Message Boards Digest

January 27, 2020

Here are the most recently added topics on the BenefitsLink Message Boards:

pmacduff created a topic in Relius Administration

Relius Financial Interface

"Anybody have any AXA plans that they import? AXA uses the same platform as AF Recordkeeper, so I was hoping to import the *.dat file but am having issues where Relius isn't reading the import file."

Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  20 views      Add Reply

Catch22PGM created a topic in 457 Plans

Non-Governmental 457(b) Rollover

"An executive left 501(c)(3) Org#1 and now works for 501(c)(3) Org#2. Both organizations have 457(b) plans and both allow rollovers -- into and out of the plans. Org#1 uses a recordkeeper to maintain assets set-aside for their 457(b) plan. This executive requested a rollover from the Org#1 plan to the Org#2 plan. The recordkeeper cut a check to Org#1 so now Org#1 must send a check to the Org#2 plan.

Is there any reporting to the IRS that Org#1 needs to do in regards to the rollover? I know we would normally tell Org#1 to prepare a W-2 but since this is being rolled over there is no taxable event. I haven't had experience with non-governmental 457(b) rollovers and I haven't found guidance anywhere else."

Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  27 views      Add Reply

Lou81 created a topic in Retirement Plans in General

PS58 Costs

"We have a new client that has a life policy in the plan. it does not appear that the PS58 costs have ever been report. I read on a prior thread that the PS58 costs were optional, but I also read they are required to be reported. Is it required? If so, would I just start now? I wouldn't want to go back and have him redo taxes."

Number of replies posted  5 replies      Number of times viewed  66 views      Add Reply

Ken_BenefitScape created a topic in Health Plans (Including ACA, COBRA, HIPAA)

ICHRA APTC Rules in Practice

"In discussions with several practitioners a question comes up as to whether an offer of an 'affordable' ICHRA to an employee is a permanent barrier to the employee receiving a premium tax credit (PTC)? Most material indicates that the mere offer, even if rejected, dictates that the employee is ineligible for a PTC.

Some practitioners have held a broader interpretation of this prohibition, that when an affordable offer has been made) using one of the three safe harbors. These experts hold that protection from the A and B ACA penalties is one thing using the safe harbors and that whether an employee can receive a PTC is another matter depending on their household income.

In other words, offering affordable plan first rule is that employee is 'initially ineligible' for a PTC. This initial eligibility is overruled when employee goes to a marketplace and based on their family income is eligible to receive a PTC. The 3 safe harbors only apply to A/B penalty is a separate issue. Comments?

Internal Revenue Bulletin: 2019-42

October 15, 2019


For clarity, the notice confirmed that an individual coverage HRA is an eligible employer-sponsored plan, and, therefore, an offer of an individual coverage HRA constitutes an offer of an eligible employer-sponsored plan for purposes of section 4980H(a). Consequently, if an ALE offers an individual coverage HRA to at least 95 percent of its full-time employees (and their dependents), the ALE will not be liable for an employer shared responsibility payment under section 4980H(a) for the month, regardless of whether any full-time employee is allowed the PTC.

The HHI safe harbors are optional and apply only for purposes of section 4980H(b). An ALE may choose to use one or more of the HHI safe harbors for all of its employees or for any reasonable category of employees, provided it does so on a uniform and consistent basis for all employees in a category. In addition, an ALE may use an HHI safe harbor only if the ALE offers its full-time employees and their dependents eligible employer-sponsored coverage that provides MV with respect to the self-only coverage offered to the employee. If, in applying one of the HHI safe harbors the offer of coverage is considered affordable, then the employer will not be subject to an employer shared responsibility payment under section 4980H(b) with respect to that employee, even if the employee is allowed the PTC.

2. Section 4980H Affordability Safe Harbors Regarding Household Income Whether an employee may claim the PTC depends on the rules under section 36B, including the rules for whether an offer of coverage by the employer is affordable and provides MV.<25> However, the regulations under section 4980H provide certain safe harbors for determining whether an ALE is treated as making an offer of coverage that is affordable for purposes of section 4980H. More specifically, as noted earlier in this preamble, whether an offer of an eligible employer-sponsored plan is affordable, both for purposes of section 36B and section 4980H, depends in part on the employee’s household income. Because an employer generally does not know an employee’s household income, §54.4980H-5(e) provides that, for purposes of section 4980H(b), an employer may substitute for an employee’s household income an amount based on the employee’s wages from the Form W-2, 'Wage and Tax Statement,' the employee’s rate of pay, or the federal poverty line, using the household income safe harbors (the HHI safe harbors).<26>

<Footnote 26:> Whether or not an employee has been offered affordable coverage for purposes of eligibility for the PTC is determined under section 36B(c)(2)(C)(i) and the regulations thereunder (as opposed to the section 4980H safe harbors)."

Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  31 views      Add Reply

BTG created a topic in Mergers and Acquisitions

Severance From Employment?

"I have a bit of a reverse spin on the usual 'severance from employment' issue. Holding Company owns Company A and Company B. Company A sponsors a plan that covers everyone in the group. If Company A is sold in a stock deal and takes the whole plan with it, clearly Company A employees have not had a severance from employment. There is plenty of guidance on that. But what about the employees of Company B? I would think they have had a severance from employment because the plan sponsor is no longer part of the controlled group, but I haven't found anything to confirm that. I can see how it would be difficult to explain to Company B employees that they have experienced a severance from employment, even though their company wasn't the one sold.

If this is indeed a severance, I assume it could be avoided by spinning off the portion of the plan that covers Company B prior to the transaction.

I have been surprised that I have not found any guidance on this yet. I know this is not the typical M&A situation, but I have to imagine that it still happens fairly regularly. Thoughts?"

Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  24 views      Add Reply

stephen20 created a topic in Cross-Tested Plans

Gateway Minimum

"If a participant has only deferral in plan, does he/she eligible for gateway minimum (No SHNE or TH minimum)? Which contribution will satisfy or cover gateway minimum (plan has no SHNE) Employer match/ SH Match?"

Number of replies posted  2 replies      Number of times viewed  33 views      Add Reply

Sara Hotvedt created a topic in Form 5500

Schedule A for Welfare Benefit Plan?

"I have it in my mind that a Schedule A is not required to be attached to a 5500 for a service provider of a welfare benefit plan where the service provider did not pay any fees or commissions to an insurance agent. Correct?"

Number of replies posted  1 reply      Number of times viewed  24 views      Add Reply

Jakyasar created a topic in Retirement Plans in General

Taking Over 2 Plans for the Same Sponsor -- Are the Fees Required to Provide Information Warranted?

"Taking over 2 plans for the same sponsor and requested the past 3 years of information as well as documents etc., the standard information which are all available in PDF format. Sponsor cannot locate them all.

Sponsor contacted the prior TPA and asked for the information. In return they asked for a payment to provide the information that already belongs to the sponsor and was paid for in the past.

Sponsor is very unhappy about the amounts and wants to complain to an institution about this. Is this a common practice -- i.e., ask for money to provide the information already belonging to the sponsor?

I have dealt with this many times and unless it was some very specific calculation etc, it has been typical to provide the information without any money. Is there a customary fee?"

Number of replies posted  6 replies      Number of times viewed  52 views      Add Reply, Inc.
1298 Minnesota Avenue, Suite H
Winter Park, Florida 32789
(407) 644-4146

Lois Baker, J.D., President
David Rhett Baker, J.D., Editor and Publisher
Holly Horton, Business Manager

Copyright 2020, Inc. All materials contained in this mailing are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.

Links to web sites other than and are offered as a service to our readers; we were not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy