waid10

I meant that the only participants would be those that do have diabetes. I am not sure how to structure a wellness program. I appreciate any ideas. Thanks.

Can anyone point me to a good source on structuring a disease management wellness type of program? My employer wants to create a diabetes management program for employees. I am wary of a structure that provides incentives to employees that participate, in that the only participants would be those that don't have diabetes. I know that other employers offer a diabetes management program, but I am not sure how they structure it to avoid discriminating against employees that can't participate because they don't have diabetes. Thanks.

Hi. I am hoping someone point me in the right direction. We have an employee out on extended unpaid leave. I am told that due to the ACA, the Employer must keep the employee on our health plan indefinitely even in a situation where the employee cannot work due to his own health condition and he is on extended unpaid leave following FMLA. Thanks.

Thanks for the responses. But I don't think the missing participant program is the right course. We can find these people. They aren't missing. Four of them are still active employees. What we need to ask them is why they haven't cashed their checks. Did they lose the check? Did they forget? etc. We believe that at least one of the recipients has died. I am still at a loss as to what to do if the trustee insists on returning the funds to the employer.

Hi. We terminated our DB plan last year. We have been notified by our trustee that there are about 10 participants (that all made affirmative elections as to their account balances) that have not cashed their checks. These checks range from 9 to 12 months in age. The trustee says they need to return these funds to us (the employer/plan sponsor). But the plan trust is closed. We have filed Form 501. We are trying to track these people down to find out why they haven't cashed their checks. The trustee is saying that even if we find some or all of these people, they (the trustee) cannot re-issue a check. They say that they have to send the funds back to us. With the plan trust closed, can we (the employer) even take these funds back? If so, how do we hold these funds. We are confident that we can find all of these participants (4 of them are active employees). Thanks for any guidance.

Griswold - thanks for sharing. This article is helpful; but you are right that it does not speak to granting PTO as an incentive award. I am still searching for a discussion on that topic. Thank you.

Hi. Can anyone point me to a good discussion/article on issues (ERISA, tax, other, etc.) related to an employer awarding or granting paid time off as an incentive award to employees? My employer is considering doing this, and I wanted to read up on issues related to this practice. I have been unable to find anything when searching online. Thanks.

We have a participant that wants to name a trust as his beneficiary. Our plan does allow this. However, on the beneficiary designation form, it states "if you name a trust as a beneficiary, the trustee also must satisfy additional documentation requirements no later than October 31 of the calendar year following the calendar year of your death. The Administrator will provide you or the trustee with the additional forms you must complete." Can anyone point me to the additional documentation that is required? And we (the plan administrator) do not have any additional forms. What do we need? Thanks.

Thanks. Sorry for the additional questions, but this is very helpful. So then it seems that what you are saying is that subsidiaries that have the same 100% parent are considered brother-sister entities, correct? The JOC qualifies as the "5 or fewer persons" as you indicate above. Taking the above to my next question: what about A and B? Is C in a controlled group with either or both of them?

These responses are helpful. I thought (apparently incorrectly) that the only way to avoid immediate taxation on deferred comp was for the assets to be subject to a SRoF. And I didn't realize that the mere solvency of the plan sponsor was "substantial" enough. I have always seen deferred comp plans with the following hook: if the executive voluntarily resigned before the payout date (here three years out), the executive forfeited his account.

The plan appears to be subject to 409A. So I would think SRoF is required. Am I wrong?

Has anyone heard of an arrangement where the only risk of forfeiture is the plan sponsor's solvency/insolvency? Here is the scenario: executive enrolls in deferred comp plan with payout to occur three years out. The executive receives credits/deposits to his deferred comp account periodically throughout each year. If executive resigns before the three years, he receives whatever is in his account at that time. The only way he doesn't receive what is credited to his account is if the plan sponsor goes bankrupt. I have never heard of this where the only risk of forfeiture is the solvency of the plan sponsor. To me, this doesn't seem like a "substantial" risk. Is anyone else familiar with this and whether it is permitted? By the way, the plan sponsor is a for-profit entity. Thanks.

Hi Carol. I am trying to get my hands on the document that outlines the relationship. But you are probably right that C, D, and E are non-stock corporations. That would likely mean that A and B own the JOC and the JOC (via A and B) appointed the Board of C, D, and E. So either way, the JOC has complete control of C, D, and E.

All of the stock of C, D, and E is held by JOC, which was set up by A and B. C, D, and E are nonprofit corporations.

