HR Update: Pregnant Worker Accommodation Protections Addressed By U.S. Supreme Court

On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former employee of United Parcel Service (UPS) who was faced with the choice to either continue working her labor-intensive job during pregnancy or take unpaid leave. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the employee should be given the opportunity to prove that UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by not giving her the same light-duty accommodation that was given to other UPS employees who were considered injured or disabled.

The Supreme Court’s decision establishes a legal framework for this type of pregnancy discrimination case. Due to this ruling, it may be easier for employees to succeed on claims that their employers violated the PDA by failing to accommodate them. To help limit liability under the PDA, employers should review their employment practices and policies regarding accommodations to make sure pregnant workers are treated the same as other workers with similar restrictions.

Pregnancy Discrimination Act

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits a covered employer (15 or more employees) from discriminating against any individual with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual’s sex. In 1978, Congress added the PDA to Title VII. The PDA has two clauses:

• The first clause clarifies that Title VII’s prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
• The second clause requires that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition be treated the same for all employment-related purposes as “other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work.”

Factual Background

The employee, Peggy Young, worked as a part-time driver for UPS. When Young became pregnant in 2006, her doctor advised that she should not lift more than 20 pounds. UPS, however, required drivers like Young to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. When Young presented UPS with her doctor’s note, she was told that she could not work while under a lifting restriction. Young consequently stayed home without pay during most of the time she was pregnant and eventually lost her employee medical coverage.

Young sued UPS, alleging that her employer violated the PDA’s second clause because it had a light-duty policy for other types of workers, but not for pregnant workers.

Under its light-duty policy, UPS accommodated workers who were injured on the job, those suffering from disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and those who had lost their Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications. According to UPS, because Young did not fall within one of these three categories, it treated her the same as it would treat other relevant persons and therefore did not discriminate against her based on pregnancy.

Legal Decision

The district court granted UPS’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that those who Young compared herself to—those falling under the on-the-job, DOT and ADA categories—were not similarly situated groups of employees. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s decision.

The Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuit’s decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that Young created a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situations were similar to hers. Thus, the Supreme Court gave Young another chance to show that UPS violated the PDA when it failed to accommodate her light-duty request.

The Supreme Court also outlined the framework that applies in this type of disparate treatment case under the PDA. Under this framework, an individual alleging pregnancy discrimination may establish a case by showing that:

• She was pregnant at the relevant time;
• Her employer did not accommodate her; and
• Her employer did accommodate others who are similar only “in their ability or inability to work.”

According to the Supreme Court, this burden is “not onerous” for an employee. It also does not require the employee to show that she and the non-pregnant employees who were treated more favorably were similar in all non-protected ways.

The employer may justify its refusal to accommodate the employee by relying on a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. The employee may then in turn show that the employer’s justification is a pretext for discrimination. An employee may show pretext by providing sufficient evidence that the employer’s policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers and that the employer’s reasons are not strong enough to justify the burden. A significant factor that will help prove an employee’s case is if the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.

Impact of Decision

The Supreme Court’s decision in Young v. UPS is a victory for pregnant workers because it establishes an easier framework to prove illegal discrimination. However, many employers may have already changed their policies to allow light-duty accommodations for pregnant workers due to other recent legal developments.

• In 2008, Congress expanded the definition of “disability” under the ADA to make it clear that physical or mental impairments that substantially limit an individual’s ability to lift, stand or bend are ADA-covered disabilities. This expanded definition, as interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), requires employers to accommodate employees whose temporary lifting restrictions originate off the job.

In July 2014, the EEOC issued enforcement guidelines that cover employers’ light-duty policies for pregnant workers. According to these guidelines, if an employer provides light-duty assignments to any of its employees who are temporarily unable to perform their full duties, then similar accommodations should be made for pregnant employees who cannot perform their full duties. Although the Supreme Court decided not to take these guidelines into consideration in Young vs. UPS, employers may have reevaluated their accommodations policies based on this guidance.

Q1 2015 Benefits Bulletin: A Look Back, and Ahead

From CIBC of Illinois

IRS Invites Comments on Cadillac Tax Implementation

On Feb. 23, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-16 to describe potential approaches for a number of issues related to the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) so-called Cadillac tax. The IRS is seeking comments as it begins developing guidance for the implementation of the Cadillac tax. Public comments may be submitted to the IRS until May 15, 2015.

