Here is another web site to keep up with where Health Care Reform is going. Although it may have come to a grinding halt for now. The web site is http://www.thehill.com

I want to thank my good friend Lewis Ingles for giving me this information so I could share it with you.

Free free to share any information you may come across as well.

What are your thoughts regarding this? Let us know.

http://fleming.house.gov/

How do you feel as an American that your congressmen would not have the same level of benefits as we do, theirs would be better?

EBIA article from 07-02-2009

COURT FIXES EMPLOYMENT TERMINATION DATE BASED ON TIMING OF ELECTION NOTICE, REQUIRING LONGER ACTIVE COVERAGE FOR EMPLOYEE

[Jennings v. D.F. Crane Const. Corp., 2009 WL 1405167 (W.D. Ky. 2009)]

The employee in this case was away from work for a month and a half, due to medical complications following elective surgery. While he was away, the employee remained in regular contact with his manager. He also incurred significant medical expenses, which were reimbursed under the employer’s health plan. When the employee later called his manager about returning, he was told that the project he had worked on was finished and that his services were no longer needed. The employer subsequently notified the plan insurer that the employee had been terminated when he first left work, and the insurer retroactively terminated coverage and obtained reimbursements from the employee’s medical providers. A few weeks later, a COBRA election notice was sent to the employee that informed him for the first time that his employment (and active health plan coverage) had terminated when he first left work. The employee did not elect COBRA, contending that his active coverage should cover the prior expenses because he had not been terminated that early. When the providers sued the employee for the expenses, the employee sued the employer and insurer to obtain reimbursement.

The court rejected the argument of the employer and insurer that the employee should have elected COBRA when it was offered. Rather, noting that COBRA required the employer to provide an election notice within 44 days after a termination of employment (since the employer was also the plan administrator), the court held that ERISA restricted the employer’s ability to “back-date” the termination. Counting 44 days back from the date the employee received the election notice, the court held that the employee’s termination of active coverage could not have occurred any earlier. As a result, the employee was entitled to coverage of the disputed medical expenses, less any copayment or premiums owed as an employee under the plan.

EBIA Comment: We think other courts would have dismissed the employee’s claim because he failed to elect COBRA within 60 days after it was offered (even though the election notice was late, relative to the date the employer said the employment termination occurred). We also disagree with the court’s analysis because we don’t think that either COBRA or ERISA restricts an employer’s ability to fix the date of a termination of employment. Nevertheless, the court was clearly disturbed that the employee had not received earlier notice of the effect his absence would have on his health coverage, and it reached for a remedy. As a result, the case is yet another example of the need for clear policies regarding leaves of absence, including their impact on COBRA. For more information, see EBIA’s COBRA manual at Sections VII.L (”Special Issues:

Leaves of Absence”).

Contributing Editors: EBIA Staff.

The IRS has issued Notice 2009-46, requesting comments on several proposals to simplify the substantiation rules for employer-provided cellular telephones and similar telecommunications equipment (”cell phones”). Cell phones are “listed property” under Code Section 280F, a classification that triggers strict substantiation requirements. If those substantiation requirements are met, business use of an employer-provided cell phone can be excluded from income as a working condition fringe benefit under Code Section 132(a)(3). If business use is not properly substantiated, however, the unsubstantiated business use (as well as all personal use) is treated as a taxable fringe benefit. Under the “listed property” substantiation rules, employees must, by adequate records or sufficient evidence corroborating the employee’s own statement, prove the amount of each expenditure, the amount of each business use, the date of each expenditure and use, and the business purpose of each expenditure or use.

To deal with the practical difficulties posed by the current substantiation rules, the IRS has suggested three alternative substantiation methods for cell phones. The IRS anticipates that an employer could choose to adopt one or more of these methods under a written policy requiring employees to carry cell phones for business and limiting their personal use.

• under one method, all use would be deemed business use if an employee had another cell phone for personal use during working hours, or if personal use of the business phone did not exceed a “minimal” amount designated by the employer (the minimal amount could be defined, for example, by reference to a number of minutes or by types of permitted personal use).
• Under a second method, employers would assume a specified percentage of business use–the IRS proposes 75% business use and 25% personal use.
• Under a third method, employers would use statistical sampling techniques–similar to those available for establishing the amount of certain meal and entertainment expenses–to measure the amount of personal use.

Comments on these proposals, and other suggestions for simplifying the substantiation rules, will be accepted through September 4, 2009. Comments are also requested on the methods currently being used by employers to determine the fair market value of employees’ use of employer-provided cell phones and on what simpler methodologies, if any, might be appropriate.

EBIA Comment: As the IRS has previously acknowledged, the “listed property” substantiation rules–especially the requirement that an employee prove the business purpose of each business use–are difficult to satisfy in the context of employer-provided cell phones. Notice 2009-46 represents a welcome first step toward making those substantiation rules more manageable. While this is encouraging news, employers should remember that, until substantiation guidance is actually issued and becomes effective, there are no special simplified substantiation methods for cell phones (as there currently are for employer-provided vehicles), so full compliance with the “listed property” substantiation rules is required. For more information, see EBIA’s Fringe Benefits manual at Section II.E.4 (”Employee Business Expense Reimbursements: Cellular Telephones”).

This whole article was taken from the EBIA web site as you can see from their comment. It would be great to hear how your company deals with this issue.

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/0,,id=204708,00.html

Sometimes I just don’t want to take the time to look these people up, so I hope this helps. As a business owner, I have sacrificed a great deal to own my business, I need to spend a little time keeping it from being taxed to death.

“all evil has to do to triumph, is for a few good people to do nothing”

I love reading the beginning of our great Constitution, what men of wisdom and valor they were.  Again I have included the link for you:  http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/constitution/text.html

“We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.”

Follow this link to the Bill of Rights:  http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html if you have not read them lately, take some time, it doesn’t take much. These rights are who we are as a nation, a lot of good men and women died protecting these rights for US.

This is the America I want back! Maybe it is time to go back to the basics our government was founded on. Or maybe I am just a dreamer.