United States: Notice 2004-50: A Summer Tsunami of HSA Guidance (But Will Employers be Interested?)

In many ways, the release of Notice 2004-50 is like a belated half-year birthday party for health savings accounts (HSAs), which are now about seven months old. Like a piñata at the birthday party, Notice 2004-50 is stuffed with appealing items – in the form of answers that supporters of HSAs will welcome. With 88 questions and answers (Q&A’s), it is a very full piñata, and it contains many more "good news" items than "bad new" items. But this numerical balance, while noteworthy, does not tell the entire story. The real question for employers is whether the Administration has cancelled their invitation to the party.

This critical question is discussed at the end (see "Are Employers Invited to the Party?"), and it concerns the permissibility of employer restricted HSAs – or put more elegantly, "employer supervised HSAs." What follows first, however, are capsule summaries of the key guidance items in Notice 2004-50 that do not tie directly to the issue of employer supervised HSAs. The few items that are not either good or neutral news are marked with a "CAUTION."

Eligible individuals are individuals who are eligible to make deductible or salary reduction contributions to an HSA, or who are eligible to have HSA contributions made on their behalf (e.g., by an employer).

• Only Actual Enrollment in Medicare Causes Ineligibility: Q&A-2 provides that merely turning age 65 (and thus becoming "eligible" for Medicare) does not bar someone from being an eligible individual, actual enrollment in either Medicare Part A or Part B is required. Therefore, an employee who defers applying for Social Security retirement benefits after age 65, e.g., because of continued employment, may continue to contribute to an HSA. (Medicare enrollment is automatic at age 65 for an individual who is receiving or has applied for Social Security benefits). This will enhance the practicality of HSAs for those who work after 65. Catch-up contributions are also possible (see Q&A-3).

• Eligibility for VA Medical Benefits May Not Cause Ineligibility: Under Q&A-5, a person who is eligible for Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) medical benefits remains an eligible individual for HSA contributions if the person has not received VA medical benefits in any of the prior three months.

• Definition of Permitted Insurance: Permitted insurance, which includes specified disease insurance, does not impair a person’s status as an eligible individual. Under Q&A-7, specified disease insurance (e.g., insurance for cancer, diabetes, asthma and/or congestive heart failure) qualifies as permitted insurance as long as the person’s principal health insurance is still provided by the HDHP. Self-insured coverage does not qualify as permitted insurance unless, as in the case of workers’ compensation coverage, the benefits are provided in satisfaction of a statutory requirement and the medical benefits are secondary to other benefits (see Q&A-8).

• Discount Cards Permissible: Participation in a mere discount arrangement, such as a discount prescription card, is not considered other coverage that adversely affects status as an eligible individual (see Q&A-9).

• EAPs and Disease Management and Wellness Programs Permissible: The ubiquity of employee assistance programs (EAPs) caused special concerns under the no-other-coverage rule, i.e., the rule that conditions eligible individual status on the person only being covered under one or more high deductible health plans (HDHPs) and/or certain categories of excepted coverage, such as permitted insurance and preventive care. This is because typical EAPs provide some treatment that, although limited in scope, could be viewed as not just preventive. Also, to be effective, disease management and wellness programs cannot be withheld until someone satisfies an annual deductible, and they often deal with medical conditions that already exist (and thus they are not just aimed at prevention). Therefore, the no-other-coverage rule could have meant requiring individuals to choose between EAPs, disease management and wellness programs on the one hand, and HSAs on the other. At the very least, there was the possibility these special programs would have to be reshaped to focus them only on truly preventive services. Q&A-10 avoids these impediments to the wider adoption of HSAs by articulating a new exception to the no-other-coverage rule for these special programs. EAPS, disease management and wellness programs do not violate the no-other-coverage rule if (after disregarding their benefits for preventive care) they "do not provide significant benefits in the form of medical care and treatment." The Q&A supports this new exception with a series of examples. These reflect that characteristic examples of these programs are not deemed to provide significant benefits.

To contribute to an HSA, an individual must have coverage under an HDHP. To qualify as an HDHP, a plan must have deductibles of at least $1,000 (self-only coverage) and $2,000 (family coverage). In addition, the plan must limit a participant’s out-of-pocket expenditures for covered expenses to $5,000 (self-only coverage) and $10,000 (family coverage).

