GBurns

Apparently, the 9th DCA has ruled that assignment is allowable. The 5th DCA is expected to rule similarly. Here is an article discussing the issue with links to the cases: http://avym.com/obama-administration-advocates-network-providers-patients-federal-appeals-courts/?doing_wp_cron=1415290943.1787040233612060546875

Your Virginia Statute says 30 hours: http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+cod+38.2-3431

Mickey. I suggest that you get legal help You have many issues that seem to be misunderstood. You cannot issue W-2s to your contractor help. Your contractor help "cannot pay via their individual 1040's", although it is not clear what they are paying. You do not get profit on a W2..

johncpa. You insist that there are damages, but, can you provide any authority which supports your position?

Congratulations, Dave.

I agree but I cannot put my hands on a cite immediately. This is also one of the issues raised in the EEOC cases against Wellness programs.

While it is not a healthcare reform issue, almost every state insurance law for small groups/employers has a statutory requirement that is less than 40 hours. If this is a small employer who decides to go "self-funded", I suggest that they seek legal counsel because I think that both ERISA and FLSA have prohibitions that would seem to be violated by this distinction of "line" versus "office". ERISA 510 and FLSA 18C come to mind.

I do not understand your issue. There is no "otherwise available tax treatment " and it dos not matter whether "a corporation buys individual insurance rather than group insurance" if the covered person is a 2% or more shareholder in an S corp. It has long been, if not always been, that any amounts paid for health insurance for such individuals are treated and reported as income. The individual the takes a deduction on Schedule A of their 1040, if possible. Also see Masteff's post #5 above.

But, the question was about "Employer's Combined Marginal Tax Rate". As far as I know there is no such thing and rather than go into pointless speculation, I suggest that you ask the support people of the proposal system exactly what they mean.

I doubt that it would unless the plan has a clause incorporating and adopting such exchanges.

I suggest that you approach all plans and recommend the change. Edit: Check the deadline date, I think that Flyboyjohn is correct with 12/31/15.

I suggest that you look at: 1. Your state health insurance law. 2. ERISA especially section 510. 3. FLSA especially section 18C if the employee gets a subsidy by taking the Marketplace coverage. 4. ADA 5. EEOC. In short, you will have a major problem because you are interfering with the employee's right to participate in the plan/receive benefits and you are discriminating against the employee for a sickness etc.

The problem that I foresee with "insofar" is that if the Plan is operating under documents that are deficient enough to trigger "insofar" they probably would also trigger other fiduciary problems in addition to the Plan not being compliant. I have not heard of any cases, as yet.

That is why you have to make the distinction between a staffing firm and a PEO and never conflate the two.

I would get copies of the application and the Underwriting Guidelines in use by not only Aetna, but also BCBS. Those should be able to document the norm in the past. If there is a section 125 cafeteria plan involved, you might want to look at the issue of discrimination regarding the exclusion.

I think that this issue is now controlled by ACA. Under ACA which was adopted by Illinois, the standard for full-time is 30 hours. As for excluding hourly paid employees, I think that the potential for penalties should dictate legal advice.

I do not think that it would be regarded as being retiree only because it involves current employees. It is not normal, outside of the public sector, to pre-fund retiree health benefits, but to instead pay-as-you-go. However, those that do use either a 401(h) or a VEBA.

I see 2 thing that would concern me: 1. The requirements of ACA. 2. Illinois insurance statutes. Both of these require expert legal advice, which I do advise because Illinois has very poorly written laws. In the meantime< I suggest that you look at the statutes : http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs2.asp?ChapterID=22

Prompt payment laws are state insurance laws which would not usually apply to self funded plans, but there are a few states that do regulate some aspects self funded plans. I suggest that you both check your state law and also seek legal counsel.

It is both normal and common to have the plan year as non-calendar. However, the Medical FSA and DCFSA are still calendar year.

There is no tax related problem. When both spouses work for the same employer, which is quite common in the public sector, coverage is as available under the plan and coverage selections. The employee usually selects the coverage that is the most cost effective to them as a couple. It usually is cheaper to use EE+ Sp than to cover each individually.

I do not recall seeing that in the Regs and I am sure that the suggestion that the PEO could provide health coverage would have jumped out at me. Can you give a cite?

Section 162 pertains to the business operations only and have no bearing on the tax return of the individual. Also please read the above post by mastiff.

Where did you get it?

Try searching this link and also your own search of the site: http://www.ncsl.org/research/fiscal-policy/pension-and-retirement-information-resources.aspx