GBurns

That was before the Patriot Act, now they have to protect the homeland and its asses even more. By the way this question was also posted on another Forum, maybe you might want to enter the fray over there also.

A Plan Administrator? If so, why are you hiring instead of contracting? If a Plan Administrator, why was another not sought first? If you now have no Plan Adminstrator, How is the Plan functioning? If you are operating a "TPA" and this person was an employee of the "TPA", you hire a replacement whenever you want. But that raises the question of why you would be employing administrators rather than employees, in the first place? Maybe I do not understand what you mean by adminstrator.

I have experienced about 6 cases in 14 years. This thread has nothing to do with "Testing of Qual plans under 410b eligiblity, discriminaton of benefits... ", in fact we do not yet know what it has to do with. Whether criminal or civil case/action/issue by IRS, DOL or anyone else, a subpoena is usually used because the requested/desired item is not being given voluntarily. That is why the IRS and DOL etc make a Document Request and a wait on a response first. That is the procedure being followed here and is what was outlined in the opening post. The letter from the DOL introduces the issue, the response from the employer determines the future line of communication, which might or might not need a subpoena. The issues raised by the letter and any other communication is what should be used to determine whether counsel is needed and what sort of counsel. The authority of the DOL is not restricted to "only covers the age and service requirements" nor is ERISA. Excerpted from the Manual: Investigation of Criminal Matters On February 9, 1975, the Department of Labor and the Department of Justice executed a Memorandum of Understanding which provided for a specific case by case delegation from the Department of Justice regarding criminal investigations of criminal matters relating to employee benefit plans. With the passage of the Comprehensive Crime Control Act of 1984, the Department of Labor has express statutory authority to investigate criminal matters relating to employee benefit plans. Accordingly, the Department of Labor is no longer required to obtain delegation on a case-by-case basis; however, Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration Investigators/Auditors will contact the appropriate United State's Attorney's Office as early as possible in the investigation to determine interest by the U.S. Attorney's Office. See Chapter 52, Criminal Investigations, for Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration policy concerning criminal investigations involving employee benefit plans. The secretary will either on complaint of an alleged violation or on his/her own motion investigate through his/her own staff all matters that may form the basis for possible criminal action under Section 501 of the Act. These matters include reporting and disclosure provisions under Part 1 of Title I and any regulations issued thereunder.

Without really looking at the regs, my initial reaction is no. Who would remit the premium and would the insurance company accept that premium paid by someone other than the sponsoring employee? If Joe does a POP pre-tax salary reduction the amount would appear on the payroll of his employer XYZ Corp as a "Health Insurance Payable" (or similar name). XYZ would them send a check to Insurance Company. Insurance Company has no policy or relationship and even if the Group # is put on the check, cjances are they would not accept the payment. On the other side Insurance Company has billed ABC Corp for the month's premium for all employees covered which includes Joe's spouse. ABC Corp remits an amount to Insurance Company which is less the $300. What will Insurance Company do? If Joe's spouse's name is on the list, they might say that there is a non-payment of the premium. Insurance Company could also say that Joe's spouse is cancelled for non-payment. If either XYZ or ABC Corp has under 50 employees and in a state that prohibits list billing of employers under Small Group Health Insurance Law, the problem might even be further restrictive. The big problem is acceptance of payment from a third party by the Insurance Company. All this is even if section 125 allows the POP in this way, anyhow. The simplest thing is for ABC to put in a POP.

The original post stated: The individuals in question were covered under the company's health coverage during their leaves and their jobs were held for them. From this I read that these were approved LOAs, some of which was specifically related to FMLA and some which might even be related to ADA, USERRA etc, but approved LOA anyhow. Absent specific wording in the PD and SPD defining this particular circumstance as being not "actively at work", I would think that the employer would be asking for trouble to exclude these employees. A salaried exempt employee who calls in sick cannot be treated in the same manner as a non-exempt employee would, because of the docking of pay and the possibility of "making up" the missed hours. You cannot arbitrariliy treat missed time as absence. There might also be complications of PTO banking and shared leave programs etc which might cover missed time and/or absences. So an exempt employee who calls in sick and is not present physically at pye might very well be covered for the absence and is still an employee "at work" and get paid for the time though not present. It seems a stretch to have to pay the employee yet claim that they are not "actively at work".

