Flyboyjohn

I've been anticipating some employer wanting to do this and it's finally happened. Each employee will be required to pay 9.5% of their Box 1 wages as their share of the premium for the lowest cost minimum value coverage and the employer will pay the difference. I can't find a problem with this approach (other than the administrative challenges) and I suspect it won't violate the yet-to-be-released non-discrimination regs since it favors the lower paid employees. Anybody disagree?

Sorry if I wasn't clear. In response to your question about a business owner not offering coverage to any employees except herself: 1. She probably won't be able to buy a group policy covering just herself so her only option is to purchase (or have the company purchase or reimburse) an individual policy which possibly triggers the issues under 2013-54 and possibly invokes 4980D penalties. 2. If there's some way she's able to purchase a group policy and not offer it to any other employees then currently here's no 105(h) discrimination and no 4980D penalties since IRS hasn't issued regs. Did that help or just further muddy the waters?

The 4980D $100/day penalty is already in effect for plans that violate the Notice 2013-54 "no reimbursement of premiums" position that such programs violate a couple of mandated reforms. The expansion of 105(h) non-discrimination rules to encompass fully insured plans is what's been delayed until IRS issues regs.

All of the major payroll companies and payroll software providers are developing ACA compliance and 1094-C and 1095-C form preparation programs integrated with their payroll and W-2 preparation programs. I don't know if anyone is developing free-standing software independent of payroll but since the ACA reporting only applies to 4% of employers I suspect there's not a large enough market to attract substantial interest.

Looking for a plan document provider who has developed an automatic-enrollment health plan document and forms package, thanks

Disgruntled employee reports employer to DOL for late deposit of what employee thinks are 401k deferrals but are actually SIMPLE IRA deferrals. DOL is seeking explanations, if we prove to them it's a SIMPLE IRA do they lose jurisdiction and go away?

My opinion- no trust ever, creates unnecessary complexities, liability and expense (CPA audit). Only possible exception- if significant pre-funding of deductible contributions desired (subject to 419 limitations). Scary thing I see too often is unfunded health plans (no trust) filing a Schedule H to report the "plan" bank account and paying a CPA to "audit" the bank account.

Original guidance was a one-time special deal for enrollment for 2014 during initial open enrollment 10/1/2013-3/31/14. Latest guidance now makes it a "permanent" option to exit the cafeteria plan mid-year for the stated purpose of enrolling in Marketplace coverage.

Thanks, checked the VA statute and the effective date of the change in the definition of small group is 1/1/2016 in accordance with ACA.

Thanks for pointing out the VA statute referencing a 30 hour definition but I notice that it only applies to small group policies. There's at least 1 major VA carrier that is allowing small groups to set whatever eligibility requirements they want (including defining "full-time" at 40 hours).

Sorry I've let this thread go in an unintended direction, I'm going to start a new thread focused on the concern I have, thanks

Fortunately in Virginia we're not burdened with such a state law.

If employer says "I'll contribute $300/month/employee towards the small group age banded premium" won't that violate the ADEA regs which say it's OK to require all employees to pay the same percentage of their actual premium but a violation to charge older folks a higher dollar amount?

Wanted to reopen this discussion to see if anybody had seen anything new in the past 2 1/2 months in the way of official guidance or authoritative commentary on the issue, thanks.

Concur with jpod, the 30/hours/week issue arises only under the 4980H employer mandate and is NOT a "health insurance reform" requirement (although some carriers seem to be trying to make it a condition of their underwriting of the contract).

Yes if you treat them as earned income subject to SE tax, otherwise no. If you're "in the business" of being an executor then they're subject to SE, if you're an executor for a relative or friend the fees are taxable but not subject to SE tax. See the IRS publication for Executors.

Yes, it's an employee benefit plan irrespective of whether the employees have to contribute. Bigger issue is what do you do now since it appears the "problem" stopped for some reason in 2011.

How does the ownership of the entities impact how the insurance company assesses its risk and determines the premiums? I'm not seeing where the level of common ownership would or should have any bearing on how the insurer underwrites the group.

The opinions expressed in this 2006 post seem to conclude that: 1. A foreign company (no US presence) that employs US citizens in the foreign country can establish a 401a qualified plan for the benefit of it's US citizen employees (that is, the plan sponsor is not required to have a US presence), so long as 2. The plan trust is a domestic trust (which probably only means that the Trustee is a US citizen or institution). My questions: 1. Has anything changed in this area since 2006 or does anyone have differing opinions? 2. If we use a US institutional Trustee (say for example Capital Bank & Trust)have we met the "domestic trust" requirement? 3. If the US citizen employees' earned income is fully sheltered from US tax by the foreign income exclusion it would seem they should only make Roth deferrals and probably elect to convert any employer contributions to Roth? Thanks

Playing devils advocate I would argue that to have a MEWA requires a single "plan" that covers unrelated employers and what you really have here are 2 "plans" that are sharing a single insurance contract. I'm betting you don't have ERISA plan documents and maybe your solution is to create 2 plan documents.

Non-calendar premium-conversion-only cafeteria plan wants to change to calendar year to accomodate employees wanting to go on Medicare during Medicare open enrollment (I realize Notice 2014-55 is a solution for employees wanting to go on Marketplace coverage). Is creating a short cafeteria plan year routine or are there land mines I need to worry about?

Since employer contributions pursuant to a SEP arrangement go directly into "regular" or traditional IRAs this mistake by the broker in classifying the contribution is of no consequence. Fine to get the broker to reclassify but doesn't impact the tax treatment.

Intuitively I think not but can't put my hands on a cite. Thanks

I think the new Form 1095-C goes hand in hand with the W-2 (in fact the IRS seriously considered adding the new reporting to the W-2) so my opinion is that whoever prepares, distributes and files the W-2s will "naturally" be doing the same for the 1095-C. If any payroll or payroll software companies don't add 1095-C services they're likely to be out of business in short order. Where there will be a need for a third party 1095-C service provider will be: 1. Where the payroll company wants to charge an outrageous amount 2. Where the payroll company (Paychex) won't provide ACA compliance services unless they take over the broker/commissions on the health insurance 3. Where the employer has multiple payrolls on different systems 4. Where the employer changes payroll vendor mid-year I've only found one company so far that is offering a third party service but I'm sure more will be springing up.

It certainly should be the payroll and payroll software companies and I believe they're all furiously working on software enhancements to accomodate the hours tracking methodology adopted by the Applicable Large Employer. Developing a compliance system outside of the payroll system would be a monumental task and I've only come across one vendor so far who's tackled it, interested to know of any others since I'm of the belief all large employers are going to need it (preferably by 1/1/2015 but most likely backfilled a year or more from now when they wake up to the need.) Fees? Aim high!