Proposed or final regulations have not yet been issued on the ACA’s Cadillac tax provision. This notice is intended to invite comment as guidelines are assembled, and taxpayers should not rely on the information provided in Notice 2015-16.

Cadillac Tax Overview

The Cadillac tax will go into effect beginning in 2018. This provision imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost group health coverage. The Cadillac tax is intended to encourage companies to choose lower-cost health plans for their employees.

The Cadillac tax provision is found in Internal Revenue Code Section 4980I. This provision taxes the amount of an employee’s “excess benefit.” The excess benefit is the amount by which the monthly cost of an employee’s employer-sponsored health coverage exceeds the annual limitation.

For 2018, the statutory dollar limits are:

• $10,200 per employee for self-only coverage; and
• $27,500 per employee for other-than-self-only coverage.

The tax amount for each employee’s coverage will be calculated by the employer and paid by the coverage provider.

The Cadillac tax applies to “applicable employer-sponsored coverage” (both insured and self-insured). Applicable employer-sponsored coverage is coverage under any group health plan made available to the employee by the employer, which is excludable from the employee’s gross income under Code Section 106.

Applicable coverage also includes health flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), on-site medical clinics, retiree coverage, multiemployer plans and coverage only for a specified disease or illness and hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance (if paid on a pretax basis or if a Section 162(l) deduction is allowed).

 

DOL Issues Final Rule to Expand FMLA Protections for Same-sex Spouses

The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a final rule that will expand rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for same-sex spouses. Under the final rule, eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages will be able to take FMLA leave in order to care for their spouses or family members, regardless of where they live.

The DOL’s new guidance is effective March 27, 2015, and it replaces guidance regarding FMLA protections for same-sex spouses that was issued following the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in United States v. Windsor.

The final rule changes the definition of “spouse” under the FMLA as follows:

Adopts a “place of celebration” rule (which is based on where the marriage was entered into), instead of the “state of residence” rule that applied under prior DOL guidance; and

• Expressly includes same-sex marriages in addition to common law marriages, and encompasses same-sex marriages entered into abroad that could have been entered into in at least one state.

This change will impact FMLA leave in several ways. Specifically, the definitional change means that eligible employees, regardless of where they live, will be able to:

• Take FMLA leave to care for their same-sex spouses with serious health conditions;
• Take qualifying exigency leave due to their same-sex spouses’ covered military service; or
• Take military caregiver leave for their same-sex spouses.

In connection with the final rule, the DOL also issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help employers and employees understand the changes to the FMLA’s definition of “spouse.”

To comply with the final rule, employers should review and update their FMLA policies and procedures as necessary. Employers should also train employees who are involved in the leave management process on the expanded eligibility rules for same-sex spouses under the FMLA.

DOJ to Allow Claims Based on Gender Identity Discrimination

On Dec. 18, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a reversal of its position regarding whether discrimination based on sex incudes discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity and transgender status.

The DOJ has now taken the position that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity and transgender status.

Although the DOJ’s authority to file discrimination lawsuits is limited to government employers, this announcement solidifies the federal government’s position on gender identity rights.

Background Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin when making employment decisions. In 2006, the DOJ took the position that discrimination based on sex excluded discrimination based on an individual’s gender identity or transgender status. The DOJ has now reversed this position.

Gender identity is an individual’s internal sense of being male or female. An individual’s internal identification may or may not correspond to the individual’s biological gender. Transgender individuals are people with a gender identity that is different from the sex assigned to them at birth.

Effect on Employers Employers can expect to see more individuals file claims based on gender identity discrimination and increased federal support for employee protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.

Employers should review their employment policies to ensure that they are compliant with federal, state and local anti-discrimination regulations.

New Guidance and Relief for Employer Payment of Individual Premiums

Under the ACA, employer payment plans do not comply with several provisions that took effect beginning in 2014. Violations of these rules can result in excise taxes of $100 per day for each employee.

An employer payment plan is an arrangement where an employer reimburses or pays premiums for an employee’s individual health insurance.

New Guidance on Employer Payments
The Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury have released several pieces of guidance clarifying the rules regarding these arrangements. The IRS issued Notice 2015-17 on Feb. 18, 2015, providing further clarification.

