Category Archives: Health Care Reform

You Just Formed a New Business Entity. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

What if a somewhat arcane area of tax law had potentially serious ramifications for attorneys and other tax advisors across a broad range of practices, but was not consistently identified and planned for in actual practice? That is an accurate description of the rules surrounding “controlled group” status between two or more businesses, which I have seen arise in business formation/transactions, estate planning, employment and family law settings.  The purpose of this overview is to briefly survey controlled group rules for non-ERISA practitioners, so that they can become aware of the potential complications that controlled group rules can create.

  1. Why Do Controlled Groups Matter?

The main reason they matter is because the IRS treats separate businesses within a controlled group as a single employer for almost all retirement and health benefit plan purposes. In fact, annual reporting for retirement plans (and for health and welfare plans with 100 or more participants) requires a statement under penalty of perjury as to whether the employer is part of a controlled group.  Therefore controlled groups are most frequently a concern where business entities have employees and particularly when they sponsor benefit plans, whether retirement/401(k), or health and welfare plans.  Note, however, that creation of a business entity that has no employees can still create a controlled group issue when it acts as a conduit to link ownership of two or more other entities that do have employees.

Being part of a controlled group does not always mean that all employees of the member companies have to participate in the same benefit plan (although it can sometimes mean that). However it generally means that separately maintained retirement plans have to perform nondiscrimination testing as if they were combined, which not infrequently means that one or more of the plans will fail nondiscrimination testing.  This is an event that usually requires the employer sponsoring the plan to add more money to the plan on behalf of some of the additional counted employees, or to pay penalty taxes in relation to same.  Similar complications can arise in Section 125 cafeteria or “flexible benefit plans,” and for self-insured group health plans, which are subject to nondiscrimination requirements under Code § 105(h).  Nondiscrimination rules are meant to apply to insured group health plans under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), so additional complications could arise in that context when and if the rules are enforced by the IRS, following publication of regulatory guidance.

Controlled group status can also mean that several small employers together comprise an “applicable large employer” subject to the ACA “pay or play rules,” and related annual IRS reporting duties. Small employer exceptions under other laws, including COBRA and the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, reference controlled group status when determining eligibility for the exception.

  1. How Do I Identify a Controlled Group?

 Determining controlled group status requires synthesizing regulations and other guidance across multiple Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) provisions and therefore is a task for a specialized ERISA or tax practitioner.  What follows are very simplified definitions aimed at helping advisors outside that specialized area flag potential controlled group issues for further analysis.

Strictly speaking, the term “controlled group” refers to shared ownership of two or more corporations, but this article uses the term generically as it is the more familiar term.  “Ownership” in this context means possession of the voting power or value of corporate stock (or a combination thereof).  Shared ownership among other types of business entities is described as “a group of trades or businesses under ‘common control.’”  Ownership in this context refers to ownership of a capital or profits interest in a partnership or LLC taxed as a partnership.   Controlled groups can also arise in relation to tax-exempt entities, for instance if they own 80% or more of a for-profit entity, or even between two tax-exempt entities where there is substantial overlap of board membership or board control.

Complex interest exclusion rules mean that not all ownership interests are counted towards common control; exclusion may turn on the nature of the interest held (e.g., treasury or non-voting preferred stock) or on the party holding the ownership interest (e.g, the trust of a tax-qualified retirement plan).

The two main sub-types of controlled group are: parent-subsidiary, and “brother-sister,” although a combination of the two may also exist.  A parent-subsidiary controlled group exists when one business owns 80% or more of another business, or where there is a chain of such ownership relationships. As that is a fairly straightforward test, I will focus on the lesser known, but more prevalent, brother-sister type of controlled group.

A brother-sister controlled group exists when the same five or fewer individuals, trusts, or estates (the “brother-sister” group) have a “controlling interest” in, and “effective control” of, two or more businesses.