• Applying the Out-of-Pocket Limit – Lifetime Limits, UCR and Penalties: Having a reasonable lifetime limit does not cause a plan to violate the out-of-pocket expense limits (Q&A-14). An example indicates that a $1 million lifetime limit is reasonable. Under Q&A-15, lifetime limits on specific benefits, e.g., fertility, also do not run afoul of the out-of-pocket expense limit "if significant other benefits remain available under the plan." On the other hand, a plan that applies a $10,000 annual limit on benefits for any single condition cannot be an HDHP, because significant benefits do not remain after the limitation. Amounts payable in excess of usual, customary and reasonable (UCR) expense limits are not considered out-of-pocket expenses (Q&A-16), nor is a penalty for not obtaining a pre-certification (Q&A-18 and 19). Under Q&A-20 on the other hand, because deductible expenses count against the out-of-pocket limit, a plan with a $2,000 deductible for each family member cannot be an HDHP for a family with six covered persons (maximum potential deductible of $12,000 exceeds the $10,000 out-ofpocket limit).

• Amounts Considered Against a Prior Deductible: In connection with a midyear switch to an HDHP, amounts considered against the prior plan’s deductible may be considered against the HDHP’s deductible. The same is true in connection with a midyear switch from single HDHP coverage to family HDHP coverage. In such cases, no special rules apply if the period over which deductible expenses accumulate does not exceed 12 months. (Q&A-22 and 23.) However, if the deductible accumulation period is more than 12 months (e.g., a plan where expenses applied to the deductible in the last three months of a year can be considered against the following year’s deductible), the resulting more-than- 12-month deductible is tested in comparison to an adjusted minimum deductible. Thus, a plan that takes into account expenses applied against the deductible in the last three months of the prior year must have a self-only deductible of at least $1,250 (the standard $1,000 minimum multiplied by 15 and divided by 12). (Q&A-24.) This special rule makes it possible for plans with carryover deductibles to qualify as HDHPs.

Preventive care may be covered before satisfying the HDHP deductible. Notice 2004-50 supplements the safe harbor definition of preventive care that was published in Notice 2004-23.

• Treatment Ancillary to Preventive Procedures: Q&A-26 provides that where it would be unreasonable or impractical to perform a separate procedure to treat a condition discovered during a preventive screening, any such treatment that is incidental to the screening is considered preventive care. For example, removal of polyps during a diagnostic colonoscopy is preventive.

• Preventive Drug Therapies: Following the release of Notice 2004-23, which provides a safe harbor definition of preventive care, Ways and Means Committee Chairman Thomas and Representative Nancy Johnson, Chair of the Ways and Means Health Subcommittee, wrote Treasury advising that some drugs should be considered preventive. Q&A-27 responds by providing that drugs and medications are preventive when taken by a person who has developed risk factors for a disease that is not yet clinically apparent (i.e., they are asymptomatic), or to prevent the recurrence of a disease from which the person has recovered. For example, the treatment of high cholesterol with statins to prevent heart disease and the treatment of recovered heart attack and stroke victims with ACE inhibitors both constitute preventive care. In addition, drugs used as part preventive care services specified in Notice 2004-23 (including obesity weight loss and tobacco cessation) are preventive care.

Rev. Rul. 2004-45 pointed out how a spouse’s plan (e.g., a general purpose health FSA) could keep someone from being an eligible individual. Notice 2004-50 explores the impact on the maximum HSA contribution of other coverage that does not cause ineligibility.

• Maximum HSA Contribution Where Spouse/Dependent Has Other Coverage: Q&A-31 provides that the maximum HSA contribution for a married couple with family HDHP coverage is the lesser of: (1) the lowest HDHP family deductible applicable to the family, or (2) the statutory dollar maximum ($5,150 for 2004). If we assume two HDHPs that are designed in compliance with the statutory maximum, the HDHP with the lower family deductible will establish the contribution limit for the couple, and this may be divided between them as they choose. (Q&A-32 notes that the default division between the spouses is 50%/50%, but indicates that any other division is permissible, including 100%/0%.) Q&A-31 also addresses the case where one spouse has family HDHP coverage and the other has self-only coverage, and it adopts the most favorable rule possible for limiting HSA contributions in this case. If the self-only coverage is not HDHP coverage, the spouse with the family HDHP coverage may contribute the full amount of the family HDHP deductible to his or her HSA; the other spouse is not eligible for an HSA. Thus, there is no reduction in the contribution of the spouse with the family HDHP because the other spouse has low-deductible self-only coverage. If the other spouse’s self-only coverage is HDHP coverage, both spouses may contribute to separate HSAs, with the contribution opportunity allocated between them by agreement. This agreement may allow the spouse with selfonly HDHP coverage to contribute more to an HSA than the deductible under his or her self-only plan. For example, if the husband has family HDHP coverage with a $5,000 deductible and the wife has self- only HDHP coverage with a $2,000 deductible, the couple may contribute $5,000 in the aggregate, and nothing would bar the couple from allocating to the wife the right to contribute more than $2,000.