Usually there is a letter that gives the nature of the complaint or issue and asks for a rely. The need and scope of the response is what is used to determine what the scope and nature of the investigation will be. While it is possible to try and limit the scope of this investigation, there is nothing that stops there being an additional investigation into items discovered during the initial investigation. If you think about it, the contributions and testing etc are related to income, eligibility, ADP, HCEs etc. The only way to determine the accuracy of some of this is to go to either the books of accounts or simply use the HCE and owner tax returns, which would be an attested source of the data that would have been developed from the books of accounts. As a result DOL investigations are initially wider than IRS investigations. You might want to read through the various Field Manuals, here is 1 from EBSA: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/OEManual/main.html

TheBadger Does this Revenue Ruling have what you are looking for? I thought that you were looking for the AFRs not penalty interest rates.

Closing a custodial or other account that is used to hold the IRA funds is not a closing of the IRA. The account is not the IRA. Another "holding" account can be opened by either the employee or the employer on behalf of the employee.

FAS 106 is for the accounting of the liability of whatever it is that is to be provided. Changing what is to be provided is a plan change/amendment just like any other plan change/amendment and subject to the same considerations, rules and regulations etc.

I was editing while you were posting. It is an issue because as you posted "you haven't expressed what the intention is here anyway, so it may not matter what they are. " There are issues about which enough is not known and which might matter.

Why is controlled group not an issue? Why are they not adopting the Trust? What are you trying to accomplish with two plans that can't be done with one? They are married after all. How many adopting employers does it take to create a multiple employer plan, an MET or a MEWA?

Any applicable or relevant law and case history would be either cited, referenced or discussed in the opinion, which I assumed was published. So that is where you have to start. You cannot just think that a topic is relevant and go look it up. Topics are too broad anyhow, to be used in that manner, you need to be specific anf relevant. You might want to read up on case and topic research before you get too far into this class.

If you do not have access to the Plan Documents then anything that you do might be not only incorrect but also of no value. The plan has to be operated as per its PD and any changes must be as per PD etc. Most State plans have authorizing legislation. The relevant sections should be referenced in the PD and any changes to the plan or PD might need a change in legislation. Most State plans are related to CBAs. You cannot change the PD etc without a change in CBA or a MOA. Together these comprise the documentation of the Plan, without them nothing can be done that would be legal or which would nor cause a major problem. ALL these documents are public documents and are available for the asking. In any case they should have been given to you without you having to ask. The material that you discovered on the web has no value unless it is for the particular state plan that you are involved with. The fact that you have to find the documents on the web raises questions about the authority under which you are operating. It now sounds like you do not yet have a contract with the state or agency but are hoping to find something with which to stir their interest. Be aware that there are very few state agencies that have the authority to create and install their own plan. I have never heard of any state retirement agency that has the authority to change or create a different plan on its own.

I do not read this as being from a fiduciary, because a Fiduciary should have covered these requirements etc when preparing the RFP (or equivalent) or even before. I also would have expected more than 1 provider name if this was a fiduciary, so that comparisons could be included. I find it hard to think that a fiduciary is only interested in hearing about 1 company only or that they had the info on every other potential provider except this one.

Although your SPD might state something, it should be supported by your Plan Document and law. From what you pointed out all you have looked at and all you showed the employee was the SPD, with which he disagrees with stated reason. The onus seems to be on you to respond to the employee since you are denying a claim. The procedures to be followed in the denial of a claim should also be in both the SPD and the PD. Have you informed or discussed this with the employee? I advise that you do not leave it up to the employee to find his way through this alone, he/she seems determined and you seem vulnerable. You might want to read this and draw an analogy: http://www.watsonwyatt.com/us/pubs/insider...ent=The+Insider Grande v. Allison Engine Co., Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12220 (S.D. Ind. 2000)

This is quite popular in the govermental and public entity/non-profit world. The only problem in the initial years is employee communication, especially getting them to understand no-cash out and "use it or lose it". Why not use a simpler and less expensive section 105 medical expense reimbursement plan? The employer only reimburses (up to the same amount for each employee) the eligible expenses incurred and the eligible expenses can be broader than in an FSA. The basic difference between the 2 really is that the FSA would be fully funded with forfeitures possibly not reverting to the employer, whereas the MERP would only be funded as needed. If the FSA forfeitures could/would revert to the employer it would cost the employer the same.