  • A controlling interest exists when the brother-sister group members own, or are deemed to own under rules of attribution, at least 80% of each of the businesses in question.
  • Effective control exists when the brother-sister group owns or is deemed to own greater than 50% of the businesses in question, looking only at each member’s “lowest common denominator” ownership interest. (So, a group member that owed 20% of one business and 40% of another business would be credited only with 20% in the effective control test.)
  • In order to pass the 80% test, you must use the interests of the same five or fewer persons (or trusts or estates) used for purposes of the greater than 50% test.  See US v. Vogel Fertilizer, 455 US 16 (1982). Put otherwise, the two tests consider only owners with a greater-than-zero interest in each of the businesses under consideration. If, under this rule, you disregard shares adding up to more than 20% of a business, the 80% test won’t be met and that business generally won’t form part of the controlled group. (Although the remaining businesses may do so.)

The controlled group attribution rules are quite complex and can only be touched on here. Very generally speaking, an ownership interest may be attributed from a business entity to the entity’s owner, from trusts to trust beneficiaries (and to grantors of “grantor” trusts as defined under Code § 671-678), and among family members. Stock options can also create attributed ownership under some circumstances.  The attribution rules can have surprising consequences. For instance, a couple, each with his or her wholly-owned corporation, will be a controlled group if they have a child under age 21 together, regardless of their marital status, because the minor child is attributed with 100% of each parent’s interests under Code §1563(e)(6)(A).  Community property rights may also give rise to controlled group status. Careful pre-marital planning may be necessary to prevent unintended controlled group status among businesses owned separately by the partners to the marriage.

This is the first part of a two-part discussion that was first published as an article in the Santa Barbara Lawyer Magazine for October 2017.  The second half will address a variation of these rules that are specific to businesses formed by doctors, dentists, accountants, and other service providers.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, ADP and ACP Testing, Affordable Care Act, Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Common Control Issues, Employer Shared Responsibility, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Nondiscrimination Rules for Insured Health Plans, Nondiscrimination Testing for Qualified Retirement Plans, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties

ACA Cheat Sheet for 2017 & 2018

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that Republicans would abandon efforts to pass ACA repeal and replace legislation, namely the much-amended American Health Care Act of 2017, and on September 30, 2017 their chance to pass any other version of repeal and replace this year as a budget reconciliation measure, requiring only 51 votes, also expires.  For the remainder of 2017, then, applicable large employers and their brokers and advisers should refresh their familiarity with employer shared responsibility rules under the ACA.  Below is a cheat sheet with affordability safe harbor thresholds, applicable large employer penalty tax amounts, and out-of-pocket maximums for 2017 and for fast-approaching 2018.  Sources are Revenue Procedures 2016-24 and 2017-36, and the Final Rule on Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2017 and 2018.

Capture2018aca

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, American Health Care Act, Employer Shared Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Post-Election ACA, PPACA

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

5 Things California Employers Should Know About the Current State of Health Care Reform

by Amy Evans, HIP, President, Colibri Insurance Services and Christine P. Roberts, Mullen & Henzell L.L.P.

There is still a lot of debate going on at the federal and state levels about health care reform. In Washington, D.C., the Senate is working on a second round of revisions to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), but there is lack of alignment within the Republican party about the new plan, and the current administration is now occupied by other items. At the state level, a Senate bill proposing a state-wide single-payer health care system is making its way through the legislature and generating a lot of conversation about a complete overhaul of health care financing and delivery. With all of the uncertainty and political noise, it can be difficult for employers to know where to put their attention and resources. Here are five things California employers should know about the current state of health care reform.

1) California is leading the discussion about single-payer. California Senate Bill 562 is currently making its way through the state legislation. If enacted, SB 562 would eliminate the private health insurance system in California, including health insurance carriers, health insurance brokers and employer-sponsored health insurance benefits. It would replace them with a state-run, “single-payer” system called the Healthy California program, which would be governed by a 9-member executive board, and guided by a 22-member public advisory committee. At this juncture, funding measures for the bill are vague but include appropriation of existing federal funding for Medicare, Medi-Cal, CHIP and other health benefits provided to California residents, as well as an increase in payroll taxes. The estimated cost for this system is $400 billion annually, which is twice the size of the current budget for the entire state. SB 562 is widely popular in concept but also widely misunderstood, with many confusing it for a universal coverage system that would be supplemented by private and employer-sponsored coverage. The bill is currently in suspense with the Appropriations Committee in Sacramento. The committee chair (who is also the author of the bill) may wait for the results of a detailed study on the bill’s cost and impact, or he may choose to send it to the Senate for a vote. If the bill makes it through the Senate and the Assembly (which it is likely to do because it is such a popular concept), it is anticipated that it will be vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, who has already expressed concerns about the bill’s financing. Alternatively, the legislature could vote on the bill and then table it until a new governor takes office in 2018. Either way, the bill would become a ballot measure to be approved by voters. Progress of the American Health Care Act in Washington, D.C. will impact SB 562 because the state bill would make use of state innovation waivers, which are slated to expand under the AHCA, but federal retooling of health care reform won’t impede SB 562’s progress to the Governor’s desk. Employers who offer health insurance as a benefit to attract and retain quality employees should be aware of the meaning and impact of this single-payer bill and should continue to track its progress.