Specifically, this notice provides information on several related issues:

• Reiterates that employer payment plans are group health plans that will fail to comply with the ACA’s market reforms applicable to group health plans;
• Clarifies that increases in employee compensation do not constitute an employer payment plan, as long as the increases are not conditioned on the purchase of individual health coverage;
• Provides transition relief from the excise tax for employer payment plans sponsored by small employers (those not subject to the ACA’s employer shared responsibility rules) and to S corporation health care arrangements for 2-percent shareholder-employees;
• Addresses whether employers may reimburse employees for Medicare or TRICARE premiums for active employees under the ACA; and
• States that employer payments for individual premiums can be excludable from an employee’s income under the tax code but will still violate the ACA’s market reforms.

Employers should review their benefit and compensation plans and policies to ensure they are not in violation of current guidance regarding employer payment plans.

The information contained in this newsletter is not intended as legal or medical advice. Please consult a professional for more information.

Affordable Care Act Update: Subsidy Certifications Explained

Certifications of Employee Eligibility for Subsidies

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires health insurance Exchanges to send a notice to employers regarding employees who purchase coverage through an Exchange and qualify for a health insurance subsidy. These notices are also called “Section 1411 Certifications” because the notice requirement is contained in Section 1411 of the ACA.

The Section 1411 Certification is part of the process established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for verifying that only eligible individuals receive health insurance subsidies. Both state-run and federally facilitated Exchanges are required to send these certifications to employers. For 2015, it is expected that HHS will issue the certifications in batches, beginning in spring 2015.

These certifications are not directly related to the ACA’s shared responsibility rules for applicable large employers (ALEs). Starting in 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will contact ALEs to inform them of their potential liability for a shared responsibility penalty for 2015, and it will provide them with an opportunity to respond. Employers that receive certifications may appeal a subsidy determination to help ensure, as much as possible, that employees are not mistakenly receiving subsidies. Appealing subsidy determinations may also help limit an ALE’s potential liability for a shared responsibility penalty.

affected employers

The Exchanges are required to provide the certifications to all employers with employees who purchase coverage through an Exchange and qualify for a health insurance subsidy. This includes ALEs that are subject to the ACA’s shared responsibility rules and small employers that do not qualify as ALEs. Also, for efficiency reasons, Exchanges can either send the certifications on an employee-by-employee basis as subsidy determinations are made, or the Exchanges can send the certifications to employers for a group of employees.

health insurance subsidies

There are two federal health insurance subsidies available for coverage purchased through an Exchange—premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions. Both of these subsidies vary in amount based on the taxpayer’s household income, and they both reduce the out-of-pocket costs of health insurance for the insured.

• Premium tax credits are available for people with somewhat higher incomes (up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level), and they reduce out-of-pocket premium costs for the taxpayer.
• Reduced cost-sharing is available for individuals who qualify to receive the premium tax credit and have lower incomes (up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level). Through cost-sharing reductions, these individuals have lower out-of-pocket costs at the point of service (for example, lower deductibles and copayments).

To be eligible for a health insurance subsidy, a taxpayer:

• Must have a household income for the year between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level for the taxpayer’s family size,
• May not be claimed as a dependent of another taxpayer,
• Must file a joint return if married,
• Cannot be eligible for minimum essential coverage (Government or employer sponsored plan).

 

An employee who may enroll in an employer-sponsored plan, and individuals who may enroll in the plan because of a relationship with the employee, are generally considered eligible for minimum essential coverage if the plan is affordable and provides minimum value.

The requirements of affordability and minimum value do not apply if an employee actually enrolls in any employer-sponsored minimum essential coverage, including coverage provided through a cafeteria plan, a health FSA or an HRA, but only if the coverage does not consist solely of excepted benefits. Thus, if an employee enrolls in any employer-sponsored minimum essential coverage, the employee is ineligible for a subsidy.

section 1411 certification

The ACA directed HHS to establish a program for verifying whether an individual meets the eligibility standards for receiving an Exchange subsidy. As part of this verification process, an Exchange must notify the employer when it determines that an employee is eligible for subsidized coverage.

Final regulations issued by HHS on March 27, 2012, specify the content requirements for the Section 1411 Certifications.

Here is a key point:

Employees who are eligible for employer-sponsored coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value are not eligible for a subsidy. This is significant because the ACA’s shared responsibility penalty for ALEs is triggered when a full-time employee receives a subsidy for coverage under an Exchange. An employee who is not eligible for a subsidy may still be eligible to enroll in a health plan through an Exchange. However, this would not result in a shared responsibility penalty for the employer.

 

section 1411 certification

The ACA directed HHS to establish a program for verifying whether an individual meets the eligibility standards for receiving an Exchange subsidy. As part of this verification process, an Exchange must notify the employer when it determines that an employee is eligible for subsidized coverage.

