Category Archives: Fringe Benefits

Offer Opt-Out Payments? Don’t Get Snared in Overtime Liability

aaron-burden-27662.jpg

If you are an employer within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and offer cash payments to employees who opt out of group health coverage (“opt-out payments”), what you don’t know about the court’s 2016 opinion in Flores v. City of San Gabriel may hurt you.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit court held that opt-out payments had to be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime payments under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In May 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the opinion, making it controlling law within the Ninth Circuit, and hence in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.

The Flores case arose when a group of active and former police officers in the City of San Gabriel sought overtime compensation based on opt-out payments they received between 2009 and 2012 under a flexible benefits plan maintained by the City.  The plan required eligible employees to purchase dental and vision benefits with pre-tax dollars; they could also use the plan to purchase group health insurance.  Employees could elect to forgo medical benefits upon proof of alternative coverage; in exchange they received the unused portion of their benefits allotment as a cash payment added to their regular paycheck.  The opt-out payments were not insubstantial, ranging from $12,441 annually in 2009 to $15,659.40 in 2012.  The City’s total expenditure on opt-out payments exceeded $1.1 million dollars in 2009 and averaged about 45% of total contributions to the flexible benefits plan over the three years at issue.

The court held that the City had not properly excluded the opt-out payments from the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes under the FLSA, as they were items of compensation even though not tied directly to specific hours of work, and further that the “bona fide” benefit plan exception did not apply, because, inter alia, the cash opt-out payments received under the flex plan comprised far more than an “incidental” portion of the benefits received.

Despite the significant potential impact of getting this classification wrong, the City appears not to have sought a legal opinion on whether it could permissibly exclude the opt-out payments under the FLSA. Instead, a City employee testified that it followed its normal process of classifying the item of pay through joint decision by the payroll and human resources departments, without any further review of the classification or other due-diligence.  For this oversight, the court awarded liquidated damages against the City for failure to demonstrate that it acted in good faith and on the basis of “reasonable grounds” to believe it had correctly classified the opt-out payments under the FLSA.  Further, the court approved a three-year statute of limitations for a “willful” violation of the FLSA, rather than the normal two year period, on the grounds that the City was on notice of its FLSA requirements, yet took “’no affirmative action to ensure compliance with them.’”

Although Flores involved a benefit plan maintained by a public entity, there is nothing in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that limits its scope to public entity employers.

Therefore employers within the Ninth Circuit who offer opt-out payments should review their payroll treatment of these amounts and seek legal counsel in the event there if potential overtime liability under the FLSA. They should also confirm that cash opt-out payments remain an “incidental” percentage of total flex benefits, which the Department of Labor has defined in a 2003 opinion letter as no more than 20% of total plan benefits.  In Flores the Ninth Circuit found the 20% threshold to be arbitrary, but suggested that it was likely lower than 40% of total benefits.  Finally, employers offering opt-out payments should also revisit the other legal compliance hurdles that these payments present under the ACA, which after its recent reprieve from repeal/replace legislation, remains, for now, the law of the land.

Leave a comment

Filed under Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, FLSA, Fringe Benefits, Health Care Reform, Overtime, Post-Election ACA, PPACA, Uncategorized

Chart of Section 457(f) Carve-Outs Under New Proposed Regulations

The IRS recently announced proposed regulations under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 457 that update prior, final regulations issued in 2003 and other subsequent guidance from IRS.  Section 457 governs deferred compensation rules for government employees, and for executives of private, tax-exempt organizations it permits deferrals from compensation over and above limits set forth in Code § 403(b).  The proposed Section 457 regulations impact “ineligible” deferred compensation plans under Code § 457(f) more substantially than “eligible” deferred compensation plans under Code § 457(b) which were more comprehensively covered in the 2003 final regulations.

