LeavingLondon

Hi there. First of all I'd like to say thank you to BE - as I've been making notes on all the great advice given and when my OH's company recently sent him his package - I had a list of points to fire back at them which needed expanding/clarifying (some of which I'd never thought of myself). We are planning to come with our 2 kids on an L-1A/L2 visa in the summer (to California). I've been sent through a document detailing the package (I don't really understand a word of it - it's all so complicated). Just wanted to know if you could please help me on a couple of things:

1. As part of the relo package, they've offered $10k gross relocation lump sum allowance for incidentals and $20K maximum in household goods move/storage. Will we only get taxed on the $10K? It doesn't leave us with much ($6k??) to buy stuff with really. I'm guessing that the $20k for shipping/storage will be sufficient?

2. Looking at the healthcare options. The monthly employee costs for UHC EPO & VSP Vision is £245 for the family; and the UHC PPO & VSP Vision is $325 for the family. In your experience, is it worth paying the extra $80 each month? Or there's the Kaiser HMO & VSP Vision for $215. (we'll be based in the SF South Bay area).

They have confirmed other details including severance pay, repatriation, tax assistance, GC sponsorship, Life Insurance, pension contributions, holiday allowance, etc and so I think we have most things covered... I hope!

Am sure I'll have more questions (so apologies in advance!)

Thanks

Michael

1. Since the company is paying for shipping, I think it is expensed to the company and not considered income since the move is more than about 100 miles. The $10K is taxable but keep receipts since you may possibly be able to offset that income for non reimbursed expenses (hotels, etc.) above a certain amount. Even if both are considered income, you should be able to have receipts from the $10K that meets the deductible that allows you to offset the entire $20K moving expense as a deductible expense.

2. Kaiser is considered a very good HMO but has it own hospitals and clinics and you have to be treated at those hospitals and clinics except in an emergency or if you are not in an area that they have hospitals or clinics. If not treated in a Kaiser facility, there will be additional co-pays and Kaiser may want you transferred to their hospital if your condition is serious and you are stabilized. A disadvantage of HMOs is that you must see your primary care physician and they will recommend a specialist (you can't see a specialist without first being recommended by your primary care physician). EPOs have not been very common in the past. See the following link that describes some of the differences between an EPO and PPO. Generally PPOs give the greatest amount of flexibility especially if they have a large provider list (check their web site to determine if they have providers everywhere). A PPO has in network providers and if used, the co-pay is lower but an out of network provider can be used at a higher co-pay. Therefore you can see any specialist in or out of network without approval.

http://www.ehow.com/info_7772875_dif...alifornia.html

vikingsail

What Michael said about the moving expenses etc. Regarding the Healthcare, I believe the major difference between an EPO and a PPO is going to be the co-pay costs. For example an EPO is usually a HMO type setup which covers everything for all participants covered in the family except for small co-pays and prescription charges. This probably a plan most similar to the NHS. Some people consider the disadvantages to be that you are limited in choice of providers but if your coming from the NHS there is no real issue imho.

A PPO allows you greater flexibility and choice, hence the greater cost. Always more worrying to me is the % covered. This can vary and I don't know your plan but please check carefully. If its 100% coverage paid by them then fine and dandy, if not consider the option which pays 100% apart from the small copays for doctors visits and prescriptions.. Often the PPOS cover say 70 or 80% which leaves you paying the remainder. That might seem reasonable before an occurrence but I personally think I don't want to be liable to pay 20 - 25% of any medical bills given the astronomical costs associated with medical care here in the US. Thats a fast road to bankruptcy, especially with kids. Simple emergency room visits can amount to thousands of dollars. A regular arm stitching episode in a local urgent care could easily be a $5000 experience and 20% of that is a $1000. Make that a minor operation and your into $50,000 and now your 20% copay is $10,000!!

True some have caps on the total amount you have to pay in a year, but some don't! Why gamble? Just for a little extra choice? After all there are all called Doctor or MD and rarely do you interview your doctor and ask them what their class grade point average was?

For some reason Americans are sold on this idea of a PPO and choice? I personally would take the full coverage option every time. And have for 17 years with no problems. I have never had issues with choice or quality doctors.

My advice and its what I do is plumb for the plan that covers the most $$ which is likely to be the HMO = EPO plan, if I understand your descriptions.

Bob

If they're paying directly the moving costs, you shouldn't get hit with a tax bill, but you could potentially for the lot, all depends how it is done.

