Flyboyjohn

Without seeing the contract between your client and the "insurer" I tend to agree with the "insurer" that you probably don't have an insured plan (employer is bearing some risk). In addition to reviewing the contract you'll want to check with your state insurance regulators to see if this "plan" is registered with them for offering as an insured plan in your state.

ACA 1411 certifications FAQs by CMS 09-21-15_14245992(1).PDF CMS announced today they will start issuing section 1411 certifications with respect to the 2016 enrollments and provided the address for employer appeals. Conveniently they answered the question I posited above that their failure to issue certifications with respect to 2015 subsidies does not relieve the employer from 2015 penalties under 4980H.

Applicable Large Employers have to determine every employee's status as full-time or not for every calendar month beginning with January 2015. There are 2 methods for making that determination, the simple "monthly method" (whether the EE worked 130 or more hours in that month) or the much more complex "look-back method". If the ER is going to the trouble of determining full-time status under the look-back method why wouldn't they use tossed results in completing the 1095-C?

Yes

1. First fix the 1099 issue and have the partnership correctly report her self-employment income on her K-1. 2. Then have the partnership adopt a profit sharing plan that provides each participant is a separate allocation group. 3. As fate would have it the partnership only contributes for your client and the partnership agreement provides that retirement plan contributions are allocable to the partner who benefits. 4. Assume that the other partners will require your client to bear all the costs associated with the plan.

Several questions: 1. Does you currently subsidize spousal coverage (so the "surcharge" is simply a decrease in the employer subsidy) or do you offer but not subsidize spousal coverage so the "surcharge" goes in your pocket? 2. Is this across the board or just for spouses who have coverage available through their employer? 3. If you're an ACA large employer do you understand the adverse impact of the cash-in-lieu option on the issue of affordability?

I recall hearing Ian Dingwall saying that you should never file a 5500 with an Adverse opinion, better to file with no opinion. Suggest employer start a search to see if he can find an IQPA that agrees with his position but that could also result in the Schedule C reporting of the reason for change in auditor. Your client sounds like a real piece of work...

Couldn't IRS argue that having a 2000 hour condition for annual match is functionally the same as requiring 2000 hours for match eligibility?

Long before we had the current plan document requirement that the Trustee (or Special Trustee)acknowledge "personal" responsibility for collecting delinquent contributions we had a recordkeeper (well known national player in Iowa) threaten to turn their client (the employer) into the DOL if they didn't pay up. At the time I felt it was an egregious (perhaps actionable)violation of their contractual duties to their client but in the current environment of potential co-fiduciary liability it's I guess a little more understandable.

Thanks Doghouse I was poking around in 410 and forgot about DOL Regs. Thanks QDROphile I agree that such a provision is effectively a 410(a) violation.

Instead of the typical 1,000 hours of service condition on receiving the company matching contribution the employer wants to require 2,000 hours. I'm confident it can't be done (even if the match can pass coverage) but can't put my finger on a cite, anybody know where to look?

Plan sponsor is a government contractor with 2 contracts in different states requiring 300 employees/participants each. Sponsor loses one contract and terminates those 300 participants on 8/1/2015, easy conclusion that we have a partial plan termination. Current IRS position seems to be we have to vest all participants who terminated (or will terminate) in 2015 whether they terminated voluntarily or not and whether they were associated with the lost contract or not. Seems to be a gross expansion of the rationale behind the partial termination rule. Anybody support a position that in addition to the 300 participants who terminated 8/1/2015 we only have to vest the participants that worked on the lost contract and were involuntarily terminated this year? Planning pointer: if you have large government contracts that are subject to being lost maybe put in separate plans for each contract?

If they're a "big" ALE (100+) then they get an 80 FT exemption for "a" penalty calculation for all months of 2015. At the point they stop offering coverage they'll have less than 80 FT so no "a" penalties for those months. Since the "b" penalty can't exceed the "a" should be no problem?

I think you'd have an excellent argument that Part C is the functional equivalent of Parts A & B so the same rationale should apply but that may be too aggressive an approach for you and your clients.

Yes, why not be safe

It appears that "Medicare secondary payer" rules only apply to employers with 20 or more employees so perhaps real small (<20) employers can reimburse Medicare part B & D premiums and Medigap premiums.

This ALE has to comply with the reporting requirement of filing a 1094-C reporting zero FT EEs but since they have no FT EEs they don't have to file/distribute any 1095-Cs. Since they can only be penalized with respect to FT EEs and they has none they're also safe on penalties. However, note that a recent class action lawsuit was filed against Dave & Buster's for limiting EE hours with the evil intent of depriving them of ERISA/ACA protected benefits, will be interesting to see how that shakes out.

We recently filed a VCP that went back to the late '90s (TRA'86 document). Fortunately we were able to locate our pre-approved "Regional Prototype" from the early '90s to save the day.

You should see if you can get your employer (the Swedish company) to set up a US qualified 401(k) plan for the benefit of all US citizen employees not covered by a US subsidiary plan. Or alternatively expand coverage in one of the US subsidiary plans to include you. To the extent you make Roth 401k contributions and convert employer contributions to Roth within the limits of your FEIE you'll have achieved tax utopia, established a forever income tax free retirement account without ever having paid US income tax.

Sounds like a problem that should be fixed (or at least paid for) by the prior TPA and has anonymous VCP written all over it.

Any guidance or opinions on whether offering an in-plan Roth rollover/conversion/transfer becomes a protected benefit that will be difficult to remove once added? Anybody keeping a list of which recordkeeping platforms are now capable of doing the recordkeeping? We're concerned about adding the feature in the document without confirming the recordkeeping capabilities.

When we've had non-amenders that can't locate all 3 pieces of a prior document (Adoption Agreement, Basic Plan Document and Opinion Letter)we've restated the document (including back to inception) using our pre-approved prototype or volume submitter and IRS has approved. Had to do one recently back to TRA'86 but I'm afraid we don't have pre-approved docs for TEFRA/DEFRA/REA or ERISA.

You're correct that the premium for coverage of unmarried domestic partners is not tax free but if the premium is exactly the same before and after adding the DP I think it's reasonable to take the position that none of the premium is taxable.

My gut tells me that ANY reimbursement of Medicare premiums when an employer group plan is also available is a prohibited incentive for the EE to choose Medicare and violates the Medicare secondary rules. My recollection is IRS caveated it's statements in 2015-17 to say they weren't addressing other non tax rules (such as Medicare secondary).

Is the plan design the "triple stack match" (safe harbor, fixed and discretionary matches) so the owner(s) can get the $53,000/$59,000 max? We impolitely refer to this plan design as either the "Greedy Doctor" or "Ebenezer Scrooge" plan and have used it several times with those types of clients. The financial advisors hate it since it usually results in just the owner/doctor having an account balance.