Final regulations issued by HHS on March 27, 2012, specify the content requirements for the Section 1411 Certifications.

 

section 1411 certification

The ACA directed HHS to establish a program for verifying whether an individual meets the eligibility standards for receiving an Exchange subsidy. As part of this verification process, an Exchange must notify the employer when it determines that an employee is eligible for subsidized coverage.

Final regulations issued by HHS on March 27, 2012, specify the content requirements for the Section 1411 Certifications.

Section 1411 Certifications must:

·          Identify the employee;·          Provide that the employee has been determined to be eligible for advance payments of a health insurance subsidy;·          Indicate that, if the employer has 50 or more full-time employees, the employer may be liable for a penalty under Code Section 4980H; and ·          Describe the employer’s appeal rights.

appeal rights

When an employer receives a certification regarding an employee’s eligibility for an Exchange subsidy, the employer may appeal the determination to correct any information about the health coverage it offers to employees. The appeals process can help:

• Minimize the employee’s potential liability to repay advance payments of the subsidy that he or she was not eligible to receive; and
• Protect the employer from being incorrectly assessed with a tax penalty under the shared responsibility rules (if the employer is an ALE). If the appeal is successful and the employee does not receive an Exchange subsidy, the employee cannot trigger penalties for an ALE under the shared responsibility rules.

Final regulations issued by HHS on Aug. 30, 2013, established general parameters for the employer appeal process. A state-run Exchange may have its own appeals process or it may follow the federal appeals process established by HHS. In either case, the Exchange must:

• Give employers at least 90 days from the date of the Exchange notice to request an appeal;
• Allow employers to submit relevant information to support the appeal;
• Not limit or interfere with an employer’s right to make an appeal request; and
• Accept appeal requests made by telephone, by mail, via the Internet or in person (if the Exchange is capable of receiving in-person appeal requests) and provide assistance in making the appeal request if this assistance is needed.

The appeals entity must provide written notice of the appeal decision within 90 days of the date the appeal request is received, if administratively feasible.

 

Another key point:

HHS’ final regulations clarify that an appeals decision in favor of the employee’s eligibility for a subsidy does not foreclose any appeal rights the employer may have for a penalty assessment under Code Section 4980H. Thus, while ALEs that receive certifications may appeal a subsidy determination to help ensure, as much as possible, that employees are not mistakenly receiving subsidies, they are not required to appeal a subsidy determination to preserve their rights to appeal an IRS assessment of a penalty tax.

Also, employers may develop policies to allow an employee to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage outside an open enrollment period when the employee is determined to be ineligible for Exchange subsidies as a result of an employer appeal decision.

other employer considerations

To help avoid incorrect subsidy determinations, HHS encourages employers to educate their employees about the details of employer-sponsored health coverage. This includes information on whether their plans are affordable and provide minimum value. Employees enrolling in Exchange coverage will generally complete an Employer Coverage Tool that gathers information about the employers’ group health plans. HHS encourages employers to assist employees with their Exchange applications by providing information regarding the employer-sponsored coverage through the Employer Coverage Tool.

In addition, employers should remember that the ACA amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to include whistleblower protections for employees. Employees are protected from retaliation for reporting alleged violations of the ACA. Employees are also protected from retaliation for receiving a subsidy when enrolling in an Exchange plan. If an employer violates the ACA’s whistleblower protections, it may be required to reinstate the employee, as well as provide back pay (with interest), compensatory damages and attorney fees.

As always, contact us at 877-936-3580 for more information on this, or any other aspect of employee benefits and the Affordable Care Act.

 

HR Brief from CIBC of Illinois-March 2015

IRS Solicits Comments on Affordable Care Act Cadillac Tax Implementation for 2018

For taxable years beginning in 2018, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost group health coverage. This tax, also known as the “Cadillac tax,” is intended to encourage companies to choose lower-cost health plans for their employees.

On Feb. 23, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-16 to begin the process of developing guidance to implement the Cadillac tax. Proposed or final regulations have not yet been issued on the ACA’s Cadillac tax provision.

This notice describes potential approaches with regard to a number of issues under the Cadillac tax and invites comments on these approaches. Public comments may be submitted to the IRS until May 15, 2015.

Taxpayers may not rely on the information provided in Notice 2015-16. However, the IRS notes that these potential approaches could be incorporated in future proposed regulations.

