Tuesday, August 18, 2015

Assembly LineRecently, the IRS issued Notice 2015-52 requesting additional input on the yet-to-be-proposed Cadillac Tax rules.  For those unaware, the Cadillac Tax imposes a 40%, non-deductible excise tax on the cost of health coverage that is over a certain threshold.  This deceptively simple description does not begin to uncover the myriad of potential issues, such as…

Who pays the tax?

Well, the “coverage provider” pays the tax.  For insured plans, that’s easy: it’s the insurer.  For HSAs or Archer MSAs, it’s the employer.  But what about a self-funded plan?  The statute says it’s the “person that administers the plan benefits.”  That phrase is undefined in the statute or really anywhere else.

The IRS is looking at two possible approaches for defining this term.  One is to look at a self-funded plan’s third party administrator/ASO provider.  That sounds easy, until you remember that many plans have carved out pharmacy benefit management with a separate provider or have otherwise divided up the administration.  Regardless, this tax is still getting passed back through to employers anyway.

The second approach is looking at the person with ultimate authority for the plan administration (the relatively pithy ERISA name for this person is the “plan administrator”).  Of course, sometimes the plan administrator is a committee of people and not really an individual or entity.  (I guess they could divide the tax among them?)  The IRS also says that it assumes this person could be easily identified from plan documents.  If the IRS takes this approach, it will be important to ensure that the plan administrator is adequately (and correctly) identified in applicable plan documents.

Who’s the employer?

For purposes of the Cadillac Tax, the usual controlled group rules apply.  Meaning that many parent-subsidiary companies and even companies with common owners are treated as one employer for purposes of the tax.  The IRS notes that this presents some challenges in the Cadillac Tax arena.

For example, the thresholds that apply for purposes of the tax may be adjusted based on age and gender or for certain high-risk professions.  Well, a conglomerate with several companies may have some companies in those high-risk professions, and others that are not.  Or what about the employer who is responsible for the tax?  Is that each company separately (like the “play or pay” mandate) or the group as a whole?

And what do you mean by “cost”?

The IRS did say that they anticipate that cost will be determined on a calendar year basis for all taxpayers, so at least that’s one question that’s (sort of) answered.

Note that employers (yes, employers) are required to determine the cost of the coverage, regardless of who the provider is.  The IRS does recognize that some time will be needed to process run-out claims after the end of the year for the employer to be able to calculate the cost of coverage.  However, the timing of the tax may influence how long of a run out period a plan is able to have.

Further, coverage providers are going to pass this tax back through, as we all know.  The tax itself is not deductible, so they are likely to pass through a gross-up amount as well.  In the notice, the IRS states that it currently thinks the excise tax reimbursement will be excluded from the cost of coverage.  That way, the tax reimbursement doesn’t create a pyramiding effect, causing the tax to increase.  However, the gross-up may not be excluded because the IRS views it as not easy to administer.  (Translation: we can’t audit everyone to make sure they aren’t cheating.)  Of course, not excluding the gross-up will create a pyramiding effect which will increase the Cadillac tax.  The IRS does propose a couple of ways the gross-up may be excluded in the Notice.

Note that the cost is actually determined on a monthly basis.  So what does this mean for FSAs, HRAs, or HSAs that receive a bulk contribution from the employer at the beginning of the year?  Or what if employees vary their contributions during the year? The IRS is considering applying contributions to those accounts ratably over the year to help smooth out the application of the tax.  Additionally, for FSAs, the IRS is proposing to exclude any unused employer flex credits that are forfeited at the end of the year.   As with other plans, however, this rule may limit run-out periods for health FSAs, depending on when the tax is paid.

Additionally, the IRS is proposing to treat the full amount of employee FSA contributions as the cost of coverage during a year, but only if the employer does not contribute to the FSA.  This would mean that if amounts were carried over from a prior year, they would not be included in the cost of coverage.  There is also a proposed alternative safe harbor where the employer does contribute to the FSA.

The IRS also anticipates that discriminatory payments under a self-funded health plan would also be included in the tax.

And the rest…

In the notice, the IRS proposed several alternatives for the age and gender adjustments to the Cadillac tax thresholds.

As noted above, employers are required to calculate the tax and then notify the coverage provider and the IRS of the tax.  The IRS requested comments on how this might work.  The IRS is also suggesting that the tax will be reported and paid on Form 720, which is the quarterly federal excise tax return.

By now, you might be getting the impression that the IRS has not spent enough time thinking about the tax up to this point.  The problem is that the statute, like so much of the ACA, does not fit neatly in the real world.  The IRS, to its credit, is trying to be realistic as it crams a square peg down a round exhaust pipe, and this results in many uncomfortable questions.  Comments in how best to cram are being accepted by the IRS until October 1, 2015.

Friday, August 14, 2015

When you were last pondering what creative name Congress will use on its next benefits-related bill (and, really, who does not do that in moments of abject despair, after a few glasses of wine, while bowling from time to time), […]

Monday, August 3, 2015

The Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor and Treasury (the “Agencies”) recently issued the latest set of final regulations that purport to provide an accommodation for certain entities with religious objections to the ACA’s requirement that non-grandfathered group health […]

Wednesday, July 29, 2015

Last week, at the Western Benefits Conference, IRS Commissioner of the Tax Exempt and Government Entities Division, Sunita B. Lough, addressed the conference minutes after the IRS released Ann. 2015-19, 2015-32 IRB.  This is the announcement reforming the determination letter […]

Tuesday, July 28, 2015

Today’s economy presents numerous challenges to community bank profitability—compressed net interest margins, increased regulation, and management teams fatigued by the crisis. In response to these obstacles, many boards of directors are exploring new ways to reduce expenses, retain qualified management […]

Monday, July 20, 2015

While pension plans as a whole are heading toward extinction, many employers haven’t been able to terminate their plans for a variety of reasons – including collective bargaining mandates and underfunding status which precludes termination.  Employers in this situation are […]

Monday, July 13, 2015

Two years after recognizing same-sex marriages for purposes of federal law, the U.S. Supreme Court has gone a step further, requiring that all states recognize same-sex marriages as valid if they were valid in the jurisdiction where they were performed.  […]

Thursday, July 9, 2015

Last week the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) proposed a new Rule 10D-1 that would direct national securities exchanges and associations to establish listing standards requiring companies to adopt, enforce and disclose policies to clawback excess incentive-based compensation from executive […]

Wednesday, July 8, 2015

The IRS has clarified its correction guidance recently to say that errors made in overpaying participants for their benefits can be cured by employer make-up contributions, rather than by pursuing participants and beneficiaries for the overpayments they have received. In […]

Monday, July 6, 2015

In Roger Miller’s 1964 hit by the above name, he tells the tale of “a man of means by no means,” a man just scraping to get by. While he may not have a phone, a pool, pets, or cigarettes […]