Category Archives: Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties

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

Qualified Small Employer HRAs Face Steep Compliance Path

Co-authored by
Christine P. Roberts, Mullen & Henzell L.L.P and
Amy Evans of Colibri Insurance Services, Inc.

climbing

Passed in December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act backtracked in part on an abiding ACA principle – namely, that employers could not reimburse employees for their individual health insurance premiums through a “standalone” health reimbursement account (HRA) or employer payment plan (EPP).  Specifically, the Cures Act carves “Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements” or QSE HRAs — out from the ACA definition of group health plan subject to coverage mandates, permitting their adoption by eligible small employers, subject to a number of conditions.  The provisions are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2016.

The compliance path for QSE HRAs is steep enough that they may not be adopted by a significant number of eligible employers. Below we list the top five compliance hurdles that small employers will face:

1.   Requirement that no group health plan be maintained.

In order to be eligible to maintain a QSE HRA an employer must not have more than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents (measured over the preceding calendar year), and in addition it must not maintain any group health plan for employees.  Small businesses are more likely than not to offer some health coverage to employees, although eligibility may be limited as in a “management carve-out” arrangement.  Business owners may be reluctant to part with group coverage, such that QSE HRAs may have most appeal to small employers that never offered coverage at all.

2.  Confusion over impact on premium tax credits.

A significant amount of confusion exists as to whether QSE HRA benefits impact an employee’s eligibility for premium tax credits on a health exchange.  The confusion is natural as the applicable rules are quite confusing.  Fundamentally, if a QSE HRA benefit constitutes “affordable” coverage to an employee (which requires a fairly complicated calculation), then the employee will be disqualified from receiving premium tax credits.  If a QSE HRA is not affordable (that calculation again), then the QSE HRA benefit will reduce, dollar for dollar, the premium tax credit amount for which the employee qualified.  We have only statutory text at this point and regulations will no doubt provide more clarity, but small employers may still struggle to understand the interplay of these rules and may be even less equipped to assist employees with related questions.

3.  Annual notice requirement.

A small employer maintaining a QSE HRA must provide a written notice to each eligible employee 90 days before the beginning of the year that:

  • Sets forth the amount of permitted benefit, not to exceed annual dollar limits that are adjusted for inflation (currently $4,950 for individual and $10,000 for family coverage);
  • Instructs the employee to disclose the amount of their QSE HRA benefit when applying for premium tax credits on a health insurance exchange; and
  • Reminds the employee that, if he or she is not covered under minimum essential coverage (MEC) for any month a federal tax penalty may apply, and in addition contributions under the QSE HRA may be included in their taxable income. (The QSE HRA is not itself MEC.)

If compliance with the annual notice requirements under SEP and SIMPLE plans is any guide, small employers may find it difficult to consistently provide the required written notice. The Cures Act imposes a $50 per employee, per incident penalty for notice failures, up to $2,500 per person.  Penalty relief is available if the failure is demonstrated to have been due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

4.  Annual tax reporting duties.

Small employers must report the QSE HRA benefit amount on employees’ Forms W-2 as non-taxable income.   ACA tax reporting for providers of “minimum essential coverage” (MEC), namely, providing Form 1095-B to each eligible employee and transmitting  copies of all employee statements to the IRS under transmittal Form 1094-B  –would not appear to be required for sponsors of QSE HRAs, as MEC reporting will be done by the individual insurance carriers.  Clarity on this point would be welcome.

5.  Lack of financial incentive for benefit advisers.

Small employers will (reasonably) look to health insurance brokers for guidance and clarification on these complex issues. They will also need assistance with QSEHRA set-up, including shopping TPAs to compare services and fees, educating employees on enrollment and use, handling service issues during the year, and satisfying the annual notice requirement and annual tax reporting duties. Unfortunately, the benefit broker and adviser community has little financial incentive to recommend QSEHRAs, because commissions are based on a relatively low annual administrative fee and do not provide reasonable compensation for this work.  This in turn could result in low uptake by small employers.

1 Comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Benefit Plan Design, Health Reimbursement Accounts, Health Reimbursement Arrangements, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, PPACA, Premium Tax Credits, Qualified Small Employer HRAs

Webinar: Dept. of Labor 401(k) Audits – How Not to Get Selected (and How to Survive if You Do) UPDATED

 Y01VDYAX63Please join Christine Roberts and former DOL investigator David Kahn for a free, one-hour webinar on Wednesday, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM PDT which will provide tips on how to reduce the risk of audit, and how to survive an audit if one occurs. We will cover investigation triggers and issues that the DOL targets once an audit is underway. This no-charge webinar qualifies for continuing education credits for California CPAs and ASPPA. Join us for a webinar. Register now! https://lnkd.in/b-58niA

For those of you who missed the event, the PowerPoint and audio file are found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, DOL Audit, Fiduciary and Fee Issues, Fiduciary Issues, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, Profit Sharing Plan

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

ACA Reporting for Large Employers: Top 10 Rules for Success

Applicable Large Employers have approximately one month, until March 31, 2016,  to furnish Form 1095-C to full-time employees in relation to group health coverage offered (or not offered) in 2015.  Self-insured employers must also provide Form 1095-Cs to part-time employees who were covered under their plans in 2015.  Related IRS filing deadlines (transmittal Form 1094-C and attached Forms 1095-C) come later in the year, but the March 31, 2016 deadline to furnish employee statements is hard and final.  The attached PowerPoint presentation lists the Top 10 Rules for Success in completing Applicable Large Employer reporting, and includes bonus tips on opt-out payments, and increased ACA penalty amounts for 2015 and 2016.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Employer Shared Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Minimum Essential Coverage Reporting, Payroll Issues, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, PPACA, Self-Insured Group Health Plans

