As we near closer to Thanksgiving, it’s safe to say we are in “late 2017” territory. Last week, the IRS issued new FAQ guidance informing employers that they can expect notice of any potential ACA employer mandate pay or play penalties in late 2017.
What Will the Letter Look Like?
The IRS recently posted a copy of the Letter 226J here: https://www.irs.gov/pub/notices/ltr226j.pdf
Letters Will Look Back to 2015
The ACA employer mandate pay or play rules first took effect in 2015. The IRS Letters 226J at issue will relate only to potential penalties in that first year, and therefore they will be relevant only to employers that were applicable large employers (ALEs) in 2015.
In general, an employer was an ALE in 2015 if it (along with any members in its controlled group) employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, on business days during the preceding calendar year (2014).
Note that a special 2015 transition rule provided that certain “mid-sized” employers between 50 and 100 full-time employees could have reported an exemption from potential pay or play penalties.
What Are the Potential 2015 Penalties?
a) §4980H(a)—The “A Penalty” aka No Coverage Offered
This is the big “sledge hammer” penalty for failure to offer coverage to substantially all full-time employees. In 2015, this standard required an offer of coverage to at least 70% of the ALE’s full-time employees. (For 2016 forward, this standard has been increased to 95%).
The 2015 A Penalty was $173.33/month ($2,080 annualized) multiplied by all full-time employees then reduced by the first 80 full-time employees (reduced by the first 30 full-time employees for 2016 forward). It was triggered by at least one full-time employee who was not offered group coverage enrolling in subsidized coverage on the Exchange.
The reduced 70% threshold for the 2015 penalty should be sufficient for virtually all ALEs in 2015 to avoid the A Penalty, provided they offered a group health plan with eligibility set at 30 hours per week or lower. It would be very unlikely for a surprise A Penalty to arise for 2015.
b) §4980H(b)—The “B Penalty” aka Coverage Not Affordable
This is the much smaller “tack hammer” penalty that will apply where the ALE is not subject to the A Penalty (i.e., the ALE offered coverage to at least 70% of full-time employees in 2015, or 95% thereafter). It applies for each full-time employee who was not offered coverage, offered unaffordable coverage, or offered coverage that did not provide minimum value and was enrolled in subsidized converge on the Exchange.
The 2015 B Penalty was $260/month ($3,120 annualized). Unlike the A Penalty, the B Penalty multiplier is only those full-time employees not offered coverage (or offered unaffordable or non-minimum value coverage) who actually enrolled in the Exchange. The multiple is not all full-time employees.
What Happened to My Section 1411 Certification?
In the vast majority of states, they never came!
In short, the 1411 Certification (typically referred to as Employer Exchange Notices) informs the employer that one or more of their employees have been conditionally approved for subsidies (the Advance Premium Tax Credit) to pay for coverage on the exchange.
One important purpose of the notice is it provides employers with the chance to contemporaneously challenge the employee’s subsidy approval. Near the time of the employee’s subsidy approval, the ALE can show that it made an offer of minimum essential coverage to the full-time employee that was affordable and provided minimum value.
In other words, the notices provide the ALE with the opportunity to prevent the employee from incorrectly receiving the subsidies, and the ALE from ever receiving the Letter 226J from the IRS (because all ACA pay or play penalties are triggered by a full-time employee’s subsidized Exchange enrollment).
CMS admitted in a September 2015 FAQ that they were not able to send the notices for 2015 for federal exchange enrollment (most state exchanges took the same approach), but the potential penalties will nonetheless still apply.
The result is that ALEs will for be receiving their first notice of potential 2015 penalties via IRS Letter 226J in “late 2017.”
How Does the IRS Determine Potential Penalties?
The 2015 ACA reporting via Forms 1094-C and 1095-C (as well as the employee’s subsidized exchange enrollment data for 2015) serve as the primary basis for the IRS determination.
What Do I Need to Do?
First of all, review the information carefully.
