Somebody get me a (juris) doctor . . . increased IRS activity on healthcare reform

/in ,

by Kevin Selzer

You may be hearing from the IRS soon on penalties related to the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). 

We have seen increased ACA-related enforcement activity from the IRS, particularly with respect to taxes owed under the employer mandate (which requires large employers to provide group health coverage meeting certain requirements to full-time employees). In our experience, the employer mandate assessments often contain errors in calculating the penalty and/or originate from inadvertent mistakes made by the taxpayer on the Form 1094-C or Form 1095-C and can often be eliminated or reduced.

The IRS is also assessing penalties on large employers that fail to file ACA-related tax forms.  We recently helped a large employer obtain full abatement of a proposed penalty exceeding $200,000 for failure to file and transmit Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. In this case, we were able to show that the failure was due to reasonable cause and persuade the IRS to abate the entire penalty. If you receive proposed ACA-related taxes or penalties, please reach out to a member of the Holland & Hart Benefits Law Group.

Ch-ch-ch-changes . . . cafeteria plan change in status rules are sometimes surprisingly restrictive

/in , , ,

by Beth Nedrow

The IRS issued a ruling earlier this summer that serves as a reminder of how important it is to maintain the distinction between an election for health plan coverage and an election on how to pay for such coverage.

In practice, virtually all employees (and frankly, many employers) forget there is a distinction between electing coverage and electing how to pay for it. It is usually automatically assumed that when an employee elects medical coverage, they will pay for that coverage pre-tax under a Section 125 cafeteria plan. Indeed, IRS guidance and proposed regulations permit the employer to default an employee into paying for medical coverage pre-tax under a cafeteria plan. But if an employee makes this election (either affirmatively or by default), they may come to regret it, as demonstrated in the IRS Chief Counsel letter issued May 8, 2019.

Read more

Come together, right now . . . and join a MEP?

/in , , , , , ,

by Beth Nedrow

In late July, the Department of Labor released a rule allowing small businesses to more easily band together in a joint retirement plan. The idea is that a larger plan will have more leverage to obtain better pricing and better service from vendors. Equally important is the ability of employers to offload some or all of the responsibility for maintaining retirement plans.

The final rule alters the definition of “employer” in ERISA for purposes of who may establish and maintain an individual account defined contribution retirement plan. Under the new rule, a group or association, or a PEO (professional employer organization) can sponsor what the DOL refers to as a “MEP” – a “multiple employer plan.” The regulation is limited to “bona fide” groups, associations and PEOs – which means they must have a business purpose or other common connection, and not merely have the purpose of providing the retirement plan. In this way, the new rule mirrors the DOL’s regulations intended to expand the availability of association health plans (“AHPs”), which is currently stalled due to litigation.

Read more