSA that is not his through a cafeteria plan? I would say no since he is not a covered individual of that HSA and the statement in TIP on page 2, etc.

You have issues beyond "Who's the Employer???" I suggest that you first read the Q&A columns not only on "Who's the Employer?" but also the others on 401(k) and Advanced Plan Design, then consider seeking independent competent legal advice. You also have conflicts in your post, namely, the actual "hire" date of these employees and who hired them. How can their date of hire be earlier than the date of the leasing arrangement unless they were employees of the client organization? When were they fired? Who rehired when? How many W2s dis they get for 2003? Why is this not a successor employer? Why not same desk rules? It is quite likely that the client organization is still the employer and is the common law employer, which makes the leasing arrangement moot as far as this is concerned. Additionally since a PEO plan should be a Multiple Employer Plan, would that plan even allow a co-sponsor to have such different eligibility rules?

Considering the wording in the title of IRC 105(h) one should then infer that such a plan would only be applicable to "Amount paid to highly compensated individuals ... " as per the actual wording and have no applicability to amounts paid to non HC individuals. It seems much more logical to refer to a MERP that is compliant and serving all categories of eligible employees and meeting non-discrimination tests, as a 1.105-11 or a 105-11 plan since that section of the Treas Regs is titled "Self-insured medical reimbursement plan" and covers more than 105(h) itself which only is relevant if 105(b) and (e) are both first met. Or as has been done for decades, simply refer to it as a section 105 medical expense reimbursement plan especially since many subsections of both the IRC and Treas Regs have to all be complied with, not solely 105(h) for there to be a valid plan.

Now comes the "verdict" in CIGNA: http://www.erisapensionclaims.com/CIGNA/cignawallstjrnl.pdf

Let me expand on that since I am very curious as to the thoughts behind this post and think that I might have missed something. What makes a "plan administrator" different from your telephone operator or accounts payable clerk? What time limit do you place on those positions before you repost, and Why?

Freudian slip? What else can I say?

I keep seeing this term, but have never seen an explanation. What is a 105(h) plan??

I agree, better answers than BOTH of THESE might be obtained elsewhere.