IRS supports COBRA beneficiary's right to continuation coverage even though beneficiary had preexisting dual coverage
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court's agreement to hear Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp on appeal from the US 8th Circuit Court of Appeal may have been the stimulus behind the IRS's plan to change its position on dual group medical insurance coverage dependent upon the outcome of the case. Coverage under the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 would not be terminated due solely to dual coverages. IRS Announcement 98-22 notes the US Solicitor General's position is contrary to IRS Proposed Regulation section 1.162-26, Q&A 38(d).
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
COBRA's "other coverage" rule - the law of unintended consequences
Article Abstract:
The issue of continuance of medical insurance coverage when other coverage is effective will be decided by the US Supreme Court in Geissal v. Moore Medical Corp. on appeal from the US 8th Circuit Court of Appeals. The correct decision that the Court should make is not to allow termination of insurance at the time of a Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 election unless the beneficiary acquired the other insurance after the election was made. Detailed legal and policy analysis leads to this conclusion.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
Supreme Court rules that pre-existing coverage does not preclude COBRA election and coverage
Article Abstract:
The US Supreme Court settled the issue of whether group health plan beneficiaries can be denied qualified Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) coverage when coverage existed before the COBRA election. The Court settled the issue which had been resolved inconsistently in the lower federal courts by holding coverage cannot be denied. The Court's conclusion was based upon its interpretation of the plain language of the statute.
Publication Name: Tax Management Compensation Planning Journal
Subject: Law
ISSN: 0747-8607
Year: 1998
User Contributions:
Comment about this article or add new information about this topic:
- Abstracts: Increasing competition in the electric utility industry and decreasing consumer welfare: an antitrust paradox
- Abstracts: COBRA notice and coverage not required of disappearing employer following sale of assets. HCFA issues proposed rules for electronic transactions involving health plan data by health plans health care clearinghouses and health care providers
- Abstracts: Predispute ADR raises fairness issue; courts have not hesitated to enforce arbitration agreements except when the fairness of the process is compromised
- Abstracts: 'Shorter is better' is his philosophy; insurance litigation's goal should be to convince juries carriers should be allies
- Abstracts: The Ryan White CARE Act: the allocation of Title II funding among programs by the states. Nursing home residents with HIV at admission: 2000-2004