Why not "name names"? The named would certainly appreciate the extra publicity and if given with a caveat, it would not be an endorsement. Joel ????????? Are you going to let Lori get away with her post???? xycid, I hope that you do think that "the financial company that manages your 403(b)" would tell me what is better than what they sold me? But thanks for the reply and disclosure.

I am curious as to whether these 2 practices are completely unrelated. Do the have different locations? Do they have different staff? What are the corporate entity structures?

The BCBS Association has mandated that all BCBS members change from using SS# to an alphanumeric structure with a deadline of 1/01/2006. Already the BCBS in MI, IL, MN, FL, NC, TX, GA, Iowa and NY have already publicly announced their changes. Some of these were changed not as a result of the mandate but in response to state law. The states that already have this effective in 2004 seem to be CA, FL, GA, UT with TX 1/01/05 and MI 1/01/06. I do not know the effective dates of the other states such as CO, IL, KS, OK, WA, NC, OH, PA, VA, OR, MN. UHC and Aetna have also started switching and so have some ASO providers such as Great-West. There are also a large number of large TPAs that have already changed over some based not on state law but on client requests. A number of Fortune 100 companies (e.g IBM, Ford and GE) have already done so, not only for protection from identity theft but so as not to have a fragmented sytem as a result of differing state laws. IBM made the request to their providers explaining that this was partially to help counter rising identity theft. Using this logic, I would not expect that any thinking company would bother to use ERISA preemption as a reason not to change. The change is only applicable to the card that is used in public, the SS# will still be used internally, which further weakens any preemption argument since there is no meaningful interference with plan administration or operation. Considering the number of persons covered by the above BCBS, the number covered under the state employee program, and the amount covered by those Fortune 100 companies, it seems safe to say that the majority of employees are currently, or will soon be, under a plan that does not use SS#. If the majority uses other than SS#, it seems futile to go against the trend even if there is not the issue of state law.

Whether Principal or some other provider, I would expect that you should have major problems getting such data. The data might contain personally identifiable information or other info protected by Privacy Laws. As such I would expect most providers to be reluctant to give out this info without specific authority and permission. Even then I cannot see that you would have a valid purpose since any data massaging and reporting could be and most likely be best done by the provider.

Does anyone know of a compilation or source showing the best performing Mutual Funds which are popular in the 403(b) arena?

If you do not know where this is in law, How are you in any position to tell him so? If you do not know where and what the law says, How did you decide or know that his money is forfeited? Regardless of what section 125 etc might or might not say, What does your SPD etc say?

Your salary reduction agreement is with your employer not ING. What was the response from your employer (payroll dept) when you sent in your salary reduction cancellation? Do you have the advice that you should take out this loan, in writing? Do you have the ING advice regarding stooping your salary reduction in writing? I hope you do and do want to take some action against ING etc.

The allowance of use of a person's SS# is at the discretion of the person and cannot be mandated by the employer or anyone else, of course the employee might not get coverage if the SS# is not provided. However, because of SS# being a key piece of the information that has to be kept private under HIPAA, I doubt that there are any major insurers who are still using SS# as an identifier. The SS Administration position was stated in this publication, which unfortunately is currently bweing revised and so cannot be referenced right now: http://www.ssa.gov/pubs/ssn_1.html There is also the issue of state privacy laws, and I doubt that any of the states with recently updated privacy laws (GLB, HIPAA etc) would still allow SS# as an identified on a medical card just as it is prohibited for any publicly displayed item including badges. A benefit card would be no different from a badge. Although your plan is self insured ERISA would only preempt as it pertains to the plan and plan provisions etc, I doubt that state privacy laws and labor laws would be preempted. In any case if you are using any large TPA or insurance company as your Claims Administrator, they probably will advise agaainst the use of SS# and suggest the use of an employee #. Have you asked your Claims Administrator for their postion on this?

See 401(k) Forum.