By contrast to eligible Section 457(b) plans, which limit annual contributions to $18,000, as adjusted for inflation (and without the age 50 catch-up for private non-profit executives), there is no dollar limit on annual contributions to a Section 457(f) plan (although as explained below other laws do set reasonableness limits upon nonprofit executive compensation in general).   However, amounts set aside under Section 457(f) plans must be included in the executive’s taxable compensation once the amounts are no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, for instance upon completion of a vesting schedule, even if amounts are not physically paid out from the plan.  Due to the requirement that income inclusion/taxation occur when the substantial risk of forfeiture lapses, Section 457(f) plans generally work best when retirement is in the fairly near future (e.g., 5 to 7 years out), and where vesting occurs on or near the anticipated retirement date.

As summarized in the chart, below, the proposed regulations clarify how certain pay arrangements are carved out from Section 457(f) compliance, either because the arrangement is not deemed to provide for a deferral of compensation, or because it defers compensation but not in a manner that does not fall under Code § 457(f). Where no deferral of compensation occurs, the pay arrangement generally is also exempt from the “Enron rules” applicable to for-profit deferred compensation plans under Code § 409A, and related regulations.  (Final regulations under Code § 409A were published in 2007; the second of two sets of proposed regulations were published the same day as the proposed Section 457 regulations).  The proposed Section 457 regulations clarify that Section 457(f) arrangements generally are also subject to Code § 409A, although there are some important distinctions between the two sets of rules which I will address in a future post.

457(f) Chart

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 403(b) Plans, COLA Increases, Fringe Benefits, Nonqualified Deferred Compensation, Section 409A, Section 457(b) Plans, Section 457(f) Plans

Benefits Compliance: Where You Get It; What You Need (Poll)

Y01VDYAX63Changes in the law and continued advances in technology have made benefits compliance a constantly shifting landscape.  As one of many potential sources for your own path towards benefits compliance, E for ERISA would very much appreciate your participation in the following poll, which asks a few simple questions about where you currently get your benefits compliance services and what you may still need in that regard.  Thank you in advance for (anonymously) sharing your thoughts and experiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, Employer Shared Responsibility, ERISA, Federally Facilitated Exchange, Fiduciary and Fee Issues, Fiduciary Issues, Fringe Benefits, Health Care Reform, HIPAA and HITECH, Payroll Issues, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, PPACA, Profit Sharing Plan, Uncategorized

Final Rules on Wellness Program Design: A Chart and FAQs

Recent months have seen a flurry of new guidance related to wellness programs:

  • On May 17, 2016 the EEOC published final regulations and interpretive guidance on wellness programs that include disability-related questions (such as a Health Risk Assessment or HRA) and/or medical examinations (such as biometric testing). The new rules and guidance fall under Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), which permits collection of medical information under an employer’s “voluntary” wellness program. They replace proposed rules and guidance which were published in April 2015. We addressed the proposed rules in an earlier post.
  • In addition, EEOC published in the same issue of the Federal Register final regulations on wellness program participation by employees’ spouses, under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondisclosure Act (GINA). For GINA purposes, health status or health history about a family member, including a spouse, constitutes genetic of the employee. The rule replaces proposed regulations issued in October 2015.
  • In connection with the final rules the EEOC also published a model confidentiality notice to be provided to wellness program participants.
  • Finally, the Internal Revenue Service issued guidance regarding taxation of cash rewards to participate in wellness programs, and reimbursement of premiums paid through cafeteria plan deductions.

Overview. The new ADA and GINA regulations supplement, and in some instances contradict, existing wellness regulations under HIPAA, as modified by the ACA. Most notably, the HIPAA/ACA rules do not impose any incentive limitation on wellness programs that are “participation only,” whereas the ADA and GINA rules do impose a maximum incentive limit if the “participation only” program includes an HRA or biometric testing. The ADA and GINA regulations apply to employers with 15 or more employees, and to wellness programs that are “self-standing” as well as those offered in connection with a group health plan. HIPAA/ACA rules apply only to wellness programs that themselves comprise a group health plan, or that are offered with group health plans.