• Correcting Excess Contributions: An excess contribution may be corrected by withdrawing the excess contribution and any attributable net income before the due date of the account beneficiary’s tax return (including extensions), thereby avoiding a 6% excise tax. Q&A-34 confirms that the attributable net income is computed in accordance with the similar rules that apply to IRAs (see Treas. Reg. § 1.408- 11).

• Correcting Mistaken HSA Distributions: Q&A-37 provides ground rules for correcting mistaken HSA distributions when "there is clear and convincing evidence that amounts were distributed from an HSA because of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause." Interestingly, however, the example given of a mistake of fact (the account beneficiary’s reasonably but mistakenly believing that an expense was a qualified medical expense) suggests that the IRS’ traditional narrow interpretation of "mistake of fact" in the qualified plan area may not apply here. There, the mistake described in the example could be considered a mistake of law (and thus not a mistake of fact). Correction is accomplished by repaying the mistaken distribution no later than April 15 following the first year the individual knew or should have known the distribution was a mistake. If correction is made, the account beneficiary does not have to include the mistaken distribution in his or her gross income or be subject to the 10% additional tax. In addition, the repayment to the HSA is not be subject to the excise tax on excess contributions. Q&A-76 indicates, however, that trustees and custodians are not required to accept returned mistaken distributions.

• Receipt of Nontaxable Distributions May Be Deferred: Some have wondered whether HSAs could be used more as savings vehicles by deferring when nontaxable benefit reimbursements are received (e.g., by deferring taking any reimbursements until after retirement, and then receiving a nontaxable stream of income to the extent of prior medical expenses). IRS and Treasury personnel had informally questioned whether this should be allowed, but Q&A-39 permits it provided the individual has sufficient records to substantiate that the deferred distributions fully qualify for tax free treatment.

• Using Salary Reduction Contributions to Pay for Long-Term Care: HSA distributions may pay/reimburse long-term care insurance premiums, even if the distributions derive from amounts contributed by salary-reduction. Q&A-40 notes that this does not violate Code section 125(f) (which generally bars cafeteria plan contributions from being used to purchase long-term care insurance) because the HSA is paying the premiums not the cafeteria plan. In turn, Q&A-42 provides that HSA distributions for the cost of long-term care services are nontaxable payments for medical expenses (again, even if the distributions are funded by salary-reduction) because an HSA is not a health FSA. Thus, unlike all health FSAs and most HRAs, an HSA is not subject to Code section 106(c), which taxes distributions for long-term care expenses from a health FSA or similar arrangement.

• CAUTION Þ Long-Term Care Insurance Premium Limits: Under Q&A-41, HSA distributions used to pay/reimburse long-term care premiums are excludable from income only to the extent of the deduction limits in Code section 213(d)(1). (2004 limits: age 40 or less, $260; age 41-50, $490; age 51-60, $980; age 61-70, $2,600; more than 70, $3,250). Any excess premium reimbursements are includable in income and may be subject to the 10% penalty.

• Distributions to Pay Medicare Premiums: A retiree whose Medicare premiums are deducted from his or her Social Security benefit payments may receive a tax-free HSA distribution equal to the amount of Medicare premiums withheld (Q&A-45).

Code section 4980G requires, by cross reference to section 4980E, that an employer "make available comparable contributions to . . . all comparable participating employees for each coverage period during [the] calendar year."

• "Make Available" Actually Means "Must Receive": Many employers had expressed interest in structuring employer HSA contributions as matching contributions. Q&A-46 rules out doing this except as permitted by Q&A-47 (see below), by interpreting the Code’s requirement to make available comparable contributions as requiring that comparable participating employees actually must receive comparable contributions. This outcome had been signaled in informal comments by Treasury and IRS personnel, who suggested that experience in the 401(k) area indicated that matching contributions need to be subjected to nondiscrimination standards beyond just equal availability.