 2) “Play or Pay” is still in play. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s “play or pay” penalties are still in place, so Applicable Large Employers are required to offer affordable, minimum value health insurance to eligible employees or pay a penalty. The current administration has suggested that they will reduce the penalties to $0 retroactive to 2016, but that has not happened yet. The 1094/1095 reporting requirements also remain in place. There has been some recent talk that penalty notices for 2015 and 2016 may be going out soon, perhaps first to the employers who have the largest penalty assessments.†  However, the Internal Revenue Service is also significantly understaffed so the availability of resources to enforce these penalties remains in doubt. Applicable Large Employers should continue to assess their play or pay options, track employee hours and offers of coverage, and complete 1094/1095 reporting for 2017. They should also address any penalty notifications from the IRS in a timely manner.

3) If there are no penalties, revenue has to come from another source. The extremely unpopular revenue-generating pieces of the ACA, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and the Cadillac Tax (currently delayed to 2020) are likely to be cut from the new AHCA, but that would create a shortfall in revenue that would need to made up elsewhere. The employer exclusion is a popular target in current discussions – this is the tax benefit that allows employer contributions to health insurance to be considered separate from employee income. If the employer exclusion is capped or eliminated, it will effectively increase taxes on the approximately 50% of U.S. residents who receive health insurance through their employers, and deliver a huge blow to the employer-sponsored health insurance system. Employers who offer health insurance as a benefit to attract and retain quality employees should be aware of the meaning and impact of capping or eliminating the employer exclusion.

4) 2018 Health insurance renewals will be business as usual. Insurance carriers filed their health insurance plan designs and rates with the regulatory agencies (Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health Care) for 2018, so any substantive changes to plans (for example, removing Essential Health Benefits) won’t happen until 2019. For employers offering coverage, this means business as usual for 2018 health insurance renewals. Expect increases to premiums to average 10-15%. Also expect lots of plan changes – some plans may be discontinued and participants will be mapped to new plans; benefits many change even if plan names remain the same; carriers may reduce networks and pharmacy benefits and increase deductibles and out of pocket maximums to keep premiums in check.

5) Cost-containment tools are gaining in popularity. As out of pocket costs continue to increase for health insurance participants, we will continue to see a move towards consumer-driven health care, where participants are encouraged to be more involved in the spending of their health care dollars. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are growing in popularity again, carriers are providing tools to promote transparency for comparison shopping, and alternative delivery systems like telehealth, nurse on call, minute clinics, free-standing urgent care centers, and even flat-fee house calls are gaining in popularity. Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), self-funding arrangements and cash-benefit policies can also be effective tools for cost containment. Employers should work with their health insurance brokers and other benefit advisers to assess the value of these tools in their current employee benefits programs.

In closing, employer-provided health benefits rest on shifting legal sands and that is likely to remain the case for some time.   Planning opportunities, and pitfalls, will arise as the reform process moves forward and the informed employer will be in the best position to navigate the changes ahead.