Effective Dates. The ADA and GINA incentive limits and ADA notice requirement discussed below go into effect for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017 (in most cases this will be the year of the health plan to which the wellness program relates). Employers may choose to voluntarily comply with these rules prior to that time. The balance of the new guidance goes into effect immediately, as the EEOC has characterized it as clarification of existing law.

Compliance Chart. Below is a chart summarizing permissible dollar or in-kind incentives for wellness program participation, along with some other requirements under the new ADA and GINA regulations, followed by some frequently asked questions on the new wellness program guidance.

Capturechart

* If multiple health plans are offered, the 30% limit applies to the lowest cost major medical plan. If no plans are offered, the reference point is the premium paid for a 40 year old non-smoker enrolled in the second-lowest silver plan on the health exchange in the employer’s region.

Q.1:     What are reasonable design criteria for wellness programs under ADA regulations? 

A.1:      A wellness program is “reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease” if it is (a) not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease; (b) does not require an overly burdensome period of time to participate, involve unreasonably intrusive procedures or significant costs; (c) is not a subterfuge for violating the ADA or other legal requirements or a means to simply shift costs from employer to employees; and, (d) if medical information is collected, the program provides feedback or advice to participants about risk factors or uses aggregate medical data to design programs or treat specific conditions.

Q.2: How do these requirements differ from the requirements for wellness programs under HIPAA/ACA?

A.2: In addition to the differences in incentive limits noted in the chart above, the HIPAA/ACA test applies a reasonable design criteria only to health-contingent wellness programs, while the ADA rules apply to participation-only wellness programs that include HRAs and/or biometric testing.  In addition, the HIPAA/ACA rules require that participants have a chance to qualify for the full incentive at least annually, and must offer to waive incentive criteria, or offer a reasonable alternative standard, to permit equal participation by all similarly situated participants.  This is somewhat similar, but not identical, to the ADA reasonable accommodation requirement.  HIPAA/ACA also requires that notice of the waiver/reasonable alternative standard be provided.

Q.3: Do GINA wellness program regulations add any requirements?

A.3: Yes, if a spouse is requested to complete an HRA or undergo biometric testing, a separate incentive limit equal to 30% of the total cost of self-only coverage applies, and the spouse must sign a written, knowing and voluntary authorization to take part in the HRA or biometric testing.  The authorization must describe the genetic information being obtained (e.g. health history information in an HRA), how it will be used, and any restrictions on its disclosure.  Additionally, employers may not deny access to coverage or otherwise retaliate in the event a spouse refuses to provide HRA/biometric testing.

Q.4: What are the criteria of a “voluntary” wellness program under ADA regulations?

A.4: A wellness program is voluntary for ADA purposes if employees are not required to participate in the program, are not punished for not participating (e.g., not granted access to all health benefits or plan options), and are not subjected to adverse employment action, retaliation, coercion or other prohibited conduct in order to get them to participate, or to reach certain health goals. In addition, incentives are capped at the percentages shown in the chart, and participants are provided with a written notice re: collection and use of medical information.  The EEOC has provided a form of model notice.

Q.5: What does the model EEOC notice state, and is it mandatory or can we use our own version?

A.5: The notice, which should be provided prior to participation in an HRA or biometric exam, may be modified but must be written in language that recipients can understand, and must describe what medical information is collected, what measures will be used to protect its privacy and security, and must state that the information will not be sold, exchanged, transferred, or otherwise disclosed except as necessary and permitted under law in order to implement the wellness program.  Some of the provisions may repeat provisions of an existing HIPAA privacy notice.

Q.6: Can we email the ADA wellness program notice or must we distribute by hand?

A.6: You can email it so long as you are certain the email will reach the intended employees, e.g. through use of a current work email address, and so long as proper attention is brought to the nature of the notice (for instance, do not attach it to an email already containing a number of other, unrelated human resource forms or disclosures). You may also distribute in hard copy.  Your distribution method should take into account employee disabilities such as visual impairment, or learning disabilities.