• Matching Contributions Possible If Made Through a Cafeteria Plan: Q&A-47 provides that matching contributions to an HSA will not violate the comparability rule if they are made through a cafeteria plan. This is a terrific result. Functionally, it appears to allow employers to do matching contributions exactly as they desired, so long as they maintain a cafeteria plan, which today is essentially standard. In other words, it appears that the matching contributions may go directly into the HSA, rather than just being additional employer credits that may be used for benefits under the cafeteria plan. In effect, this is like when an employee pays $100 per month under a cafeteria plan and receives in return health plan coverage worth $400 per month (the employer effectively matches the employee’s contribution in paying for the health plan). With the HSA, the employee will make a salary reduction contribution under the cafeteria plan to the HSA, and then will receive in return increased funding for the HSA as a result of the same kind of match through the cafeteria plan. Q&A-47 notes that the use of a cafeteria plan as the vehicle for making these matching contributions brings into play the section 125 nondiscrimination rules. This gives the IRS some tools that, at least theoretically, could be used to address an appearance of discrimination in operation. However, at present, the nondiscrimination tests under section 125, with the exception of the key employee test that affects smaller employers, are at most a vague threat.

• Health Incentives Provided Through a Cafeteria Plan: Q&A-48 holds that employer contributions to an HSA conditioned on an employee’s participation in health assessments, disease management programs or wellness programs violate the comparability rule, unless all eligible employees actually receive comparable contributions. However, here again, the employer can accomplish the same goal by offering through a cafeteria plan an HSA contribution that is subject to an election of cash.

Amounts may be rolled over to an HSA from another HSA or an Archer MSA (but not from IRAs, HRAs or FSAs).

• Frequency Limitation for Rollover Contributions: Under Q&A-55, an account beneficiary is limited to one rollover contribution to his or her HSA in a one-year period. However, as expected, the guidance also clarifies that this frequency limitation does not apply to direct trustee-to-trustee transfers (Q&A-56). Q&A-78 points out that HSA trustees and custodians can decline to accept rollovers and trustee-totrustee transfers.

Because HSAs may be funded by salary reduction contributions through a section 125 cafeteria plan, Notice 2004-50 addresses how the cafeteria plan rules will apply to HSAs funded through salary reduction.

• Health FSA and Election Change Rules Inapplicable to HSAs: Q&A-57 indicates that three key requirements that apply to health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) do not apply to HSAs:

• Because the level coverage rule does not apply, employers are not put at risk if they agree to salary reduction funding of an HSA. Unlike the health FSA situation, such contributions do not need to be front-loaded, although they may be if the employer chooses. In this regard, Q&A-60 says that any such accelerated contribution must be made available to all participating employees on the same terms, and that an employee’s contributions should be structured to repay the acceleration by the end of the cafeteria plan’s year. With respect to the 12-month period of coverage not applying, Q&A-58 makes clear that the election change rules of Treas. Reg. § 1.125-4 do not apply to HSA elections. Employees who elect to make HSA contributions can start, stop, increase or decrease elections at any time, so long as the elections are prospective only. (In other words, the cafeteria plan election rules for HSAs follow the "401(k) model.") Employers are allowed to impose restrictions on HSA contribution elections under cafeteria plans, but such restrictions must apply uniformly to all employees.

• CAUTION Þ Adding a New HSA Benefit Mid-Year: An employer can add an HSA as a new cafeteria plan benefit mid-year, and employees can prospectively elect the HSA. However, Q&A-59 cautions that Treas. Reg. § 1.125-4 election restrictions typically will prevent an employee from changing a health FSA election (health FSA elections may not be changed in connection with the "addition or improvement of a benefit package option"). Therefore, an employee who has elected coverage under a typical, general-purpose health FSA usually cannot be an "eligible individual" under Rev. Rul. 2004-45 (unless, for example, the employee has already exhausted the FSA). One possible work-around may be to leave the dollar amount of the employee’s FSA election unchanged, but for the employer to amend the FSA plan to provide that it will only pay benefits as permitted by Rev. Rul. 2004-45 for any employee who elects to fund an HSA. Because the FSA election is unchanged, this arguably could work, but the IRS may treat the amendment as indirectly effecting an impermissible change. In addition, the overlapping FSA issue could also arise with a spouse’s health FSA, where the employer has no control.

