Flyboyjohn

DOL has no interest in or jurisdiction over owner-only plans

During a webinar today some ERISA attorneys said: 1. DOL is looking for 3 days max from large employers 2. DOL also looks at "quickest" instance as the benchmark, so be careful that the employer doesn't hurry up and one time fund 1 day after pay date For what it's worth...

Yep

Almost anything (read "skinny plan" providing only preventive care) meets MEC (minimum essential coverage) so not to worry. Virtually every fully insured plan meets MV (minimum value)and the carrier will probably not hesitate to give you a comfort letter to that effect. As you know, in the small group market the plan has to carry a Good Housekeeping type seal of approval stating it's actuarial value (minimum 60%). The only fully insured offering I've encountered is one from Reliance Standard which is clearly advertised as being just a MEC plan and doesn't meet MV.

Are multiemployer retirement plans subject to non-discrimination testing and if so who does it and don't they need census data from contributing employers? My client is contributing to a union plan on behalf of an HCE and has never been asked for census data and they're wondering if they should have any concerns. Thanks

From a legal/plan document standpoint you can't allow just Roth deferrals without allowing traditional deferrals. But if it turns out that all participants elect only Roth deferrals that's perfectly fine.

I don't think you get the catch-up in a non-governmental 457 so the max becomes $18,000 in the 457 and $24,000 (with catch up) in the 403(b) or 401(k)

My vote is for option 1 and put "N/A" as the plan number for the predecessor SEP or SIMPLE "program

Rather than having client adopt late PPA, HEART and WRERA interim amendments I decided to have them adopt their PPA restatement which incorporates the interims. VCP application appears to require that I identify where in the PPA restated document the "interims" are reflected which I suspect will be a royal pain. Anybody know if I can get away with just submitting the PPA restated document since IRS "knows" the interims are incorporated (at least through the 2010 Cumulative List)?

Yes, there's enough smoke here to merit a call to the fire department

Yes, see if the wife's employer offers a cafeteria/FSA plan and if not convince them to offer one

Are you really the "custodian" of the accounts in the same sense that an investment firm might be the custodian of an IRA account? If so I'm afraid you're stuck with holding on to the 4 accounts until the "owners" claim them pursuant to the terms of the plan and custodial agreement. Sorta/kinda/almost like a custodian of SIMPLE IRA accounts where the employer stops sending contributions to custodian 1 and send future contributions to custodian 2 and some of the account owners decide to roll their accounts and others don't.

Since you're client has not elected the look-back measurement method they are defaulted to the monthly measurement method (determine each employees' status as of the end of each calendar month). Accordingly there is no applicable stability period to worry about and the employee on extended leave of absence is not "full-time" for penalty purposes for any month in which they work less than 130 hours.

Great question and I've been wondering the same thing for quite a while now. I could understand them not sending "section 1411 certifications" last year since the employer mandate was delayed but in 2015 they become critically important. Of course if the employee doesn't correctly fill in the employer information in their Marketplace application the employer might never know until they get a penalty notice maybe in late 2016. Wondering if the employer can avoid the penalty if they never get the notice since in the words of 4980H the employee had never been "certified to the employer under section 1411 of PPACA"...

5500s are filed on the basis of "plans" and not on the basis of employers or related employers. So a single employer could have 2 life insurance "plans" while a controlled group of employers could share a single "plan". Do you have a plan document? Very doubtful. So your group life insurance contracts are probably the de facto substitutes for plan documents. Based on your facts it sounds like you have 2 plans (2 separate group life insurance contracts), only one of which requires a 5500.

It's a medical practice, they want to let each doctor choose between having his disability insurance premium paid pre-tax or post-tax but I understand from your answer "no can do".

Peter- the question isn't about how to break the controlled group, the question has to do with whether the newly "unrelated" employers are still treated as "Applicable Large Employers" for 2015. jpod- yes, I realize that their 50-99 mid-size status might exempt them from the employer mandate penalties for 2015 (if they meet the conditions) but mid-size employers are not exempt from the Form 1095-C reporting for 2015

2 related corps each have fewer than 50 FT & FTEs for 2014 but collectively have more than 50 so they're ALEs for 2015. We break the controlled group by changes in ownership this week. Seems like they're still considered ALEs for all of 2015 (which as a practical matter just means they're required to issue the Forms 1095-C since they'll be "mid-size" for penalty purposes). Anybody know of a way to make them not ALEs for 2015? Thanks

Knee jerk reactions: 1. Not OK to offer financial incentive 2. If currently audited ERISA plan with under 100 terminated and audit expense has been problem consider spinning off terminated participants to separate plan to at least eliminate that expense 3. Alternatively if you have a way to hit participant accounts for plan administrative expenses adopt a policy of passing thru plan expenses (like audit fees) to terminated participants but not active participants

Has this ever been legal? If yes: Any non-discrim testing? Any change due to ACA? OK to let each doctor choose pre-tax post-tax treatment (cafeteria benefit)? Thanks

George, if I take your example and change my facts a little bit see what you think: Employer says the employee's share of the premium is the LESSER of $200/month or 9.5% of the employees' income (providing a premium reduction for employees earning less than about $2,100/month) you wouldn't have a problem would you? Since we could charge everybody $200/month without any problem I can't see where charging some folks less could result in prohibited discrimination.

So I may have problems with cafeteria plan non-discrimination testing but no specific HIPAA or ACA violations invoking the nasty $100/day/person penalty?

Thanks George, great articles and the authors make good arguments. Not to start an online debate but after reviewing the HIPAA non-discrimination rules in a little more depth my personal opinion is that an equally persuasive argument can be made that a 9.5% contribution rate is a bona-fide employment based classification that treats all employees similarly situated (all making the same rate of pay)in exactly the same way and differences between individual employees are not in any way linked to a prohibited health factor. Will be interesting to see how this issue shakes out. Thanks.

Good point GMK, unless it's applied uniformly to all employees it might violate the non-discrim regs if, as and when they're issued and effective but in the meantime should be OK

We know from recent guidance that this is a HIPAA violation to make such an offer to just the sick employees but what if you do it for everybody? Employers like to say "If you have coverage elsewhere we'll pay you more than if you take our coverage". Thoughts?