Overview of the Cadillac Tax

The Cadillac tax provision is found in Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 4980I. This provision taxes the amount of an employee’s “excess benefit.” The excess benefit is the amount by which the monthly cost of an employee’s employer-sponsored health coverage exceeds the annual limitation.

For 2018, the statutory dollar limits are:

• $10,200 per employee for self-only coverage; and
• $27,500 per employee for other-than-self-only coverage.

The cost of applicable coverage for purposes of the Cadillac tax is determined under rules similar to those used for determining the COBRA applicable premium. The tax amount for each employee’s coverage will be calculated by the employer and paid by the coverage provider.

Applicable Employer-sponsored Coverage

The Cadillac tax applies to “applicable employer-sponsored coverage” (both insured and self-insured). Applicable employer-sponsored coverage is coverage under any group health plan made available to the employee by the employer, which is excludable from the employee’s gross income under Code Section 106. The term “employee” includes any former employee, surviving spouse or other primary insured individual.

Applicable coverage also includes health FSAs, HSAs, on-site medical clinics, retiree coverage, multiemployer plans and coverage only for a specified disease or illness and hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance (if paid on a pre-tax basis or a Section 162(l) deduction is allowed).

Some types of coverage are generally excluded from applicable coverage, including coverage under which medical benefits are secondary or incidental to other insurance benefits, long-term care coverage, limited scope dental and vision coverage and coverage only for a specified disease or illness and hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance (if paid for exclusively with after-tax dollars or a Section 162(l) deduction is not allowed).

Overview of IRS Proposals

Notice 2015-16 describes a number of potential approaches on certain aspects of the ACA’s Cadillac tax provision, which may be included in future proposed regulations. The IRS is requesting comments on the potential approaches, as well as any other approaches or guidance that might be helpful.

Definition of Applicable Coverage

Notice 2015-16 includes the following potential clarifications on the definition of applicable coverage:

• The IRS expects future guidance to include executive physical programs and HRAs as applicable coverage.
• The IRS anticipates that future regulations will exclude on-site medical clinics that offer only de minimis medical care to employees from the definition of applicable coverage.
• The IRS invites comments on how to treat on-site medical clinics that provide certain services in addition to (or in lieu of) first aid.
• The IRS is considering whether to propose approaches under which self-insured limited scope dental and vision coverage and certain employee assistance programs (EAPs) that qualify as an excepted benefit under the amended excepted benefits regulations would be excluded from applicable coverage for purposes of the Cadillac tax. Comments are requested on any reasons why the IRS should not implement these approaches.

Determining the Cost of Applicable Coverage

A number of issues arise in calculating the COBRA applicable premium, including how to determine which non-COBRA beneficiaries are similarly situated, methods for self-insured plans to determine the applicable premium and how to determine the applicable premium for HRAs.

Notice 2015-16 describes potential approaches for each of these issues for purposes of the Cadillac tax. The IRS is also considering whether these potential approaches should apply for determining the COBRA applicable premium.

• The COBRA applicable premium is based on the cost of coverage for similarly situated non-COBRA beneficiaries. The IRS anticipates that a somewhat similar standard will apply for the Cadillac tax, where the cost of the applicable coverage for an employee will be based on the average cost of that type of applicable coverage for that employee and all similarly situated employees. The IRS invites comments on this potential approach, including areas where more guidance would be beneficial. Future guidance will likely attempt to harmonize the COBRA rules with the Cadillac tax rules (although some differences may be appropriate).
• Currently, there are two methods for self-insured plans to calculate the COBRA applicable premium—the actuarial basis method and the past cost method. The IRS anticipates that, in general, these two methods will apply for determining the cost of applicable coverage for self-insured plans for purposes of the Cadillac tax, and it seeks comment on this approach.
• Instead of determining the cost of applicable coverage using rules similar to the COBRA applicable premium rules, some have suggested that this could be determined by reference to the cost of similar coverage available elsewhere (for example, through an Exchange), whether or not based on actuarial values, metal levels (bronze, silver, etc.) or other metrics. The IRS invites comments on other alternative approaches.

Determination Period

The IRS anticipates that the method for calculating the cost of applicable coverage would be elected prior to the period for which the cost applies, under similar rules as the COBRA applicable premium. The IRS invites comments on whether the COBRA rules should apply for purposes of the Cadillac tax, and whether more guidance would be beneficial.

Applicable Dollar Limit

The IRS is considering an approach to clarify the application of the dollar limit for employees with both self-only and other-than-self-only applicable coverage (for example, self-only major medical coverage and supplemental coverage, such as an HRA, that covers the employee and his or her family).

