acm_acm

The original poster specifically said "finding the detail as to what happened to her account (paid/rolled to default IRA) has been challenging." She had an account. The plan sponsor is not sure whether they paid it out. That *is* the question, so your suggestion would, in fact, be asking the participant to prove they weren't paid out (a "negative").

I think we all know the answer to this as long as we include the agent's compensation in the universe of judging "economic benefit".

You would be asking her to prove a negative. I believe the onus is on the plan sponsor to prove the benefit was settled. Otherwise, they owe her the benefit.

I don't see how plan size gets you out of or more lenience from DOL/ERISA requirements. Plus, I would think the issue of getting what are supposed to be plan assets separated from corporate assets in a timely fashion would be even more of concern with smaller employers.

It seems like that since the coverage mandate is an employer mandate, everything resulting from that mandate should be an employer cost (except for the permissible level of employee cost sharing), and that would include the cost of reporting the coverage to the IRS.

Huh??? I am not sure what scenario you are thinking of for this. Vanguard itself is owned by the Vanguard mutual funds (it is a mutual, mutual fund company), and the Vanguard mutual funds are owned by the shareholders of the funds. The investments of the mutual funds are really well diversified, so I am not sure how "Vanguard" could go under. Maybe it's possible, but it seems like they would have to purposely try to go under. Also, I think you are also mixing up provider bankruptcy versus personal bankruptcy. Creditors could get IRA assets pre-BAPCPA of 2005, but no longer.

The classic "man with only a hammer"...

Fair? Depends how one defines fair. Given that the sum of Part B, Part D and MediGap premiums is usually less than the premium for pre-Medicare medical coverage (which presumably covers Rx, no?), I'm not sure why it would be "unfair" to pay/reimburse all of them. Note that Part B is optional, too. Also many MA (Part C) plans would be considered a combo of Parts A, B and MedSupp, and for the ones that include Rx, Part D, as well. The point being, I am not seeing the logic of the slicing and dicing of what's fair and what's not as it is being posed above.

Do you want to become a fiduciary to the plan on this one? If not, I would find out how the Plan Administrator has been "counting hours" in the past and how they would like to do so going forward and document their decision. CYA.

I would separate the accounts now and pay each when you can. Also, if you don't create separate accounts, make sure you don't pay the second person 25% of the remaining part because they should get 1/3rd, the next 1/2. (You probably were thinking that, but actuaries tend to be hyper-literal.)

When you say "not qualified for COBRA" do you mean COBRA for the FSA or for your group health plan? One should not affect the other. If you were covered by the group health plan before termination, then you should be COBRA-eligible for that group health plan regardless of the position you are in with regards to your FSA. I know that I have been in an "overspent" situation for my FSA a few times, but was able to continue my health coverage using COBRA provisions.

The Moops invaded Spain and were driven out by Ferdinand and Isabella. ;-)

Can't that year's match assets be assigned to the participant, but classified as "not vested" until the participant reaches the EOPY??? Would need plan language, of course, but seems like it is certainly allowable - assuming class vesting of employer contributions is still allowed. But I also agree with Luke Bailey above - why even do it? Seems like asking for misunderstandings and trouble.

Seems to be no different (economically, at least) than allowing a not-yet-100%-vested participant to direct investments in the non-vested portion of their account, which certainly could be forfeited.

But the ABC is sooooooo concerned that the tables will hurt participants, so we have to delay their use.

And here I thought it was all the "reform" and "simplification" that kept us all in business. ;-)

I think "greed" is part of the filtering for who decides to become a physician.

Whether 204(h) applies or not, doesn't it make sense that you would tell the affected parties? I would be interested in the communication strategy for telling the affected parties (likely) a year later when the don't get a PS contribution that they had been excluded, but were only being told after the fact.

HRAs, HSAs and FSAs can generally be used to reimburse the participant's eligible expenses and those of the participant's eligible dependents (spouse and/or children). As long as the document you use to establish the RO HSA is worded correctly, you should be fine.

I thought that any borrowing by a qualified plan (other than an ESOP) was not allowed. I worked on a small DB plan where the owners held the money in a brokerage account and bought shares using margin. That was a no no and generated some kind of excise tax penalty. I can't cite the chapter and verse right now, though.