Q.6: What confidentiality requirements apply under ADA regulations?

A.6: The employer must receive wellness data in aggregate form only, and may not require an employee to agree to the sale, exchange, sharing, transfer or other disclosure of medical information, or to waive ADA confidentiality protections, as a condition for participation.  Note that ADA confidentiality rules would apply to a wellness program not linked to a group health plan, and for a wellness program that is a health plan or is linked to one, HIPAA/ACA privacy, security and breach notification measures must also be followed.  These rules independently would prohibit the employer from viewing individualized health data.

Q.7: What is the impact of “de minimis” wellness incentives such as tee-shirts and water bottles?

A.7: The ADA regulations do not recognize a “de minimis” rule, thus the approximate dollar value of all “in-kind” incentives should be counted towards the 30% incentive limit.  By contrast, for federal income tax purposes, the IRS allows small items such as tee-shirts and water bottles to be excluded from participants’ taxable income as de minimis fringe benefits under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 132(e).  See IRS Memo 2016-22031, discussed below.

Q.8: How does the IRS treat cash incentives to participate in a wellness program treated under the Internal Revenue Code?

A.8: In IRS Memo 2016-22031 the IRS concluded that cash incentives to take part in a wellness program, or amounts paid or reimbursed for more than de minimis items that do not qualify as Code Section 213(d) medical expenses (such as gym memberships) are included in employees’ taxable income.  The same is true when an employer uses a wellness program to reimburse employees for premium or other coverage amounts withheld from their salary under a Section 125 cafeteria plan.

Q.9: What is the ADA’s  “insurance safe harbor” or “bona fide benefit plan” safe harbor, and can employers use it to justify a wellness program that does not meet the new ADA wellness program criteria?

A.9: The insurance safe harbor or “bona fide benefit plan” safe harbor permits the gathering of health data from employees so long as it is for underwriting or risk classification purposes, e.g., in order to determine insurability or establish premiums and other costs of coverage.   The safe harbor typically would apply to an insurance carrier but also could apply to a self-insured health plan.  In the past several years, a few employers have successfully used the safe harbor to prevail over EEOC federal court challenges to wellness programs that conditioned very high financial incentives on completion of an HRA or biometric testing; see, e.g., Seff v. Broward County, 691 F.3d 1221 (11th Cir. 2012); EEOC v. Flambeau, Inc., 131 F. Supp. 3d 849 (W.D.Wis. 2015).  The ADA regulations expressly make the insurance safe harbor unavailable to employers sponsoring wellness programs, but this does not resolve how the issue will be determined in federal courts.

Q.10: Are there other GINA regulations that impact wellness programs?

A.10: Yes, Title I of GINA applies to health insurance issuers and group health plans (including self-insured health plans), and prohibits requiring an individual to provide genetic information (including through answering a family history question on an HRA) prior to or in connection with plan enrollment, or at any time in connection with “underwriting purposes,” which broadly refers to any provision of a reward or incentive.  As a result of GINA Title I, a plan may use an HRA that requests family medical history only if it is requested to be completed after plan enrollment and is unrelated to enrollment, and if there is no premium reduction or any other reward offered.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Americans with Disabilities Act, Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, Flex Plans, Fringe Benefits, GINA/Genetic Privacy, Health Care Reform, HIPAA and HITECH, PPACA, Wellness Programs

IRS Extends Tax-Free Status to Proactive Identity Theft Protection

The Internal Revenue Service has announced that it will treat identity theft protection as a non-taxable, non-reportable benefit, even when offered proactively before any data breach, and whether offered by an employer to employees, or by other businesses (such as online retailers) to its customers.

The announcement comes only four months after an earlier earlier announcement by the Service that it would take the same approach with regard to identity theft protection offered to employees or customers in the wake of a data breach.   In the earlier announcement, the Service requested public comments from providers of identity protection services on whether they provide such services other than as a result of a data breach, and received four comments collectively indicating that identity theft protection often is provided proactively, because many businesses view a data breach as “inevitable” rather than as a remote risk.