• No Joint HSAs for Spouses: Spouses cannot open a joint HSA (Q&A-63), but distributions from one spouse’s HSA can be used to pay for the other spouse’s qualified medical expenses on a pre-tax basis (Q&A-38).

• Permissible HSA Investments: An HSA may be invested in any investment approved for an IRA. For example, bank accounts, stocks, mutual funds and certain bullion and coins are acceptable, but life insurance contracts and collectibles (e.g., antiques) are not. The HSA agreement may impose additional restrictions on investments (Q&A-65).

• Payment of Fees and the HSA Contribution Limit: Any administration or account maintenance fees paid directly by the account beneficiary (or employer) do not count towards the annual maximum HSA contribution limit. On the other hand, if fees are withdrawn from the HSA, the maximum limit is not increased, and thus part of the contribution limit can be used up paying fees. (Q&A-70 and 71.)

• Trustees/Custodians Required to Apply Maximum Contribution Limit: Under Q&A-73, trustees/custodians must limit annual HSA contributions to (1) the maximum family coverage deductible, plus (2) the catch-up contribution. Presumably the first of these refers to the statutory dollar maximum ($5,150 for 2004), although in an apparent typographical error the Code provision referenced for this purpose is section 223(b)(2)(B)(i), which is instead the deductible under the eligible individual’s HDHP. With respect to the catch-up contribution, Q&A-73 apparently contemplates the trustee/custodian determining whether a particular account beneficiary is entitled to make a catch-up contribution (even though it does not expressly state this), because Q&A-75 says that the trustee/custodian may rely on the account beneficiary’s representation regarding age. The guidance does not state what penalty applies to the trustee/custodian if contributions are not limited in accordance with Q&A-73. However, if a trustee/custodian failed to apply the required contribution limits, it might be possible for the IRS to challenge the tax-exempt status of all of the HSAs where contributions in excess of the limits were possible, even if not in fact made.

• Agreement May Not Limit Distributions to Medical Expenses: Q&A-79 bars the trust or custodial agreement from including a provision that restricts distributions only to payments or reimbursements of qualified medical expenses. (Although again not stated, presumably a failure to follow this rule could adversely affect the tax-exempt status of the affected HSAs.) On the other hand, the agreement may place reasonable restrictions on the frequency and amount of distributions (Q&A-80).

The miscellaneous category at the end includes employer issues, a self-employed tax calculation and when indexing must be taken into account.

• Contributing Employer Responsibilities: The very brief Q&A-81 states that a contributing employer is only responsible for determining the following with respect to an employee’s eligibility and maximum annual HSA contribution – (1) whether the employee is covered under an HDHP, what the deductible is, and whether the employee is covered under any low-deductible plans of the employer, and (2) the employee’s age (for catch-up contributions), for which the employer may rely on the employee’s representation. Unstated, but clearly implicit in this answer, is that an employer should not make HSA contributions to (nor allow salary reduction for an HSA by) an ineligible employee, nor in an amount greater than the deductible (increased by the catch-up for employees at least age 55). Failure to apply these limits could result in an employer having withholding, FICA and FUTA tax liabilities (see Notice 2004-2, Q&A-19), but presumably this Q&A is intended to encourage employer contributions to HSAs by emphasizing what little employer administration is required.

• CAUTION Þ No SECA Deduction for HSA Contributions: Notice 2004-2 provides that employer and salary reductions contributions to HSAs are not subject to FICA taxes. In contrast, however, Q&A-84 provides that a self-employed person’s contributions are subject to SECA taxes, the parallel social security taxes applicable to the self employed. While defensible under the statute, this result creates a significant incentive for the self-employed to prefer traditional low-deductible arrangements, whose higher premiums are fully deductible for both income and SECA taxes.

• Cost-of-Living Adjustments to an HDHP for Renewal Date After January 1st: Q&A-86 permits any required cost-of-living adjustments for deductibles and out-of-pocket expenses to be applied to an HDHP on its renewal date even though that date postdates January 1st (e.g., June 1st). However, these adjustments must be made no later than on the last day of the twelve-month period ending on the renewal date (June 1st).