Hi. I am struggling with the controlled group rules. My main concern/question is about entity C and the related testing for their 403(b) plan. Here is the scenario: A and B are each 501©(3) entities. A owns 40% of Joint Operating Corp (JOC). B owns 60% of JOC. JOC is a shell...no employees, no payroll, nothing. JOC owns 100% of C, 100% of D, and 100% of E. C, D, and E are each 501©(3) entities. My question involves C. C has employees and sponsors a 403(b) Plan just for C's employees. Are C, D, and E automatically in a controlled group because they all share a common 100% parent? When I look at the brother-sister rules, it always refers to the "same 5 or fewer 'persons'" when it talks about ownership. JOC is a corporation. Does that qualify as a person? Also, with regard to C, what about A and B's shared ownership in JOC. Does that create a controlled group with C in some way? By way of additional background (not sure if it is helpful), D and E treat each of their employees as employees of B, meaning that they are on B's payroll and B is the sponsor of their benefit plans. I have read through the controlled group rules, but I haven't been able to read a lot of examples. Just the text of the rules is hard to follow. Please help. Thanks.

The broker is stating that the commissions (which they are calling give-backs) can be used for the three things listed below. Any thoughts on where this list comes from? Or what legal guidance allows this? I have asked the broker but haven't been able to get an answer that gives me much comfort. Regarding voluntary benefits, the main give-backs include: 1. Online enrollment platform to overlay the HR software engine 2. Credit toward full benefits administration platform (which is unnecessary with the HR software engine) 3. On-site or telephonic HR/enrollment support.

Hi. We offer certain voluntary benefits to employees (whole life, critical illness, etc.). We have been told by the broker that the insurer has extra funds in the premiums (commissions) that will go to the broker. The broker is telling us that it plans to send these commissions to us (the employer); and that the employer can use these funds. This concerns me. Can anyone point me in the direction of a statute on this? I want to be sure that the employer can receive these funds. And if so, what are the permissible uses for these funds? Thanks.

The employee had previously dropped the employer-sponsored plan to enroll in the Medicare Advantage Plan. Does that drop bar the employee from coming back to the employer plan except for during a regular open enrollment period? I am asking if the loss in coverage in the Medicare Advantage Plan allows the employee to enroll in the employer-sponsored plan.

We have several employees who are 65+ that dropped our employer-sponsored health plan and enrolled in a Medicare Advantage Plan operated through an entity that provides Medicare Advantage plans. This entity is about to announce that they are no longer going to offer this plan and it will end sometime in the next few months (well before the Medicare enrollment period.) My question is, would losing their Medicare Advantage plan be a qualified life event that triggers special enrollment rights to allow them to enroll in our employer-sponsored health plan? Thanks.

They don't want to provide a 6% match. The plan was amended effective 1/1/15 to reduce the match from 6% to 4%. The problem was that the payroll department never made the change in their system. So they kept matching at 6% by mistake.

It seems to me that Self-Correction is available since the error has only been going on during this plan year. Is it simply that the employer takes the excess contribution amounts back from participants' accounts? Are earnings also withdrawn?

Hi. What is the EPCRS correction method for correcting the following error: employer's plan provides for a 4% matching contribution. Employer has been contributing an amount equal to a 6% match to participant accounts since the beginning of 2015. Thanks.

Thank you K2retire. I agree that some of what is being requested pertains to compliance requirements. But when I dug a little deeper with Lincoln, this is the email the rep responded to me with: When a plan sponsor hires a service provider to provide record keeping, plan compliance and investment fund services for the plan, the service provider is an agent of the plan sponsor. As an agent, we represent the plan sponsor for the various plan duties that are delegated to the service provider. As such, Lincoln is required to have participant indicative data, including name, address, SSN, etc. because that information is required to comply with Code requirements. For example, Lincoln is required to report the name, address and SSN to the US Treasury for distributions. In addition, the US Patriot Act requires such information to be collected by a service provider in order to set up a retirement plan account to ensure the participant is who he or she says they are. You will note that all of the comments above make reference only to the need to receive information for compliance purposes. Our desire to market to non-participants or to provide better education is not required for tax compliance, thus, we don’t believe there is a regulation that indicates that is either legal or illegal to share participant indicative data for the purpose of performing employee education. The argument that can be made is that if a plan sponsor feels it is its duty to educate employees on the benefits and importance of participating in the plan, such plan sponsor can choose to delegate such education to its plan provider. The plan sponsor can decide to share the data needed for the provider to efficiently perform specific communication efforts.

Hi. Our school division uses Lincoln as the vendor for our 403(b) Plan. Lincoln has recently asked us to provide names, addresses, dates of birth, SS#s for all employees of the school division. Obviously, this is information Lincoln will have and need for those employees that have already elected to participate in the 403(b). But Lincoln is also asking for this information to be provided regarding employees that are not participants for purposes of education and marketing to them the benefits of participating in the 403(b) plan. Are we permitted to share this information with Lincoln? Thanks.

We have recently changed our health plan from 20 hours per week to 30 hours per week to be eligible. We have a few employees that will no longer be eligible due to the change. My boss in HR wants to grant an exception to a few (not all) of those employees affected; as in, he wants to continue to cover them even though they don't meet the Plan's eligibility requirements. Can anyone help me to understand what the risks are in doing this? Thanks.