The first-year ACA reporting for 2015 was a particularly difficult one, and one in which the IRS provided extended deadlines and a good faith efforts standard. It is very possible that the numerous challenging systems issues that made the first-year (and, frankly, all subsequent years) ACA reporting so difficult resulted in certain inaccuracies on the 2015 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C.
Be sure to review any potential penalties carefully with your systems records to confirm the reporting was correct.
a) If You Agree with the Penalty Determination – You will complete and return a Form 14764 that is enclosed with the letter, and include full payment for the penalty amount assessed (or pay electronically via EFTPS).
b) If You Disagree with the Penalty Determination – The enclosed Form 14764 will also include a “ESRP Response” form to send to the IRS explaining the basis for your disagreement. You may include any documentation (e.g., employment or offer of coverage records) with the supporting statement.
The response statement will also need to include what changes the ALE would like to make to the Forms 1094-C and/or 1095-C on the enclosed “Employee PTC Listing,” which is a report of the subsidized Exchange enrollment for all of the ALE’s full-time employees. The Letter 226J includes specific instructions on completing this process.
The IRS will respond with a Letter 227 that acknowledges the ALE’s response to Letter 226J and describes any further actions the ALE may need to take. If you disagree with the Letter 227, you can request a “pre-assessment conference” with the IRS Office of Appeals within 30 days from the date of the Letter 227.
If the IRS determines at the end of the correspondence and/or conference that the ALE still owes a penalty, the IRS will issue Notice CP 220J. This is the notice and demand for payment, with a summary of the pay or play penalties due.
With the Republicans’ failure to pass a bill to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act (ACA), employers should plan to remain compliant with all ACA employee health coverage and annual notification and information reporting obligations.
Even so, advocates for easing the ACA’s financial and administrative burdens on employers are hopeful that at least a few of the reforms they’ve been seeking will resurface in the future, either in narrowly tailored stand-alone legislation or added to a bipartisan measure to stabilize the ACA’s public exchanges. Relief from regulatory agencies could also make life under the ACA less burdensome for employers.
“Looking ahead, lawmakers will likely pursue targeted modifications to the ACA, including some employer provisions,” said Chatrane Birbal, senior advisor for government relations at the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM). “Stand-alone legislative proposals have been introduced in previous Congresses, and sponsors of those proposals are gearing up to reintroduce bills in the coming weeks.”
These legislative measures, Birbal explained, are most likely to address the areas noted below.
(more…)
The Affordable Care Act created a three-year transitional reinsurance program that reimburses health insurers in the individual market (both inside and outside the Marketplace/Exchanges) for losses they sustain when they enroll individuals who are higher-cost claimants. Health insurers and group health plans must contribute to this program by paying fees over a three-year period. 2016 is the third and final year for which these fees will be assessed.
The submission required for this final year’s fees must be filed by November 15, 2016, using the same online process used for the two prior years (i.e., via www.pay.gov).
The fees are assessed on plans that provide major medical coverage. The fees are paid on a per-person basis for each “covered life” under the plan, including dependents. For 2016, the fees are $27 per covered life, with payments due in 2017.
The fees are determined based on the plan’s enrollment count during the first nine calendar months of the year, regardless of the plan’s actual plan year. Enrollment counts for the first nine months of 2016 must be submitted by November 15, 2016. The form that contributing entities are required to submit by this deadline must include the date(s) in 2017 that the payments will be made as one or two automatic debits from the entity’s designated bank account.
Plans that are self-insured and self-administered are not required to pay the fees for 2016. To be regarded as self-administered, self-insured plans must retain responsibility for claims processing, claims adjudication (including internal appeals) and enrollment. Exceptions permit a self-insured group health plan to use a third-party administrator (TPA) in limited circumstances, but still avoid paying the fee. Plan sponsors eligible for the self-administered exemption do not need to take any action to claim it. In other words, no filing or submission is required for 2016 fees.
