Ron Snyder

Good question. I have been on a similar quest, and didn't think to post here. You omitted InvestLink and Deferral.com.

G Burns is exactly correct. This raises a follow-up question: can the participant use a TPA's repricing (UCR, not contractual) for a hospital claim?

Nuestra oficina les puede asistir in la administracion de este plan. Pongase en contacto conmigo en rsnyder@bsgbenefits.com.

While fiduciary liability is determined on the facts and circumstances of each case, I don't see how they can avoid being a fiduciary. This is a small group plan. The insurance company designed the benefits included and excluded and profits from the denial of claims. The employer has nothing to do with the plan design: the plan is offered on a take it or leave it basis. I'm not sure that trying the case in the media would do much good. ERISA issues are too complicated to generate much interest of sympathy.

I assisted Ameritas Life Insurance Company to develop such a document. Of course, they want the funding to go into their mutual fund wrap product. If you are interested, email me and I will put you in touch with the right people there. FYI, we started with the Corbel plan document and eliminated the inapplicable portions, a very time-consuming process.

Did you loan the client your own money, or did you pool clients funds? I hope that this is your own money you have loaned, because if you are pooling claims into one claims payment account, your plan is a MEWA and is subject to regulation by both the USDoL as well as your state insurance department. If its your own money, what does the loan documentation provide? If you are stupid enough to pool clients funds (thus borrowing from other clients) or to loan your own funds to clients for payment of claims without covering yourselves, you deserve to be out-of-pocket for excess claims paid. In fact, you should be out of the business.

[1] Yes. [2] Several possibilities. Easiest would be to amend and restate into 401(k) plan with frozen company stock account. [3] Split plan into 2 plans; create new plan and roll over; terminate old plan, etc. [4] Yes, it sounds feasible. You omitted stating whether the company is to redeem the stock now, or leave in plan until employees are in pay status. Be careful, since some approaches will result in full vesting and others may not.

Since this is a commercial, it should be posted in the commercial section.

Your question is not clear. The "contingency" referred to is the medical service for which the claim would be filed. So long as a person is covered subject to needing medical care, he/she is a participant, even if no claims are incurred. If funds have been set aside for future benefits, but may be forfeited (ie, by termination of employment before a certain date or age), they are not a participant.

For a new attorney who is graduating law school at age 25 and wants additional credentials (not on law review) for employability purposes, an LLM in tax from NYU or Georgetown is a great idea. I am an attorney who was an actuary first, so didn't feel a need for the LLM to set me apart. Likewise, your several years of related experience already set you apart, so, unless the state you intend to practice in gives a strong preference to a qualified tax specialist, you do not really need the LLM. Good luck!

The answer to the initial question is that it is ok. However, the plan may fail nondiscrimination testing or may be denying workers benefits to which they are entitled (lawsuit hazard). There needs to be an articulated standard for determining who is and is not a "temporary" employee, and if an employee stays longer than the period given, his or her status is changed.

If a partnership maintains a group-term life insurance arrangement for its employees, and the plan covers partners as well, it is still a GTLIA. I believe that the treatment of partners is the same as the treatment of key employees in a discriminatory GTLIA, ie, the GREATER of the actual premium or the premium imputed under Table I.

A few years ago in my city, a firefighter was audited by IRS. The auditor noticed that the flex plan in which he participated was not complying with IRS's proposed regulations. They ended up auditing 180 firefighters and disallowing the tax exclusion for reimbursements under the 125 plan.

Kirk- The difficult question in such situation is how much income is imputed to the partner. Since it is given that it is a "group term life insurance program" (presumably complying with Section 79, it appears to me that the greater of the actual premiums or the Table I amount would be taxable to the self-employed individual. Do you agree? Ron

Put it in the SPD.

If the plan is on an accrual basis, it should include all receivables as of 12-31. Otherwise, the distributions would not be counted until received.

I started in the business in 1971 and it was a long-established practice at that time. I suspect that it goes back to the '39 Code. They're issued, not to tell a client if their plan is okay but to grant the tax-exempt status under IRC 501.

The 5500 is for an ERISA plan. ERISA pre-empts state laws relative to employee benefit plans. It is therefore not likely that any state has cleverly fashioned a law that requires ERISA plans to comply with reporting an disclosure requirements. I note that with respect to form 990, the reason for its having to be filed with a state (California has its on form in lieu of 990) is because it is a return for a tax-exempt entity that seeks to be exempt from state as well as federal income taxes.

Some states require using the state's pool; others provide for private insurers. Some of those who permit private coverages permit self-funding. The best information I have found on the web for workers compensation is at NCCI NCCI although there are many sites that provide information It appears that self-insured workers’ compensation coverage is permitted but a bond of 125% of the private self-insurer’s estimated future liability (minimum $200,000) must be posted. IF the employer already has a self-funded medical plan and a white collar (or other low workers comp utilization) workforce, it may make sense to consider adding "24-hour coverage" to the self-funded health plan to satisfy workers compensation. However, most companies don't really get into self-funding (due to the possibility of adverse selection) until they have a "true actuarial group" of 500 or more employees to cover.

A beginning point: http://www.irs.gov/retirement/article/0,,id=96315,00.html http://retirement.ameritas.com/457_faq.htm

The shared employee regulations which dealt with this situation provided a solution, but they were withdrawn. To the extent that the employee is a "leased employee" IRC section 414(n)(5) offers a safe harbor solution; however, if the employee is deemed to be an employee of an affiliated service group member, the employee is entitled to be covered under a plan which is comparable to the best plan adopted by any of the other entities forming an affiliated service group with the service org. The solution: Have someone else unrelated to the FSOs own the entity.

Here's a start: http://www.entrustadmin.com/iraplus/Prohib...g_Your_IRA.sqrl IRC Section 408(e)(2).

One of the nice things about freeerisa.com is that it is a way to see if 5500 forms have or have not been filed without requiring the client to come up with copies. Two responses to your question: (1) You seem to be asking whether it is possible to repent retroactively and by so doing make a sin not a sin. I think not. That said, (2) If you are within the remedial amendment period (which can extend until the EARLIER of the due date or the actual filing date of the applicable return, such an amendment would be possible.

I have a physician (MD) client who has submitted for reimbursement the following expenses: Fees for a beginning Tai Chi class Subscription to Dr. Andrew Weil's "Self Healing" medical newsletter Tufts Unicersity's "Health & Nutrition Letter" These do not appear to me to be 213(d) medical expenses. However, as a physician, the client can easily provide a letter of medical necessity. Any experience with such claims?

You may have implied to answer to your own question: it depends on how the plan is drafted. If the coverage is excluded because is is a pre-existing condition limitation, it would violate HIPAA. However, if the the coverage is provided but the allowable benefit stated is two-tiered, it should be exmpt from HIPAA concerns.