†Hat tip to Ryan Moulder, Lead Counsel at Accord-ACA for this detail.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, American Health Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, California Insurance Laws, California SB 562, Employer Shared Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Post-Election ACA, Single Payer Health Systems

Untangling ACA Opt-Out Payment Rules

cable-584498_960_720

As group health coverage premiums soar ever higher, it has become increasingly popular for employers to offer employees cash in exchange for their opting out of group coverage. When the cash opt-out payments are provided outside of a Section 125 cafeteria plan, they may have the unintended consequence of reducing the affordability of employer group health coverage, because the IRS views the cash opt-out payment as compensation that the employee effectively forfeits by enrolling in coverage.[1]  Unaffordable coverage may entitle the employee to premium tax credits under IRC § 36, and may also exempt the employee from individual mandate duties under IRC § 5000A.  This post focuses on the impact of opt-out payments on “applicable large employers” subject to employer shared responsibility duties under the ACA.  For such employers, reduced affordability of coverage will impact how offers of coverage are reported under ACA reporting rules (IRC § 6056) and could trigger excise tax payments under IRC § 4980H(b).

By way of background, the IRS addressed opt-out payments last year in the form of Notice 2015-87, concluding that a “conditional” opt-out payment – one that requires that the employee meet a criterion in addition to declining employer group coverage, such as showing proof of other group coverage – would not affect affordability. The Notice also offered transition relief for unconditional offers (paid simply for declining employer coverage) that were in place as of December 16, 2015, the date the Notice was published.  Unconditional opt-out arrangements adopted after December 16, 2015 do impact affordability.

Subsequently, in July 2016, the IRS addressed the affordability issue in proposed regulations under IRC § 36, governing individuals’ eligibility for premium tax credits. The proposed regulations refer to “eligible” opt-out arrangements rather than conditional ones.  An eligible opt-out payment  is one under which an employee’s right to receive payment is conditioned on the employee providing reasonable evidence that the employee and all his or her dependents (the employee’s “expected tax family”) have or will have minimum essential coverage other than individual coverage (whether purchased on or off the health exchange/Marketplace).  Reasonable evidence may include the employee’s attestation to the fact of other coverage, or provision of proof of coverage, but in any event the opt-out payment cannot be made if employer knows or has reason to know that the employee/dependents does not have or will not have alternative coverage.  Evidence of the alternative coverage must be provided no less frequently than every plan year, and no earlier than the open enrollment period for the plan year involved.

The proposed regulations are expected to be finalized this year and thus the “eligible opt-out arrangement” rules likely will apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017.   In the meantime, the following provides guidance to applicable large employers on conditional and unconditional opt-out payments for purposes of 2016 ACA compliance, and ACA reporting due to be furnished to employees and filed with the IRS early in 2017:

Unconditional opt-out arrangement: opt-out payments increase employee contributions for purposes of the “affordability” safe harbor, and should be added to line 15 of Form 1095-C, unless the arrangement was already in effect on December 16, 2015.  “In effect” for these purposes means that (i) the employer offered the arrangement (or a substantially similar arrangement) for a plan year that includes December 16, 2015; (ii) the employer’s board of directors or authorized officer specifically adopted the arrangement before December 16, 2015; or (iii) the employer communicated to employees in writing, on or before December 16, 2015, that it would offer the arrangement to employees at some time in the future.

Conditional opt-out arrangement: opt-out payments do not increase employee contributions whether or not the condition is met.  Do not include the opt-out payment in line 15 of Form 1095-C.

Opt-out arrangement under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA): if the CBA was in effect before December 16, 2015, treat as a conditional opt-out arrangement, as above, and do not include in line 15 of Form 1095-C.

Medicare Secondary Payer Act/TRICARE Implications: An applicable large employer for ACA purposes will also be subject to provisions of the Medicare Secondary Payer Act (MSPA) that prohibit offering financial incentives to Medicare-eligible employees (and persons married to Medicare-eligible employees) in exchange for dropping or declining private group health coverage[2]. In the official Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP) Manual, the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) takes the position that a financial incentive is prohibited even if it is offered to all individuals who are eligible for coverage under a private group health plan, not just those who are Medicare-eligible. Traditionally the CMS has not actively enforced this rule, and has focused on incentives directed at Medicare-eligible populations. However, there are reports that the CMS may be retreating from its unofficial non-enforcement position with respect to opt-out payments. At stake is a potential civil monetary penalty of up to $5,000 for each violation. As a consequence, MSPA-covered employers with Medicare-eligible employees, or employees who are married to Medicare-eligible persons, should not put an opt-out arrangement in place, or continue an existing one, without first checking with their benefits attorney. Finally, please note that there are similar prohibitions on financial incentives to drop military coverage under TRICARE. TRICARE is administered by the Department of Defense, but along the same principles as apply to MSPA.