The official online form that needs to be completed is called the 2016 ACA Transitional Reinsurance Program Annual Enrollment and Contributions Submission Form (the 2016 Form). It became available online on October 3, 2016. CMS has posted web-based materials to assist plan sponsors in completing the 2016 Form. Plan sponsors will have to count enrollment in the plan for the first nine months of 2016, using any permissible counting method. As was the case for 2015, if the plan sponsor is reporting for itself, there is no need to upload supporting documentation with the 2016 Form. Plan sponsors that relied upon a third-party administrator (TPA) to do the submission for 2015 and intend to do the same this year should contact their TPA immediately to make sure the TPA is prepared to handle this for 2016.
Plan sponsors that may be newly eligible for the exemption for self-insured, self-administered plans due to a change in their operations should work with legal counsel to determine if the exemption is applicable. Other plan sponsors should get ready to complete the submission process before the November 15, 2016 deadline. The transitional reinsurance fee cannot be extended by the federal government unless authorized by Congress.
The IRS has released final 1094 C and 1095 C forms for 2016 and has posted final instructions as well. The changes from the 2015 forms were minor. However, the instructions for completing the 1094 C and 1095 C forms for 2016 have changed significantly. The changes primarily were more extensive explanations on how to complete the forms.
The final forms and instruction can be found at:
As of now, a full cycle of reporting and penalty determinations has not yet been seen. The due dates for providing the forms and submitting them to the IRS were delayed for the 2015 forms. Employers may not see penalty determinations from the IRS for these forms.
The reporting requirements will affect applicable large employers (ALEs) every year. Employers should establish a process for populating the forms and submitting them to the IRS. If you are responsible for completing these forms, we recommend reviewing the final instructions to ensure understanding of the requirements for completing &submitting the forms.
The following summarizes key points from the 2016 final instructions:
The 2016 instructions are much clearer than the filing instructions from 2015.
The following summarizes key points from the final 2016 Form 1094 C:
The 1094 C has changed minimally for 2016.
The following summarizes key points from the final 2016 Form 1095 C:
A conditional coverage offer to a spouse does not include a spousal surcharge. It does include spousal force outs (spouse not offered coverage if coverage is available through spouse’s employer). Another conditional offer would be if you required spouses to enroll in their employers’ plan, before they could be eligible for your plan.
Employers should start addressing how they will handle reporting for 2016. If you are responsible for completing or checking the forms, read through the instructions. The final 2016 instructions explain more practically the reporting requirements. More examples are included as well.
If you are a self-funded plan and choose to use the B forms for specific non-employees, the B forms and instructions can be found at:
Both the 1095 B forms and the 1095 C forms have a VOID box in the upper right hand corner. Employers are instructed to never check the VOID box.
Both the 1095 B and 1095 C forms include instructions for taxpayers to retain the form with their tax records. It appears these forms will not have to be submitted with tax returns in 2017.
The good faith compliance standard will not apply in 2016 unless the IRS decides at a later date to extend it. In addition, the original deadlines will apply.
Employers should be gearing up now to complete the necessary forms for 2016.
On March 1, 2016, the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) announced the finalized 2017 health plan out-of-pocket (OOP) maximums. Applicable to non-grandfathered health plans, the OOP limits for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2017 are $7,150 for single coverage and $14,300 for family coverage, up from $6,850 single/$13,700 family in 2016. The OOP maximum includes the annual deductible and any in-network cost-sharing obligations members have after the deductible is met. Premiums, pre-authorization penalties, and OOP expenses associated with out-of-network benefits are not required to be included in the OOP maximums.
In addition to the new OOP maximum limits, employers offering high deductible health plans need to be particularly mindful of the embedded OOP maximum requirement. Beginning in 2016, all non-grandfathered health plans, whether self-funded or fully insured, must apply an embedded OOP maximum to each individual enrolled in family coverage if the plan’s family OOP maximum exceeds the ACA’s OOP limit for self-only coverage ($7,150 for 2017). The ACA-required embedded OOP maximum is a new and often confusing concept for employers offering a high deductible health plan (HDHP). Prior to ACA, HDHPs commonly imposed one overall family OOP limit on family coverage (called an aggregate OOP) without an underlying individual OOP maximum for each covered family member. Now, HDHPs must comply with the IRS deductible and OOP parameters for self-only and family coverage in addition to ACA’s OOP embedded single limit requirement.