The announcements reflect the Service’s immediate view of identity theft protection as a non-taxable benefit that need not be reported on a Form W-2 (provided to a common-law employee) or Form 1099-MISC (provided to a customer or other non-employee). Other specifics are as follows:

  • The Service defines “identity protection services” to include credit reporting and monitoring services, identity theft insurance policies, identity restoration services, or other similar services, however proceeds received under an identity theft insurance policies will be treated under existing tax provisions applicable to insurance benefits and are not affected by the announcements.
  • Tax-exempt treatment will not apply to cash provided to an employee or customer in lieu of identity protection services.

Notably, the Service itself had to provide identity theft protection earlier this year in response to a hack of its online database of past-filed returns and other filed documents which ultimately affected over 300,000 taxpayers.

Clearly these announcements are a boon to providers of identity protection services such as Experian and Lifelock, but due to the trending phenomenon of “identity theft fatigue” actual consumer enrollment in such services may remain low (under 10% of those potentially affected actually do so, according to Experian). This in turn may dictate the degree to which employers add identity protection services to their menu of tax-qualified employment benefits.

POST UPDATE:  More precisely, the IRS is not saying that identity theft protection is non-taxable, but that the IRS will not assert violations of the Internal Revenue Code for failure to include the value of the protection in gross income, or report it as income.  Where an employer (or retailer) provides the full cost of protection there is no dollar difference to an employee (or consumer), but were employees asked to contribute towards the cost of protection they would not be able to do so on a pre-tax basis through a Section 125 cafeteria plan.

Leave a comment

Filed under Benefit Plan Design, Fringe Benefits, Identity Protection Services

SCOTUS Rulings Highlight ACA Paradox

The two landmark rulings by the Supreme Court last week – one upholding the ability of the federal health exchange to award premium tax credits, and one upholding the right of same-sex couples to be married in all 50 states – would not appear to be interrelated.  However the back-to-back rulings highlight an unusual paradox in the ACA regarding access to premium tax credits.  Specifically, by marrying and forming “households” for income tax purposes, individuals may lose eligibility for premium tax credits that they qualified for based only on their individual income.  This has always been the case for married couples – both opposite-sex and same-sex — but it may come as news to same-sex couples now seeking to marry in states that prohibited such unions prior to the Supreme Court ruling.

To understand this ACA paradox – that married status may reduce or eliminate premium tax credit eligibility – some background is helpful.

Since January 1, 2014, state health exchanges and the federal exchange have made advance payments of premium tax credits to carriers on behalf of otherwise eligible individuals with household income between 100% and 400% of the federal poverty level (FPL).  For a single individual this translates to annual household income in 2015 between $11,770 – $47,080.  (For individuals in states that expanded Medicaid under the ACA, premium tax credit eligibility starts at 133% (effectively 138%) of FPL, which translates to $16,243.)

For these purposes, “household income” is the modified adjusted gross income of the taxpayer and his or her spouse, and spouses must file a joint return in order to qualify for premium tax credits except in cases of domestic abuse or spousal abandonment.  A taxpayer’s household income also includes amounts earned by claimed dependents who were required to file a personal income tax return (i.e., had earned income in 2015 exceeding $6,300 or passive income exceeding $1,000).   Generally speaking, same-sex adult partners will not qualify as “qualifying relative” tax dependents, in the absence of total and permanent disability.

Therefore, adult couples sharing a home in the absence of marriage or a dependent relationship will be their own individual households for tax purposes and for purposes of qualifying for advance payment of premium tax credits.  Conversely, adult couples who marry must file a joint tax return save for rare circumstances, and their individual incomes will be combined for purposes of premium tax credit eligibility.  By way of example, two cohabiting adults each earning 300% of FPL in 2015 ($35,310) will separately qualify for advance payment of premium tax credits in 2015, presuming their actual income matches what they estimated during enrollment.  However once the couple marries, their combined household income of $70,620 will exceed 400% of FPL for a household of two ($63,720), and they will lose eligibility for premium tax credits.

