[LTPC-discussions] Tax Qualified vs. Non TQ
Bill Lindgren
ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com
Tue, 15 Jul 2003 12:35:23 -0400
<html><div style='background-color:'><DIV>
<P><BR><BR></P></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<P>The whole TQ/NTQ discussion can get VERY involved. Folks who are interested in that discussion (or most other LTCi issues/news/gossip) might want to check out the major LTCi message boards - particulary the LTCi Agents' OpenForum </P>
<P> http:www.prepsmart.com/cgi-bin/bizbuilders.pl</P>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>
<DIV></DIV>>From: "Bob Hadidian"
<DIV></DIV>>Reply-To: ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com
<DIV></DIV>>To:
<DIV></DIV>>Subject: Re: [LTPC-discussions] Tax Qualified vs. Non TQ
<DIV></DIV>>Date: Tue, 15 Jul 2003 08:39:28 -0700
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>NTQ plans require the loss of 2of 7 ADL's as opposed to 2 of 6 ADL's. But the ambulating ADL of the NTQ is rolled into the transferring ADL of the TQ. So it is slightly easier to qualify, yet still about 10-15% more expensive.
<DIV></DIV>> ----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>> From: Jerry
<DIV></DIV>> To: ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com
<DIV></DIV>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 8:31 AM
<DIV></DIV>> Subject: RE: [LTPC-discussions] Tax Qualified vs. Non TQ
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> NTQ plans are supposedly much easier to qualify for benefits. You do not have the 90day and loss of 2 ADL's requirement as the medically necessary requirement allows a person NOT to loose ANY ADL's just medically necessary. As far as the tax deductibility issue, I am told that it is not a problem because it is considered health insurance which is deductible.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> -----Original Message-----
<DIV></DIV>> From: ltpc-disc-admin@ltpcalums.com [mailto:ltpc-disc-admin@ltpcalums.com] On Behalf Of Bob Hadidian
<DIV></DIV>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 11:12 AM
<DIV></DIV>> To: ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com
<DIV></DIV>> Subject: Re: [LTPC-discussions] Tax Qualified vs. Non TQ
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Kevin
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Personally, I see no reason to write a NTQ policy. In fact, in California it is no longer necessary for a company to offer both TQ and NTQ. Cal. Partnership policies are required to be TQ.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> I do not even stock NTQ paperwork. Some of the reasons:
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> · More certain of the tax status (line item deduction may soon be allowed)
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> · NTQ premiums are higher
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> · NTQ Has a 'medically necessary" requirement
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> · LTC is confusing enough for the client, eliminating NTQ is just one less thing to cloud the issues.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Hope this helps.
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Bob
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> ----- Original Message -----
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> From: Kevin Hanner
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> To: ltpc-disc@ltpcalums.com
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Sent: Tuesday, July 15, 2003 5:52 AM
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> Subject: [LTPC-discussions] Tax Qualified vs. Non TQ
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>>
<DIV></DIV>> At LTPC, all agents wrote tax-qualified policies. Since leaving, is anybody writing Non TQ plans? Most agents look at the pros and cons of each type of plan and that is all they write. I would like to see some discussion regarding thoughts and opinions on this topic (i.e., if all you write is Tax Qualified, what is your basis for doing so?) Thanks. </div><br clear=all><hr>Tired of spam? Get <a href="http://g.msn.com/8HMNENUS/2734??PS=">advanced junk mail protection</a> with MSN 8.</html>