The IRS is expected to announce the 2017 HDHP deductible and OOP limits in May 2016.
In a first-of-its-kind decision, a federal court recently upheld the right of employees to sue their employer for allegedly cutting employee hours to less than 30 hours per week to avoid offering health insurance under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Specifically, the District Court for the Southern District of New York denied a defense Motion to Dismiss in a case where a group of workers allege that Dave & Buster’s (a national restaurant and entertainment chain) “right-sized” its workforce for the purpose of avoiding healthcare costs.
Although this case is in the very early stages of litigation and is far from being decided, you should monitor this for developments to determine whether you need to take action to deter potential copycat lawsuits.
One of the initial concerns by ACA critics is that many employers would respond to the Employer Mandate by reducing full-time employee hours to avoid the coverage obligation and associated penalties, increasing the number of part-time workers in the national economy. This is because the ACA does not require an employer to offer affordable, minimum-value coverage to employees generally working less than 30 hours per week.
Although the initial economic data analyzing the national workforce suggests that the predictions of wide-scale reduction in employee hours have not materialized, some employers have increased their reliance on part-time employees as an ACA strategy to manage the costs of the Employer Mandate.
Section 510 of ERISA prohibits discrimination and retaliation against plan participants and beneficiaries with respect to their rights to benefits. More specifically, ERISA Section 510 prohibits employers from interfering “with the attainment of any right to which such participant may become entitled under the plan.” Because many employment decisions affect the right to present or future benefits, courts generally require that plaintiffs show specific employer intent to interfere with benefits if they want to successfully assert a cause of action under ERISA Section 510.
The court found that the class of plaintiffs showed sufficient evidence in support of their claim that their participation in the health insurance plan was discontinued because the employer acted with “unlawful purpose” in realigning its workforce to avoid ACA-related costs. In this regard, the employees claimed that the company held meetings during which managers explained that the ACA would cost millions of dollars, and that employee hours were being reduced to avoid that cost.
However, if you are considering reducing your employee hours, you should carefully consider how such reductions are communicated to your workforce. Employers often have varied reasons for reducing employee hours, and many of those reasons have legitimate business purposes. It is vital that any communications made to your employees about such reductions describe the underlying rationale with clarity.
You did it! Your 1095 forms are ready and going out to employees. Now what?
You guessed it: Employee confusion. You’re going to get some questions. If you’re the one in charge of providing the answers, remember a great offense is the best defense. You’ll want to answer the most common questions before they’re even asked.
We’ve put together a list of some basic things
employees will want to know, along with sample answers. Tailor these Q&As as
needed for your organization. and then send them out to employees using every channel you can (mail, e-mail, employee meetings, company
website, social media, posters). Tell employees how to get more detailed
information if they need it.
1. What is this form I’m receiving?
A 1095 form is a little bit like a W-2 form.
Your employer (and/or insurer) sends one copy to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS)
and one copy to you. A W-2 form reports your annual earnings. A 1095 form
reports your health care coverage throughout the year.
2. Who is sending it to me, when, and how?
Your employer and/or health insurance company should
send one to you either by mail or in person. They may send the form to you
electronically if you gave them permission to do so. You should receive it by
March 31, 2016. (Starting in 2017, you should receive it each year by January
31, just like your W-2.)
3. Why are you sending it to me?
The 1095 forms will show that you and your
family members either did or did not have health coverage with our organization during each month of
the past year. Because of the Affordable Care Act, every person must obtain
health insurance or pay a penalty to the IRS.
4. What am I supposed to do with this form?
Keep it for your tax records. You don’t actually
need this form in order to file your taxes, but when you do file, you’ll have to tell the IRS whether or not
you had health insurance for each month of 2015. The Form 1095-B or 1095-C
shows if you had health insurance through your employer. Since you don’t
actually need this form to file your taxes, you don’t have to wait to receive
it if you already know what months you did or didn’t have health insurance in
2015. When you do get the form, keep it with your other 2015 tax information in
case you should need it in the future to help prove you had health insurance.
