I have a client that would like to change the hours required for a "year of service" for both eligibility and vesting from 1,000 hours to 750 hours. For eligibility, as of the effective date of this change, I believe we will need to allow all employees to enter the plan if they have worked at least 750 hours in a year, even if it was a long time ago. For vesting, do we need to adjust vesting based upon prior years of service during which an employee worked 750 hours (even if they were not in plan and/or did not work 1,000 hours)? I think not. I would prefer that the reduction in hours for a year of vesting service is applied on a prospective basis.

Employer who has a SEP for himself hired an employee in 2016. Employee works throughout 2016, 2017 and 2018. Question is whether the employee is eligible for the SEP for 2018. I think yes, since they have worked 3 out of the last 5 years (3 of 3 here). I have someone telling me that they are not eligible until 2019.

My husband and I have been covered under his previous employer's plan via COBRA since July of last year. The plan renews in August of each year. Last year we received no notification of any changes to the plan. We did on 8/18 receive a notice of premium increase from the COBRA administrator, but were not able to get summary plan descriptions, etc. for several weeks. We're going through the same thing now. When must the administrator notify us of any changes including cost and/or changes to coverage, etc.? What are the penalties for not complying?

Does anyone have the Code citation that states a governmental non-ERISA 403(b) plan can have matching contributions?

Can a plan whose termination has been submitted to the PGBC be amended? Specifically, we want to raise the cash-out threshold from $1,000 to $5,000. The plan has 4 participants to whom we have spoken, and to whom we have sent distribution forms by email and postal mail. These individuals still have not returned signed forms pertaining to their distributions -- and we have no clue as to why. We're running into the 501 filing deadline. I don't think the "missing participant program" would work because they're not missing (!) but I could be wrong there. Any suggestions?

Are exhaustion of remedies and arbitration provisions in local government plans enforceable, and if so, what law requires enforcement? Anyone have cases directly on point? Here are the facts: A local government plan provides a disability benefit to participants who establish a disability. The plan has a claims procedure that requires claimants to file appeals of benefit denials within 60 days. The plan requires all disputes to be arbitrated, and expressly requires claimants to exhaust their appeal rights before filing arbitration. In the case at hand, a claimant filed for disability and was denied. The plan complied with all the technicalities in the claims procedure. Well after expiration of the 60-day appeal period, the claimant submitted new materials. On what body of law or other authority can the plan rely to deny consideration of the new materials and cause any arbitration or court action the claimant might file to be dismissed? Conversely, on what body of law or other authority can the claimant rely to require consideration of the new materials and/or file an arbitration or judicial action? I know the answer under ERISA, but here those rules don't apply.

A client's employee is going through a divorce, and HSA assets were divided. The former spouse set up a new HSA to receive her share of the funds and to make future contributions. The employee is being told by the bank that holds his HSA has said that they will only issue a check to the former spouse directly, and not to the institution where she has set up her new HSA. Does anyone have any specific guidance on this issue?