Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Flexibility in Flexible Spending
The Internal Revenue Service has provided guidance Notice 2005-86 on the interaction of the 2.5-month grace period for a health flexible spending arrangement (health FSA) (established earlier this year by Notice 2005-42 and an individual's eligibility to contribute to Health Savings Accounts (HSAs). (Notice 2005-86 is available online at www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-05-86.pdf; Notice 2005-42 is available online at www.irs.gov/irb/200523_IRB/ar11.html.)
Generally, an individual who is participating in a health FSA is not eligible to contribute to an HSA until the first day of the first month following the end of the 2.5-month grace period, even if the individual's health FSA has no unused benefits at the end of the prior cafeteria plan year. However, Notice 2005-86 provides that an employer may amend the cafeteria plan document to enable a health FSA participant to become eligible to contribute to an HSA during the grace period. For cafeteria plan years ending before June 5, 2006, an individual participating in a health FSA that provides coverage during a grace period will be eligible to contribute to an HSA during the grace period if: 1) the person would be an “eligible individual” (as defined in Section 223(c)(1)(A)) during the grace period but for the coverage under a general purpose health FSA described in clause (2); and 2) either (a) the individual's (and his spouse's) general purpose health FSA has no unused contributions or benefits remaining at the end of the preceding cafeteria plan year, or (b) in the case of someone who is not covered during the grace period under a general purpose health FSA maintained by his spouse's employer, the individual's employer amends its cafeteria plan document to provide that the grace period does not provide coverage to an individual who elects HDHP coverage.
Implications
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.