The final release of Notice 2004-50 was delayed as the Administration considered whether to allow employers to have some control over how their HSA contributions were used. Information that was submitted to the Administration strongly suggests that few employers will be willing to contribute to HSAs without being able to supervise how their contributions are used. Some want their contributions to be used only for expenses that qualify under the HDHP; others are willing to allow their use for any qualifying medical expense. Many in the employer community had hoped that the issue would be how long such employer supervision could be applied. However, just before Notice 2004-50 was released, word leaked out that the Administration had decided the guidance should bar employer supervised HSAs outright.

Before turning to evaluate how fully that was accomplished, consider the possible implications. Without the right to apply employer supervision, most employers interested in consumer-directed health plan design are expected to opt for a design based on an HRA (probably combined with a health FSA) rather than an HSA. However, an HRA/FSA design does not have the same potential for encouraging participants to be careful consumers. HRA money is forever restricted only to health expenses, and there is a forfeiture risk when an employee changes jobs. FSAs are even worse, because with use-it-or-lose-it an employee has an incentive to spend every cent to avoid its forfeiture at year end. In contrast, because an employer supervised HSA would only apply temporary limitations on the use of the employer money (and no restrictions on employee money), there would still be strong incentives for participants to preserve amounts in the HSA.

Thus, HSAs have some unique advantages. But given the Administration’s unsympathetic posture toward employer supervised HSAs, is there any remaining opportunity to have an employer supervised HSA under Notice 2004-50?

There are three Q&A’s that are barriers to direct employer restrictions on the use of HSA funds. Under Q&A- 77, rollovers must be allowed (i.e., the agreement with the trustee/custodian holding the HSA must allow the employee to roll the money in the HSA to a new HSA trustee/custodian, which makes it difficult for the employer to keep the money with a trustee/custodian that the employer can control). Under Q&A-79, the trust or custodial agreement may not contain any provision that restricts the account beneficiary’s right to an HSA distribution for any purpose (i.e., the employer will not be able to send its contributions to a trustee/custodian that has an HSA agreement restricting use of the employer’s contributions to only approved health expenses). Under Q&A-82, an employer may not recoup from the HSA any portion of its contribution (i.e., the employer could not require that employer contributions be repaid by the employee in the event the employee tries to use them for a non-health expense).

However, these provisions and the guidance in general do not appear to bar indirectly applied penalties for not complying with employer restrictions. For example, it appears possible for an employer to reduce its subsidy to its cafeteria plan for a particular employee in the event that the employee either (i) rolls over his/her HSA funds to a different HSA trustee/custodian than that selected by the employer, or (ii) does not use the employer contribution solely for approved medical expenses for the period required by the employer. In effect, this would result in the employee having to pay more for health and other cafeteria plan coverage to the extent that the employee does not comply with the employer’s HSA restrictions.

The background on why this should work is as follows. Under the principles of Q&A-47 and Q&A-49, upward adjustments in employer contributions to a cafeteria plan are not subject to HSA rules, such as the requirement of comparable contributions. Similarly, downward adjustments in contributions to the cafeteria plan as a disincentive to rollovers and certain non-medical distributions should not be considered to violate the HSA rules in Q&A-77 and Q&A-82. An employer’s reducing its cafeteria plan contribution as a penalty for improper use of HSA funds would be subject to the section 125 nondiscrimination rules (see Q&A-47), but that may not be a problem in practice. Indeed, most employees may just live with the restrictions if the penalty is large enough. If necessary to avoid issues under cafeteria plan rules that limit election changes, the increased employee contributions that would be triggered by reducing the employer contribution could be deducted on an after-tax basis. Indeed, that may be desirable just to enhance the penalty effect.

This is a more convoluted approach than just direct restrictions in the trust or custodial agreement. However, it should be feasible, and it appears to make possible employer supervised HSAs. So, with a little determination, it may be that employers can still crash the HSA party.

The information contained in this article is not intended as legal advice or as an opinion on specific facts. For more information about these issues, please contact the author(s) of this article or your existing firm contact. The invitation to contact the author is not to be construed as a solicitation for legal work in any jurisdiction in which the author is not admitted to practice. There will be no charge for the initial contact. Any attorney/client relationship must be confirmed in writing. You may also contact us through our Web site at www.kilpatrickstockton.com