IRS Proposes Revisions to ACA Reporting for Health Reimbursement Arrangements

As addressed in our prior post, IRS Notice 2015-68, issued on September 17, 2015, describes and requests comments on a number of ACA reporting issues, including several that that the IRS and Treasury Department plan to address in amended or new proposed regulations. Among the points addressed is avoiding duplicate reporting for multiple sources of MEC provided to the same individual (“supplemental coverage”). The Notice describes the current rule for reporting supplemental coverage as “confusing” and outlines a more streamlined alternative. Examples in the Notice describe how it will apply to Health Reimbursement Arrangements (“HRAs”) that are offered together with group health coverage.  Note:  MEC reporting generally is not required for HRAs, but per recent informal comments by the IRS on a payroll industry conference call, applicable large employers (ALEs) may have to report on HRA coverage that constitutes MEC via Part III of IRS Form 1095-C, under some circumstances.

The proposed new anti-duplication rules, which will apply month-by-month and individual-by-individual, will provide that if an individual is covered by multiple MEC plans or programs provided by the same provider, reporting is required for only one of them. Under this proposed rule, if an individual is enrolled in a self-insured group health plan for a given month and also is takes part in an HRA sponsored by the same employer, the employer, again via Section III of Form 1095-C, is required to report only one type of coverage for that individual (which most likely would be the self-insured group health plan) for that month. If an employee is covered under both arrangements for some months of the year but is covered only under the HRA for other months (for instance, because he or she retires or otherwise drops coverage under the self-insured group health plan), the employer must report coverage under the HRA for those months when it was the only MEC provided.

Under the second proposed anti-duplication rule, reporting generally is not required for MEC for which an individual is eligible only if the individual is covered by other MEC for which MEC reporting is required, so long as the two types of coverage are sponsored by the same employer. This describes the typical “integrated” HRA setting, in which an employer offers an HRA only to employees and dependents who enroll in the employer’s group health plan.  In this setting, a self-insured employer can take advantage of the first anti-duplication rule, and need not report the HRA as MEC for months in which an employee is enrolled in both plans.  However, an employer that is an ALE and sponsors an insured plan may have a reporting duty.  An insured employer that is an ALE need not provide MEC reporting in relation to the HRA for those months in which the employees and dependents are enrolled in the insured plan. However, if an employee is enrolled in an employer’s HRA and in a spouse’s employer’s group health plan, the employee’s employer must provide MEC reporting for the HRA.  If the employee’s employer is an ALE the HRA reporting is done via Form 1095-C, Section III.  If the employee’s employer is not an ALE it is done by completing Forms 1095-B and 1094-B.  In other words, the duty to report MEC coverage provided to non-employees under an integrated HRA applies even to an employer that is not an “applicable large employer” and need not report offers of coverage on Forms 1095-C and 1094-C.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Health Care Reform, Health Reimbursement Arrangements, Minimum Essential Coverage Reporting, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, PPACA, Self-Insured Group Health Plans

ACA Reporting Update: New Procedures for Requesting Family Member SSNs

In Notice 2015-68, issued September 17, 2015, the IRS has modified the steps that must be followed by insurance carriers and self-insured employers to demonstrate a “reasonable effort” to obtain Social Security Numbers or other Tax Identification Numbers (collectively, TIN) for family members enrolled in Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC), and has requested public comment on further adjustments to the requirements. Pending future guidance, following the new procedures will entitle the reporting party to “reasonable cause” relief from penalties for late or incomplete tax returns and employee statements.

Internal Revenue Code § 6055 requires that, among other information, TINs for individuals who are enrolled in MEC be reported by MEC providers. Insurance carriers (issuers) report to insureds via IRS Form 1095-B and self-insured employers report to full-time employees on Section III of IRS Form 1095-C. (Forms 1095-B and 1095-C are transmitted to the IRS under Forms 1094-B and 1094-C, respectively. The IRS issued final 2015 versions of these forms, and instructions for same, also on September 17, 2015.) If the reporting party follows the “reasonable effort” steps to obtain a family member SSN/TIN without success, it may report a date of birth for that individual on the applicable form without penalty.

The new steps required to be followed in order to demonstrate that a reasonable effort has been made to obtain an enrolled family member’s SSN/TIN are as follows:

  1. The initial request is made at the time the individual first enrolls or, if the person is already enrolled on September 17, 2015, the next open enrollment period;
  2. The second request is made at “a reasonable time thereafter” and
  3. The third request is made by December 31 of the year following the initial request.

This sequence replaces the sequence described in the preamble to final regulations under Code § 6055: initial request made when an account is opened or a relationship established, first annual request made by December 31 of the same year (or, if the initial request was made in December, by January 31 of the following year), and second annual request made by December 31 of the following year. The Notice states that that this sequence, which was lifted directly from regulations under Code § 6724, the “reasonable cause” relief statute, prompted concerns among reporting parties that it was not practical in the context of MEC reporting.

Until further guidance, it remains the case that reporting a date of birth in one year does not eliminate the need to make the necessary follow-up requests as described in the Notice.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Employer Shared Responsibility, Minimum Essential Coverage Reporting, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, Self-Insured Group Health Plans