GBurns

By "run her retired spouse's premiums through her FSA account" I assume you mean get reimbursed for the amount that she paid for the supplemental insurance. If so then she would be reimbursing herself with money that was pre-taxed through her salary reduction for the FSA. Although she paid the spouse insurance premium after tax, reimbursement of insurance premium is not an eligible expense under an FSA. But since you say that "they pay out of pocket for supplemental medical insurace" I expect that she is also a covered person. If this supplemental insurance was sponsored by her employer, Why not pre-tax the premium through the cafeteria plan? If not employer sponsored can she get the employer to sponsor it?

I will admit that I have stirred the pot a few times. However, there have been times when I was accused of other things, probably because my post was either not read or not understood. How do I know? Because other posters said so. I would expect that the same would apply to many other posters as well. By the way, was it a typo and you really meant Hall of Fame rather than Hall of Shame? It could be either and even both.

"Extreme characters" ? Where? Who? Not giving names might lead some to think that you might mean the newer faces (fewer posts) that have appeared in or have been attracted to this thread. I am kidding, I think I know what/who you mean. Be aware that some posters like to "stir the pot" just for the fun of it, so take some posts with a grain of salt. What's wrong with www.mises.org ? I also could not find the profanity laced website mentioned.

It might depend on things such as type of entity. Is this a governmental entity or what?

Why wouldn't you also appreciate answers from tax lawyers, EA's or other tax specialists?

Quite often it is overlooked that a large percentage of supplemental offerings come with their own section 125 plan and PD etc. Have you looked to see if there are multiple Plans?

Why were you even thinking of doing this, if it was allowable?

What is "independent research"? Who determines what "independent" means? How much would satisfy? How much would be more than you might have done? Even if more, Isn't quality of any importance? How will we be able to determine if the subject matter was even understood? What does it matter any way?

I just used it and had no problems.

Regardless of which of the systems you are in, it might help a responder if you expand on wht you mean, what you are seeking and the purpose. The terms that you use are a little too broad.

This is the IRC section: http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...72----000-.html But these items from a Google search should serve you better: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=103045,00.html http://www.nylim.com/rcg/0,2058,70_1020084,00.html http://www.brentmark.com/periodic.htm

What will it be reported on the W2 as being? Not because it is reported on a W2 means that it is income. If the calculation of compensation is Wages etc less reimbursements and fringe benefits, that would mean that it this amount is reported on the W2 as either a reimbursement of as a fringe benefit it would not be counted as compensation, would it?

Bean, The amusing thing is that I have not sold a life insurance product or annuity (other than for a 401(k) in over 6 years. I never advocated that life insurance should be used in every situation. If you look back at the posts you will see that all I said was that it was an option worth looking into, with the caveat that it should be not regular UL but a special UL which is more suited for the stated purpose than the regular UL. And I do get enlightened by others very often.

There is no need to take a shot at you. Your post says it all. If you find that my posts show a lack of knowledge, Why not say so whenever the lack of knowledge is exhibited? Taking pot shots is easy Why not make a post ever so ofeten to enlighten me with your level of knowledge on a few subjects? I will leave it to those who really do read the posts, to make comments if they think any are warranted or to just let the thread die since all has been said.

Chaffee I am sorry for the typo. It should have been 202-622-6060.

SPD= Summary Plan Description. This is the Plan Document info summarized and explained in layman's terms. Although you say that your husband is in PERS, I find that many people use the term as a generic term to refer to any pension plan that they are in as a public employee. In NJ he could be a Teacher, Policeman, Firefighter, State Trooper etc or just an long enough serving employee to be a Closed System or in any 1 of the many other public pension plans available to state, county and municipal etc employees. Look at his benefits statement and verify which plan he is in, then Visit the website and read up, use the calculator etc then call his Benefits Dept: http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/index.html http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pers1.htm http://www.state.nj.us/treasury/pensions/pubslist.htm

You can also try 202-626-6060 for John Ricotta or Lisa Mojiri-Azad who are the people who handle this section of the IRC. You might not get them initially but you will be able to get an answer from a "specialist" and depending on the issue and who you are they might even call you back themself.

That really depends on which pension plan you are in. In any case you should have copies of both the initial and the current SPD. If not you should request an SPD from either your Benefits Dept or the Plan Administrator which is always where you go for initial information.

You have 2 problems which you should always keep in mind. Advisors give advice. Like all advice it is an opinion. Opinions can be biased and can be unsupportable or irrational. As a result you take the advice and evaluate it then make YOUR own decision not theirs. Remember they cannot lose only you can. Competence is not a result of any credential or even experience. So no matter what or how many pieces of the alphabet are placed after the advisors name, he/she is only human. To err is human. A referral is also no guarantee of anything. Select advisors carefully. Do not rely on any single opinion. Take all opinions at face value with a grain of salt. Do your own home work. Then evaluate the opinions/advice and make an informed decision. Reflect on what has happened to you before and do not let it happen again. Good Luck.

You have me confused. This is an HRA entirely funded by the employer, there are no employee contributions. The HRA is fully funded at the start of each year. During the year and after the HRA is fully funded, an employee terminates employment. Are you saying that you want to charge the employee money as in having the employee make payments to this already fully funded HRA? Why? And if the plan is already funded to the plan maximum where would the overfunding go and Why? In essence why do you think that an employee can make any contribution to an HRA, whether while employed or under a COBRA election?

"So we buy from the insurance wizard on the faith of his projection?" BOTH the UL illustration and the 592 illustrations are projections made by the sales rep. Have you ever seen a mutual fund or 529 projection that was anything other than speculation and "pixie dust"? It seems apparent that you have either never seen an illustration/projection for either a mutual fund, a 529 or cash value insurance, or you did not understand nor read that they all state that they are ALL projections except that in the CV insurance illustartion there is also a guaranteed column. It is usually referred to as the Guaranteed Cash Surrender Value. All assumptions are clearly disclosed even more so than in a 529 or mutual fund projection. Just Look and See. I guess that since you could not support your own unbased bias, you are now resorting to snide remarks. By the way, any financial planner or CPA etc will tell you that tax deductibility is not the criteria for selecting a good investment. Net return is what counts even if there is no tax deduction.

Is it the Trust that received the Determination Letter or was it the arrangement? Have you seen and read this DT?

As per the original post, the questionaire will be used as the basis for charging a higher deductible (premium/ contribution). The questionnaire is not for wellness or anything else, its sole purpose is as a basis for cost shifting. Those filling out the form get a "discount" not based on any health factor or underwriting criteria. Those not filling out the form get a "surcharge" or increase in cost not based on any underwriting criteria. The result will be employees "similarly situated" (same job, same Dept, same health, same age same everything) having different costs.

In a group health plan whether fully insured or self insured, section 125 is not the only issue involved. Aside from: 1. 125(g) in particular 125(g)(2)(A)(ii) and 125(g)(2)(B). 2. Proposed Treas Regs 1.125-1 Q&A 17 (last sentence). 3. The questionable ability of such a plan design to pass the discrimination test for Eligibility, Benefits and Concentration. There is still ERISA and other sections of the IRC, for example: http://assembler.law.cornell.edu/uscode/ht...02----000-.html Note the reference to "similary situated" etc at (b)(1). Also 105(h)(3)(ii). This would not be an acceptable classification on which to base the premiums. I also do not see why this would not violate HIPAA look at the emaples given: http://www.dol.gov/dol/allcfr/Title_29/Par...CFR2590.702.htm

No-smoking is clearly a health risk and underwriting standard. Filling out a form is not health related nor useable for underwriting.