The rules for figuring tax credit eligibility for a year in which a couple marries or separates are quite complex.  The instructions to IRS Form 8962, Premium Tax Credit return, provide some guidance but the advice of a CPA or other tax professional may be required.

Before the Supreme Court’s ruling last week, the Department of Health and Human Services instructed the exchanges to follow IRS guidance recognizing persons in lawful same-sex marriages as “spouses” for purposes of federal tax law, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s 2013 ruling in United States v. Windsor.  That ruling recognized same-sex marriages under federal law provided that they were lawfully conducted in a state or other country, but fell short of declaring same-sex marriage as a Constitutional right that must be made available in all U.S. states.   It is likely that HHS will update guidance to the exchanges to reflect the recent, more expansive ruling on this issue.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, Affordable Care Act, Employer Shared Responsibility, Federally Facilitated Exchange, Fringe Benefits, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Marketplace, Premium Tax Credits, Same-Sex Marriage

Roundup of DOMA Guidance re: Benefit Plans

The Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor have in recent months issued initial guidance to employers on the benefit plan consequences of the U.S. Supreme Court’s June 2013 decision in U.S. v. Windsor, 133 S.Ct. 2675 (2013), which ruled Section 3 of the federal Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) to be unconstitutional on equal protection grounds.  That now defunct DOMA provision limited the federal law definitions of “marriage” and “spouse” to refer only to unions between members of the opposite sex.

The recent guidance, which I summarize below (and have separately addressed in earlier posts), represents early stages in the process of fully implementing the US v. Windsor holding within ERISA’s extensive compliance regime.  Please note that this post focuses on the federal tax consequences of same-sex benefits; state taxation of such benefits, and those provided to domestic partners, depends upon the revenue and taxation laws of each state.

IRS and DOL Adopt “State of Celebration” Rule

In U.S. v. Windsor the Supreme Court held that federal law will recognize all “lawful marriages” between members of the same sex, but left open the question of which state’s law will determine whether a same-sex marriage is lawful:  the state of domicile (where the married couple lives), or the state of “celebration” (where the marriage took place).

This is an important question because the Supreme Court decision left intact Section 2 of DOMA, under which a state, territory or Indian tribe need not give effect to another state’s laws regarding same-sex marriage.  The “state of domicile” rule, if it determined whether or not a same-sex couple was legally married, could cause benefits chaos.  For instance, an employer with operations in multiple states would be required to track where each employee in a same-sex relationship lived, and possibly modify their benefit offerings if they moved from a state that recognizes same-sex marriage, to a “non-recognition” state.

Note:  As of the date of this post, the District of Columbia and 14 states recognize same-sex marriage: California (since June 28, 2013, also prior to November 5, 2008); Connecticut; Delaware (eff. 7/1/2013); Iowa; Maine; Maryland; Massachusetts; Minnesota (eff. Aug. 1, 2013); New Hampshire; New Jersey (eff. October 21, 2013); New York; Rhode Island (eff. Aug. 1, 2013); Vermont; and Washington.  (Follow updates to this list here.)

The U.S. v. Windsor ruling also gave rise to some confusion over the status, under federal law, of domestic partnerships, civil unions, and other formalized same-sex relationships that fall short of marriage.

Fortunately, both the IRS and the DOL have resolved these issues in separate guidance released in September 2013.

Specifically, in Revenue Ruling 2013-17, the IRS announced that:

  • The IRS will recognize, as a legal marriage for all federal tax purposes, a marriage of same-sex individuals that was validly entered into in a domestic or foreign jurisdiction that recognizes same sex marriage, regardless of where the couple lives.
  • Under federal tax law, the terms “husband,” “wife,” “husband and wife,” “marriage” and “spouse” includes lawful same-sex marriages and individuals in such marriages.
  • “Marriage” for federal tax purposes does NOT include domestic partnerships, civil unions, or other formal relationships falling short of marriage.