Note:   This post was published on October 6, 2016 by Employee Benefit Adviser.

[1] Note: employer flex contributions to a cafeteria plan reduce affordability unless they are “health flex contributions,” meaning that (i) the employee cannot elect to receive the contribution in cash; and (ii) the employee may use the amount only to pay for health-related expenses, whether premiums for minimum essential coverage or for medical expense reimbursements permitted under Code § 213, and not for dependent care expenses or other non-health cafeteria plan options. See IRS Notice 2015-87, Q&A 8.

 

[2] An employer is covered by the MSPA if it employs 20 or more employees for each working day in at least 20 weeks in either the current or the preceding calendar year.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2 Comments

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, Employer Shared Responsibility, Flex Plans, Health Care Reform, PPACA

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

Exchange Subsidy Notices: Prelude to ACA Tax Assessments

After a one-year delay, the federally-facilitated exchange (www.healthcare.gov) has begun mailing Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) notices listing employees who qualified for and received advance payment of premium tax credits or cost sharing reductions (collectively, “exchange subsidies”) for one or more months to date in 2016.  There is a model federal subsidy notice; state-facilitated health exchanges may use their own subsidy notices. In 2016, the notices will go to mailing addresses that employees supplied while enrolling on an exchange and hence may include worksite addresses rather than an employer’s administrative headquarters.  For that reason, ALEs should track all work locations for receipt of the exchange notices.

Each notice will identify one or more employees who received subsidies in 2016, and if the names include those of full-time employees who were offered affordable, minimum value or higher coverage (or enrolled in coverage, even if unaffordable) for the period involved, an appeal is appropriate and must be made within 90 days of the date on the exchange subsidy notice. This Employer Appeal Request Form may be used for http://www.healthcare.gov as well as the following state-based exchanges:  California, Colorado, D.C., Kentucky, Maryland, Massachusetts, New York and Vermont.  The appeals process is carried out via mail or fax this year but will eventually convert to a digital format.

Remember, these exchange subsidy notices are not themselves assessments of ACA penalty taxes which is a separate process carried out by IRS. And the IRS will assess ACA penalty taxes for 2015 without benefit of subsidy notices for that year.   However the subsidy notices now being released do provide a “heads up” regard to potential 2016 tax liability, and by filing an appeal an ALE can build the file it will need in the event of a later penalty tax assessment. Not only will a timely appeal document the fact that no ACA penalty tax should apply, it may also prevent the employee in question from later having to refund subsidy amounts to IRS, either through a reduced tax refund or with out-of-pocket funds.

In this regard, ALEs should keep in mind that coverage that is unaffordable for exchange purposes (i.e. entitles an individual to exchange subsidies) may be affordable for employer safe harbor/penalty assessment purposes (i.e., prevents assessment of an ACA employer penalty tax). They both use the same affordability percentage – 9.66% in 2016 – but apply it to different base amounts.  The exchanges look at the employee’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI), which may be higher than the employer’s safe harbor definition (for instance when the employee’s household includes other wage earners), or may be smaller than the employer’s safe harbor definition (for instance, when the employee has large student loan interest expenses and/or alimony payments, both of which are excluded from MAGI).  Thus there will be instances in which an employer bears no ACA penalty liability with regard to coverage that is unaffordable for exchange purposes. The appeals process will make available to an employer information as to whether an employee’s household income exceeded the affordability threshold for exchange subsidies, along with other data used to establish eligibility for exchange subsidies.  A flowchart of the exchange subsidy notice and appeals process follows:Flowchart for Handling Exchange Subsidy Notices

We do not yet have details on how the IRS will go about assessing ACA penalties on ALEs for 2015 and subsequent years, other than that employers will have an opportunity to contest a tax assessment. All the more reason to engage in the appeal process, where appropriate, with regard to subsidy notices.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Covered California, Employer Shared Responsibility, Federally Facilitated Exchange, Health Care Reform, Health Insurance Marketplace, Premium Tax Credits, State Exchange