KJohnson

See 125 (g)(3) employment requirement for each employee must be the same... (3)Certain participation eligibility rules not treated as discriminatory. For purposes of subparagraph (A) of subsection (b)(1), a classification shall not be treated as discriminatory if the plan— (A) benefits a group of employees described in section 410(b)(2)(A)(i), and (B)meets the requirements of clauses (i) and (ii): (i)No employee is required to complete more than 3 years of employment with the employer or employers maintaining the plan as a condition of participation in the plan, and the employment requirement for each employee is the same. (ii)Any employee who has satisfied the employment requirement of clause (i) and who is otherwise entitled to participate in the plan commences participation no later than the first day of the first plan year beginning after the date the employment requirement was satisfied unless the employee was separated from service before the first day of that plan year.

Seems like you are allowing them to elect to take the match as a taxable benefit (student loan repayment) which would make the match part of your CODA as well--likely creating 402(g) and other problems..

Would love to see the letter as well if you could post a redacted version. There were "5699" letters that went out where the IRS determined there might be a failure to file. Those were legitimate. https://eforerisa.files.wordpress.com/2017/06/letter-5699.pdf

Depends on whether they are plan assets. (2013-03A referenced above). If they are, many reference Rev. Rul. 80-155 for the notion that you can't have unallocated plan assets at the end of the plan year in a DC plan for the plan to remain qualified. See the Spring 2010 edition of the IRS retirement plan news where they talk about this with regard to forfeitures. Here is something good. Look at slide 11... www.wagnerlawgroup.com/documents/ProgramSlides.ppt

I would make sure you are confident there are no plan assets and you still fall under Technical Release 92-01. This can be tricky with stop loss. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/guidance/advisory-opinions/2015-02a In particular these four factors. First, except for the use of participant contributions to partly fund the medical benefit portions of the Plans, the facts surrounding the purchase of the Policies will be identical in all material respects to the facts surrounding the purchase of the stop-loss insurance policy described in Advisory Opinion 92-02A. Second, with respect to the use of participant contributions to fund in part the benefits under the Plans, you have put in place an accounting system that ensures that the payment of premiums for the Policies includes no employee contributions. Third, the purchase of such insurance will not relieve the Plans of their obligation to pay benefits to Plan participants, and the stop-loss insurer has no obligation to pay claims of Plan participants. Fourth, the Policies will reimburse the Plan Sponsors only if the Plan Sponsors pay claims under the Plans from their own assets so that the Plan Sponsors will never receive any reimbursement from the insurer for claim amounts paid with participant contributions.

Unlikely to be reimbursable because the spouse was probably pre-taxing the premium through his/her 125 plan. Reimbursing from the HRA on a tax free basis would be an impermissible double dip.

Might want to look at TAM 9735001 https://benefitslink.com/src/irs/tam9735001.html Slides 4 and 5 of this relatively recent ASPAA program are good https://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/PDFs/2016AnnualHandouts/WS63 - The Anti-Cutback Rules of IRC 411d6.pdf Seems to me that nobody has accrued any benefit for the year under the old formula and you should be able to amend even if the new formula has no allocation conditions.

Does it waive the accrual requirement for death, disability and retirement? And, if it does is there anyone that has had one of those events?

Also on 406(a) http://www.benefitscollective.com/wiki/EBSA_Advisory_Opinion_1993-18A With regard to your first question, the Department has addressed the issue of whether related plans are parties in interest with respect to one another in Prohibited Transaction Exemption 76-1 (41 Fed. Reg. 12740, 12744, March 26, 1976). As explained in the preamble to that exemption, two or more plans are not parties in interest with respect to each other merely because they are maintained by the same plan sponsors or have trustees or fiduciaries who are common to the plans. A plan may be a party in interest with respect to another plan, however, if it has a relationship to the plan as defined in section 3(14) of ERISA. For example, a plan may be a party in interest with respect to another plan under section 3(14)(B) of ERISA if it provides services to such plan.<

You may want to look at this prior post if this is an ERISA 403(b) plan.

I think the reasoning would be it is an employer payment plan. But its an employer payment plan for excepted benefits--so no ACA issues. The guidance on employer payment plans, however, says that the employer payment plan itself (i.e. reimbursing for individual policies) is a group health plan IRS Notice 2013-54, and DOL Tech. Rel. 2013-03. And, if it is a group health plan then COBRA applies. Just saying what the reasoning might be--not whether it is wrong or right.

Always issues in offering individual coverage. First 125 plan has to provide for it. Second the dental would have to be an excepted benefit under HIPAA/ACA (probably is). If it was not then you may have employer payment plan issues. See e.g. Notice 2015-87, ACA FAQs Part XXII. Third offering it through a 125 plan arguably takes it out of voluntary benefits exemption form ERISA so there could be ERISA issues (plan document SPD). Finally also a question of whether this is now part of group coverage and covered by COBRA. (How do you offer COBRA for an individual policy?)

If your amendment grandfathers in the son (who I assume is an HCE by attribution) you might want to look at § 1.401(a)(4)-5. Not saying it is a problem. Its a facts and circumstances determination. The reg provides some examples on the timing of plan amendments and discrimination. But grandfathering in a class of individuals at a time when only an HCE is in the class being grandfathered might raise an issue.