5. What if I get more than one 1095 form?
Someone who had health insurance through more
than one employer during the year may receive a 1095-B or 1095-C from each
employer. Some employees may receive a Form 1095-A and/or 1095-B reporting
specific health coverage details. Just keep these—you do not need to send them
in with your 2015 taxes.
6. What if I did not get a Form 1095-B or a 1095-C?
If you believe you should have received one but
did not, contact the Benefits Department by phone or e-mail at this number or
address.
7. I have more questions—who do I contact?
Please contact _____ at ____. You can also go to
our (company) website and find more detailed questions and answers. An IRS website called
Questions and Answers about Health Care Information Forms for
Individuals (Forms 1095-A, 1095-B, and 1095-C)
covers most of what you need to know.
Many employers offer affordable health coverage that meets or exceeds the minimum value requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). However, if one or more of their full-time employees claims the coverage offered was not affordable, minimum value health coverage, the employee could (erroneously) get subsidized coverage on the public health exchange. This would cause problems for applicable large employers (ALEs), who potentially face employer shared responsibility penalties, and for employees, which may have to repay erroneous subsidies.
If an employee does receive subsidized coverage on the public exchange, most employers would want to know about it as soon as possible and appeal the subsidy decision if they believed they were offering affordable, minimum value coverage. There are two ways employers might be notified: (1) by the federally facilitated or state-based exchange or (2) by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS).
Employer notices from exchanges
The notices from the exchanges are intended to
be an early-warning system to employers. Ideally, the exchange would notify
employers when an employee receives an advance premium tax credit (APTC) subsidizing
coverage. The notice would occur shortly after the employee started receiving
subsidized coverage, and employers would have a chance to rectify the situation
before the tax year ends.
In a set of Frequently Asked Questions issued September 18, 2015, the Center for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) stated the federal exchanges will not notify employers about 2015 APTCs and will instead begin notifying some employers in 2016 about employees’ 2016 APTCs. The federal exchange employer notification program will not be fully implemented until sometime after 2016.
In 2016, the federal exchanges will only send APTC notices to some employers and will use the employer address given to the exchange by the employee at the time of application for insurance on the exchange. CCIIO realizes some employer notices will probably not reach their intended recipients. Going forward, the public exchanges will consider alternative ways of contacting employers.
Employers that do receive the notice have 90 days after receipt to send an appeal to the health insurance exchange.
Employers that do not receive early notice from the exchanges will not be able to address potential errors until after the tax year is over, when the IRS gets involved.
Employer notices from IRS
The IRS, which is responsible for assessing and
collecting shared responsibility payments from employers, will start notifying
employers in 2016 if they are potentially subject to shared responsibility
penalties for 2015. Likewise, the IRS will notify employers in 2017 of
potential penalties for 2016, after their employees’ individual tax returns
have been processed. Employers will have an opportunity to respond to the IRS
before the IRS actually assesses any ACA shared responsibility penalties.
Regarding assessment and collection of the employer shared responsibility payment, the IRS states on its website:
An employer will not be contacted by the IRS regarding an employer shared responsibility payment until after their employees’ individual income tax returns are due for that year—which would show any claims for the premium tax credit.
If, after the employer has had an opportunity to respond to the initial IRS contact, the IRS determines that an employer is liable for a payment, the IRS will send a notice and demand for payment to the employer. That notice will instruct the employer how to make the payment.
Bottom line
For 2015, and quite possibly for 2016 and future years, the
soonest an employer will hear it has an employee who received a subsidy on the
federal exchange will be when the IRS notifies the employer that the employer
is potentially liable for a shared responsibility payment for the prior year.
The employer will have an opportunity to respond to the IRS before any
assessment or notice and demand for payment is made. The “early-warning system”
of public exchanges notifying employers of employees’ APTCs in the year in
which they receive them is not yet fully operational.
In a 6-3 decision handed down June 25th by the U.S. Supreme Court, the IRS was authorized to issue regulations extending health insurance subsidies to coverage purchased through health insurance exchanges run by the federal government or a state (King v. Burwell, No. 14-114 ).