To reach these conclusions the IRS invoked a prior Revenue Ruling from 1958 (Rev. Rul. 58-66) that held that individuals who became common-law spouses under state law were entitled to be treated as legally married spouses for federal income tax purposes regardless of where they later resided.

The DOL also adopted the “state of celebration” rule for purposes of defining same-sex marriage under ERISA benefit plans, including retirement plans, in Technical Release 2013-14.  In this guidance, published September 18, 2013, the DOL also specifies that the terms “spouse” and “marriage,” for ERISA purposes, do not include domestic partnerships or civil unions, whether between members of the same sex or opposite sex, regardless of the standing such relationships have under state law.

The IRS ruling takes effect September 16, 2013 on a prospective basis.  The DOL Technical Release should be treated as effective immediately on a prospective basis.  The DOL will issue further guidance explaining any retroactive application of the U.S. v. Windsor ruling under ERISA, for instance with regard to previously executed beneficiary designations, plan distribution elections, plan loans and hardship distributions.

Other Tax Guidance from Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and FAQs

Revenue Ruling 2013-17 also contains guidance on prospective and retroactive tax filing aissues resulting from the U.S. v. Windsor decision, including refund/credit opportunities.  More specific guidance for taxpayers is set forth in separate IRS FAQs for same-sex married couples, and for couples in registered domestic partnerships.

In order to understand  the tax refund/credit procedures it is helpful first to review the federal tax consequences of providing employment benefits to same-sex spouses while Section 3 of DOMA remained in effect.

Through Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 105(b), Federal law has long allowed employers to provide health and other benefits on a tax-free basis to employees, their opposite-sex spouses and dependents.  However, under DOMA § 3, the same benefits provided to same-sex spouses and other partners generally resulted in “imputed incometo the employee for federal tax purposes, in an amount generally equal to the value of the benefits provided.  Similarly, employees could not use Sec. 125 cafeteria plans to pay premiums for same-sex spouses/partners on a pre-tax basis.  Only in rare instances where the same-sex spouse was a dependent of the employee spouse as a result of disability, did same-sex spousal coverage not result in an additional federal tax burden to the employee spouse.

Note that benefits provided to domestic partners and partner in civil unions are still treated this way for Federal tax purposes.  For benefits provided to employees who are lawfully married to same-sex spouses, however, the new rules effective September 16, 2013 and prospectively are as follows:

  • Individuals in lawful same-sex marriages must file their federal income tax returns for 2013 and subsequent years as either married filing jointly, or married filing separately.
  • Employer-provided benefits provided to an employee’s lawfully-married same-sex spouse are excludable from the employee’s income for federal tax purposes.
  • As a consequence, employers must stop imputing income to employees, for federal tax purposes, based on same-sex spousal benefits, and must adjust affected employees’ Form W-2 income for 2013 to remove imputed income amounts.
  • The tax-qualified benefit plans that are affected are:
    • health, dental and vision coverage;
    • qualified tuition reduction plans maintained by educational organizations;
    • meals and lodging provided to employees on business premises (other specific conditions apply);
    • fringe benefit including qualified transportation fringe benefits, moving expenses, employee discounts, and work-related expenses; and
    • pre-tax participation in Section 125 cafeteria/flex plans, including health flexible spending accounts and dependent care flexible spending accounts.
  • Employees in lawful same-sex marriages can file amended personal income tax returns for “open” tax years (generally 2010, 2011, 2012) to recoup over-withheld federal income taxes resulting from imputed income and after-tax cafeteria plan participation.
  • However, if they re-file, they must re-file as married for all tax purposes, not just to obtain the refund or credit.  In many cases, the income tax adjustment will not warrant the loss of other deductions.  Employees must consult their individual CPAs and other tax advisors for answers; employers must refrain from offering any specific advice or guidance in this regard.

