ANOTHER COMPLIANCE ISSUE! HELP PLEASE

[Guest Kristine]

I have another issue, isn't life wonderful. We have debit cards for some of our participants, one of the higher ups used his card for amounts which require substantion. He wrote to the broker on the account and complained. The manager of our company now wants us to just go ahead and substantiante the card swipes without receipts to make the participant happy and to keep our relationship with the client even though we have told them that the IRS requires substantion of the receipts. I was so mad about this this morning, I was crying. Any suggestions? Please help.

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

[Guest jrzgrl]

I know you said in the last thread that it's difficult to find a job, but it doesn't sound like it's worth staying where you are. I'm sorry I don't have any suggestions for your current problem. Usually there is no good suggestion when TPTB decide they want to do what they want to do, the law be damned. I'm in a somewhat similar situation in my new job. They hired me to be HR, but so far they have shown that they don't want to follow the laws that govern HR. I am going to do my best to make the changes here that need to be made, but I am putting my own time limit on how long I will stay with no changes made. You can't adequately fight against CEO's who have their own idea of how laws should be followed, especially if that means not at all.

[jmor99]

Might as well forget it and move on. We lost a large client because we would not authorize card swipes for the CEO and his secretary without receipts. They just went to another TPA that would. (No--he wouldn't sign a release for us).

The IRS and DOL are not enforcing anything, so why should you worry anymore? I know of at least 2 persons who contacted top officials at the IRS about a TPA in this area that was in gross violations of ERISA asset trust requirements. It finally took a lawsuit from private industry to freeze the TPAs assets and force it into bankruptcy, but not before tens of thousands of people across the U.S. lost their retirement savings, FSA plan assets, HRA plan assets, HSA accounts, etc. The IRS and DOL are still no where to be found.

Why Bother?

[Guest jrzgrl]

...because you never know when they will decide to start enforcing again. With her luck, they'll start with her company.

[GBurns]

Yes, that might happen, but even if they start with her company, what is her liability anyhow?

Many times employees have to do whatever the boss wants. I do not think that it is ever wise to challenge the boss's decisions especially if the regulatory or other penalties will not be the employee's burden. Changing employers does not ensure that the next employer will not have a similar situation.

[Guest jrzgrl]

Of course there are no guarantees that changing jobs will definitely make her situation better. However, in saying that her job has caused her to get so mad about things that she breaks down and cries at the frustration of it all, I'm thinking a change might be worth the risk involved. More and more courts are holding individuals responsible - maybe there are those higher than her at her company who would be held liable, but that is not a chance I want to take if no one is listening to me about what the law says we should be doing. Being in HR I have to challenge what the boss decides if it's against the law or I'm not doing my job.

[Guest Pensions in Paradise]

GBurns - your comments disappoint me. Some people have moral fiber and prefer not to work for a company which does things illegaly. It has nothing to do about personal liablity, sometimes people don't agree with a company's ethics.

If I was Kristine, I'd start looking for a new job.

[GBurns]

Many companies do many things very frequently that fall into these broad categories. I doubt that it would be easy tind a "pure" employer anywhere.

I do doubt that this is the first or only moral or legal issue that she has faced since starting to work there. And I would expect that if she elaborates, she will point out that this is a relatively minor issue when compared to the many other moral or legal issues that she let slide by. Assuming that she even thinks that this bears classifying as a moral or legal issue.

In the grand scheme of life, I would think that most would not think of this as being even a moral or legal issue but more of a simple lapse in judgement, or lapse in business acumen.

[leevena]

Sorry that I came late to this discussion. I'd like to clarify something about the card...is this for a HSA account? I am assuming that it is. If so, HSA amounts are owned by the employee, and they are free to reimburse themselves for anything. Employers are free to structure help/assistance for the employee, such as asking the card provider to screen expenses for qualification, and even notify the participant that the expense is not a qualifed expense. But if the participant wants the money anyway, it must be paid.

[Guest Kristine]

No, this is a card for the FSA.

Sorry that I came late to this discussion. I'd like to clarify something about the card...is this for a HSA account? I am assuming that it is. If so, HSA amounts are owned by the employee, and they are free to reimburse themselves for anything. Employers are free to structure help/assistance for the employee, such as asking the card provider to screen expenses for qualification, and even notify the participant that the expense is not a qualifed expense. But if the participant wants the money anyway, it must be paid.

[Guest Heather Sachs]

I would explain to your manager that it is strictly against IRS regulations that you just allow participants to determine if the swipe is eligible or not. It could be detrimental to the company should any of the participants get audited or the client or your company. If they see that you are not requesting receipts when needed, that is big trouble you'll get yourself into.

What we do with clients that complaint about the substantiation rules is to let them know that it is their plan and we administer how we are instructed. If they really want claims processed that way, we require a letter releasing our company of any responsibility because the request being made is clearly outside of regulations on the plan.

Only a few times have the clients actually done that. It is really a proctection for the plan, company and any owners of the company that these requests are made. They should be greatful that you weren't going to allow an employee to be reimbursed for whatever they think is eligible. But, it inconvenienced them, so I guess they would rather take the risk. Wait until one of their employees goes to Best Buy and purchases a 32" plasma screen tv for $5000 in January and then quits ! I bet he'll be screaming then.

Best word of advice is to go client by client, if they want it done, CYB (cover you butt)_ and get a letter releasing your company from any responsibility.