This means employers cannot avoid employer shared responsibility penalties under IRC section 4980H (“Code § 4980H”) with respect to an employee solely because the employee obtained subsidized exchange coverage in a state that has a health insurance exchange set up by the federal government instead of by the state. It also means that President Barack Obama’s 2010 health care reform law will not be unraveled by the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. The law’s requirements applicable to employers and group health plans continue to apply without change.
What Was the Case About?
IRC section 36B (“Code § 36B”), created by the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (“ACA”), provides that an individual who buys health insurance “through an Exchange established by the State under section 1311 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” (emphasis added) generally is entitled to subsidies unless the individual’s income is too high. Thus, the words of the statute conditioned one’s right to an exchange subsidy on one’s purchase of ACA coverage in a state run exchange.
Since 2014, an individual who fails to maintain health insurance for any month generally is subject to a tax penalty unless the individual can show that no affordable coverage was available. The law defines affordability for this purpose in such a way that, without a subsidy, health insurance would be unaffordable for most people.
The plaintiffs in King, residents of one of the 34 states that did not establish a state run health insurance exchange argued that if subsidies were not available to them, no health insurance coverage would be affordable for them and they would not be required to pay a penalty for failing to maintain health insurance. The IRS, however, made subsidized federal exchange coverage available to them similar to coverage in a state run exchange.
It is ACA § 1311 that established the funding and other incentives for “the States” to each establish a state-run exchange through which residents of the state could buy health insurance. Section 1311 also provides that the Secretary of the Treasury will appropriate funds to “make available to each State” and that the “State shall use amounts awarded for activities (including planning activities) related to establishing an American Health Benefit Exchange.” Section 1311 describes an “American Health Benefit Exchange” as follows:
Each State shall, not later than January 1, 2014, establish an American Health Benefit Exchange (referred to in this title as an “Exchange”) for the State that (A) facilitates the purchase of qualified health plans; (B) provides for the establishment of a Small Business Health Options Program and © meets [specific requirements enumerated].
An entirely separate section of the ACA provides for the establishment of a federally-run exchange for individuals to buy health insurance if they reside in a state that does not establish a 1311 exchange. That section – ACA § 1321 – withholds funding from a state that has failed to establish a 1311 exchange.
Notwithstanding the statutory language Congress used in the ACA (i.e., literally conditioning an individual’s eligibility subsidized exchange coverage on the purchase of health insurance through a state’s 1311 exchange), the Supreme Court determined that the language is ambiguous. Having found that the text is ambiguous, the Court stated that it must determine what Congress really meant by considering the language in context and with a view to the placement of the words in the overall statutory scheme.
When viewed in this context, the Court concluded that the plain language could not be what Congress actually meant, as such interpretation would destabilize the individual insurance market in those states with a federal exchange and likely create the “death spirals” the ACA was designed to avoid. The Court reasoned that Congress could not have intended to delegate to the IRS the authority to determine whether subsidies would be available only on state run exchanges because the issue is of such deep economic and political significance. The Court further noted that “had Congress wished to assign that question to an agency, it surely would have done so expressly” and “[i]t is especially unlikely that Congress would have delegated this decision to the IRS, which has no expertise in crafting health insurance policy of this sort.”
What Now?
Regardless of whether one agrees with the Supreme Court’s King decision, the decision prevents any practical purpose for further discussion about whether the IRS had authority to extend taxpayer subsidies to individuals who buy health insurance coverage on federal exchanges.
The ACA’s next major compliance requirements for employers: Employers with fifty or more fulltime and fulltime equivalent employees need to ensure that they are tracking hours of service and are otherwise prepared to meet the large employer reporting requirements for 2015 (due in early 2016) ). Employers of any size that sponsor self-funded group health plans need to ensure that they are prepared to meet the health plan reporting requirements for 2015 (also due in early 2016). All employers that sponsor group health plans also should be considering whether and to what extent the so-called Cadillac tax could apply beginning in 2018.