Corrective Payroll/Withholding Steps for 2013 and Prior “Open” Tax Years

IRS Notice 2013-61, published September 23, 2013, sets forth optional, streamlined ways for employers to claim refunds of over-withheld “employment taxes” (FICA and federal income taxes) applied to imputed income/same sex spouse benefits in 2013, and prior “open” tax years.

The “normal” over-withholding correction process – which remains available to employers in this instance – varies slightly depending on whether or not the employer is seeking an adjustment of withholding taxes, or a refund of withholding taxes, but generally includes the following steps:

  • identify the amount of over-withholding;
  • repay the employee’s portion to the employee in cash (or “reimburse” them by applying the overpayment to FICA taxes for current year);
  • obtain written statements from affected employees that they will not also claim a refund of over-withheld FICA taxes, and if an employer is seeking a refund of over-withheld taxes, obtain affected employees’ written consent to the refund; and
  • file IRS Form 941-X for each quarter affected, to recoup the employer portion of the tax.

Notice 2013-61 sets forth two streamlined correction methods permitting use of one single Form 941 or Form 941-X for all of 2013.  Under the first method, the employer takes the following steps before the end of the current year:

  • identify and repay/reimburse employees’ share of excess income tax, FICA tax withholdings resulting from same-sex spousal benefits on or before December 31, 2013; and
  • make corresponding reductions in affected employees’ wage and income-tax withholding amounts on the 4th quarter 2013 Form 941.

The second method is available if the employer does not identify and repay/reimburse employees’ share of excess income tax, FICA tax withholdings until after December 31, 2013.  In that case the employer:

  • Files one single Form 941-X in 2014 seeking reimbursement of employer’s share of tax with regard to imputed income for same-sex spouse benefits reported in all quarters of 2013.
  • In addition to the regular Form 941-X filing requirements, including obtaining written statements and/or consents from employees, employers must write “WINDSOR” at the top of the Form 941-X and must file amended Form W-2s (IRS Form W-2c) for affected employees, reporting the reduced amount of wages subject to FICA withholding.

Note:  This second correction method can apply only to FICA taxes.  Employers cannot make adjustments for overpayments of income tax withholding for a prior tax year unless an administrative error (e.g., wrong entry on Form 941) has occurred.

Employers may also recoup their share of FICA taxes for earlier open tax years (generally, 2010, 2011 and 2012) using one Form 941-X for all four calendar quarters that is filed for the fourth quarter of each affected year.  In addition to marking the Form “WINDSOR” the employer must also file amended Form W-2s for affected employees, reporting the reduced amount of wages subject to FICA withholding.

Employers making use of the correction methods set forth in IRS Notice 2013-61 for 2013 or earlier open years must take account of the Social Security Wage Base in effect for applicable years.  For employees whose 2013 compensation exceeds the taxable wage base ($113,700) even after imputed income is eliminated, no corrections for the Social Security component of FICA taxes can be made.  If retroactive corrections are made, you must observe the SS wage base limitations in effect in prior years:  $106,800 for 2010 & 2011, and $110,100 for 2012.

One final note:  many employers that provide benefits to employees’ domestic partners and/or same sex spouses have followed a practice of grossing up the employees’ taxable compensation to account for the additional federal taxes they must pay on imputed income.  The IRS guidance on recouping over-withheld taxes apply only to imputed income amounts, not to the gross-up amounts.  “Normal” over-withholding correction procedures using Forms 941 and 941-X should apply to 2013 gross-up amounts but employers should consult their payroll and tax advisors for specific advice.  Note also that California recently adopted a law that will exclude gross-up amounts from employees’ taxable compensation for state personal income tax purposes.  AB 362 takes immediate effect and is slated to expire January 1, 2019.  You can find a fuller discussion of the measure here.

Leave a comment

Filed under Cafeteria Plans, Defense of Marriage Act, ERISA, Fringe Benefits, Payroll Issues, Registered Domestic Partner Benefits, Same-Sex Marriage, U.S. v. Windsor