As for health, well it's a risk tolerance thing. What might help is knowing how decent and how far out the in/out of network of doctors/hospitals extend and if you're likely to travel much out of that area.

For us, we have a option for a very cheap medical HMO, but it's worthless as the in-network is basically the local hospital and everything else is out of network and out of state isn't covered except in an emergency. The plan we have, whilst still HMO, at least has a nationwide list of in/out network facilities and as we're up in Maine a fair bit and have a couple of kids, we thought it worth it to us.

Just need to look into the details and see what the co-pays, deductibles and levels of coverage are for them and see what you're comfortable with.

Michael

In my opinion, probably one of the most important things for a PPO or as a matter of fact for any insurance policy is the maximum annual out of pocket expense. If that is low ($2,000-$5,000), you or a family member could end with the half million dollar hospital bill and never have to pay more than that amount.

LeavingLondon

Thanks everyone for your answers so far. Judging from the snapshot of costs/coverage (i had to chop some stuff off the image as it wouldn't fit on the page), my choice is either Choice EPO (this plan allows you to self-refer to any provider within the Choice EPO Network. Should you decide to go out of the Choice EPO network of physicians or hospitals, you will not have any coverage, except in a life- or limb threatening emergency. You are not required to select a primary care physician. Or Choice Plus PPO Network (gives you the option to remain In-Network and go to a physician or hospital on the preferred provider list to receive improved benefits, or go outside the Network to non-preferred physicians or hospitals and receive a reduced level of benefit. This is your choice and you make that choice at the time of any sickness or injury. You and your family have the complete flexibility to choose the type of care you wish at any time during your coverage under the plan). I can't afford the risk of the other option - Choice Plus PPO Non-Network.

Do they look like good packages?


I've always been privately insured here and if ever something's wrong that can't be dealt with by the GP, I always get referred to the top consultants/specialists (why not, it's free after all and they are local to me in London. I like to be better safe than sorry).

Mummy in the foothills

We had Kaiser for many years, I had two children while we had Kaiser. It was the first health insurance we had.
Now we have a PPO Blue cross, it's like night and day, if I had a choice (we do as the company has choices) I'd never go back to Kaiser, we didn't have any problems as such with Kaiser, but find the PPO so much easier to deal with, easier to get appointments, just a better overall feel to it and a choice of going pretty much anywhere we want for treatment.
We only have a small deductible and that is paid with our first doctor visit usually, so it costs us very little each year.

Michael

If you want to be covered while on vacation overseas or possibly even in the US, a PPO plan is the best. The doctor doesn't have to bill the insurance company directly for a PPO plan but you should get reimbursed for any medical bill that you incur. If the EPO plan has providers exclusive to only your area, the bills could add up when out of area even for minor illnesses and the cost does not go toward your maximum out of pocket expense.

goatherder

When I was relocated back to the US from the UK (don't ask...) my company covered the taxes on a similar amount (on both the UK and the US side). Might be worth checking if they do. Certainly keep receipts for everything however.

Giantaxe

I've always argued that "grossing up" a relocation package so that taxes are effectively covered is one of the most important aspects of a relocation package.

Giantaxe

I disagree. From a post I wrote a while back:

http://britishexpats.com/forum/showp...2&postcount=31

LeavingLondon

The "up to" $20k allowance for shipping/storage is through the company's provider so I guess that means they'll pay it directly (but I'll double check that). I'll see if we can get the $10k grossed up.

Would the one month car rental and corporate housing be taxable? Don't want to be charged tax on that too.

Re income tax - state/federal and all the other bits - should I use 40% as my rough guideline (and if it's any less, it'll be a nice surprise)?

Giantaxe

They would be taxable. Here's a link to the IRS publication for what is deductible as a moving expense:

http://www.irs.gov/publications/p521...link1000203497

LeavingLondon

Thanks, that's so helpful. It mentions
You can include any lodging expenses you had in the area of your former home within one day after you could no longer live in your former home because your furniture had been moved.

But doesn't mention lodgings in the US whilst awaiting for shipment of my stuff. I also didn't see any mention of car rental. Am i therefore right in understanding that those will both be subject to tax in addition to the $10k but not the cost of actually moving/storing my stuff?

Bink

This area's so vague. I mean, I agree that technically it's taxable but in reality it could be argued as a marketing expense if client meetings are organized some of it depends in the way in which it is expensed.