Zaf wrote:

- quote -

I don't recall anything in the Code prohibiting an FSA
paying for third-party medical insurance, but none of the
three employer's plans which I've participated in have
allowed it.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

- quote -

<snip snip
This is quite strange Arthur as I thought these plans, and
presumably their reimbursement requirements were regulated
by the government (i.e. IRS). It would seem to me that
nobody would bother to litigate if denied the small sum that
would be in a FSA, but can you site a precedent in such a
case where an IRS acceptable item was denied.

And Jonathan, I have already decided to battle city hall
:-). I talked to a supervisor at the processing company. I
talked to a supervisor at the subcontract company that hired
the processing company, they all sound like parrots. It is
actually very difficult to find a HR person who is not
working for one of our subcontractors, but I am in the
process of doing this. I expect I will just get the party
line again. In this case, I will probably file a complaint
with the IRS and atty general, which probably won't resolve
anything either, but at least I will feel like a gave the
all out effort.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

Zaf wrote:

- quote -

For what it's worth, medical reimbursement plans CAN set
additional limitations on what they cover. Check the plan
document. I had one expense last year (shipping on a
medical device) which the plan didn't allow, even though
it's clearly deductible.

However, they can also pay expenses which would not be
deductible, if they are for medical "devices" or "supplies"
for a medical purpose, even if non-prescription and
non-prescribed.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

zafdor[at]yahoo.com (Zaf) writes:

- quote -

I believe that this is a bit of a grey area, and I suspect
that trying to find the "official" answer to this question
and make it stick will be too difficult to be worth the
effort.

- quote -

Never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained
by stupidity.

- quote -

This sounds unreasonable. My advice is for you to call and
ask to speak to a supervisor. Explain calmly and clearly that
the document you provided is, in fact, the bill that was
provided to you by the doctor, that the doctor uses the same
form every year, and that the same form has been accepted as
adequate documentation by the FSA administrators in previous
years. If the supervisor continues to insist that the
document is unacceptable, get a letter from your doctor
confirming its validity and stating explicitly how much you
were charged and for what. If you feel like shaking the boat
a little bit, you could also let your HR department know
about this problem and your dissatisfaction with the FSA
administrators' conduct.

- quote -

This is not unreasonable, since some orthodics produced by
registered podiatrists might not in fact be "medically
necessary." Get a letter from the podiatrist and the
problem goes away.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->

I have been participating in my companies flexible spending
account (IRS pub 502) for several years and getting
reimbursed has never been a problem. I just submitted my
reimbursements for 2003 and both were rejected for
insufficient documentation.

The details of the claims are below, but my question is who
sets the standards for reimbursement. I believe I have
submitted adequte documentation, and if I can change there
(in my opinion) overly demanding reimbursement policies by
making some noise, I will. Oddly enough, the company
handbook says where IRS pub 502 contridicts the company
handbook, the company handbook is the final word.

BTW, It seems to me that there is financial incentive to
deny claims, since what was formally the employees money
suddenly becomes the companies!

details of claims:
One of the two documents in this submission is from a doctor
I see every year who gives me the exact same document, so
there is not question that their standards for
reimbursements are now higher. The processing company
claims all of the information is on the form, but because of
the format (it looks like a insurance reimbursement form),
they said they will not accept it.

The second item is perhaps a little more controversial. I
submitted the fee for a perscription orthodiic from a
registered podiatrist. The processing company says a need a
letter from an MD saying this orthodic is required and the
reasons why.

<< -------------------------------------------------> << The Charter and the Guidelines for submitting > << messages to this newsgroup are at www.asktax.org > << ------------------------------------------------->