The IRS invites comments on the following potential approaches, including any potential administrative difficulties, as well as any other approaches that might address this issue:

• Under one approach, the applicable dollar limit would depend on whether the employee’s primary (major medical) coverage is self-only coverage or other-than-self-only coverage. The employee’s primary coverage would be the type of coverage that accounts for the majority of the aggregate cost of applicable coverage.
• An alternative approach would apply a composite dollar limit determined by prorating the dollar limits for each employee according to the ratio of the cost of the self-only coverage and the cost of the other-than-self-only coverage provided to the employee.

 

Dollar Limit Adjustments

The annual dollar limits for the Cadillac tax may be adjusted in certain circumstances. For example, a “health cost adjustment percentage” will be applied to determine the dollar limits for 2018, and a cost-of-living adjustment will be applied to determine the dollar limits for taxable years after 2018. In addition, the dollar limits are increased by an age and gender adjustment, if applicable for an employer. Also, higher dollar limits apply for:

• Qualified retirees; and
• Employees engaged in a high-risk profession or employed to repair or install electrical or telecommunication lines.

The IRS intends to include rules regarding these adjustments in proposed regulations, and invites comments on the application and adjustment of the dollar limits.

Comment Submissions

The IRS invited comments on the issues addressed in the notice and on any other issues under the Cadillac tax provision. The IRS also intends to issue another notice inviting comments on additional issues. The comments received by the IRS are expected to be used to draft proposed regulations.

Comments should be submitted no later than May 15, 2015, and should reference Notice 2015-16. Comments may be sent electronically to: Notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov, or mailed to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (Notice 2015-16), Room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, P.O. Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.

Reliance

Taxpayers may not rely upon Notice 2015-16 for guidance regarding the Cadillac tax provision. The IRS also specified that no inference should be drawn from the notice concerning any provision of Section 4980I other than those addressed in the notice or concerning any other section of the ACA or COBRA

ACA Update: New Guidance and Relief for Employer Payment of Individual Premiums

In the past, many employers have helped employees pay for individual health insurance policies instead of offering an employer-sponsored plan. In recent months, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury (Departments) have released several pieces of guidance addressing these arrangements.

The Departments’ guidance specifically addresses “employer payment plans,” under which an employer reimburses or pays premiums for an employee’s individual health insurance policy.

According to this guidance, employer payment plans do not comply with several ACA provisions that took effect beginning in 2014. Violations of these rules can result in excise taxes of $100 per day for each employee.

IRS Notice 2015-17

On Feb. 18, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-17. This notice:

• Reiterates that employer payment plans are group health plans that will fail to comply with the ACA’s market reforms applicable to group health plans;
• Clarifies that increases in employee compensation do not constitute an employer payment plan, as long as the increases are not conditioned on the purchase of individual health coverage;
• Provides transition relief from the excise tax for employer payment plans sponsored by small employers (those not subject to the ACA’s employer shared responsibility rules) and to S corporation healthcare arrangements for 2-percent shareholder-employees;
• Addresses whether employers may reimburse employees for Medicare or TRICARE premiums for active employees under the ACA; and
• States that employer payments for individual premiums can be excludable from an employee’s income under the tax code, but will still violate the ACA’s market reforms.

The DOL and HHS have reviewed the notice and agree with the guidance provided. The Departments noted that they expect to issue further clarifications regarding other aspects of employer payment plans and HRAs in the near future.

Increases in Employee Compensation

Notice 2015-17 clarifies that, if an employer increases an employee’s compensation, but does not condition the additional compensation on the purchase of health coverage (or otherwise endorse a particular policy, form or issuer of health insurance), it is not considered an employer payment plan.

According to the IRS, providing employees with information about the Exchange or the premium tax credit is not endorsement of a particular policy, form or issuer of health insurance. Because this type of arrangement generally will not constitute a group health plan, it is not subject to the ACA’s market reforms.

Excise Tax Delay for Small Employers

Small employers have often helped employees pay for individual coverage. As noted above, these employers would normally be subject to an excise tax of $100 per day for each employee.

Notice 2015-17 provides a delay in the excise tax penalty for employers that are not applicable large employers (ALEs) under the ACA’s employer shared responsibility rules. These employers may need additional time to obtain group health coverage or to adopt a suitable alternative.

Therefore, an excise tax will not be assessed for violations of the ACA’s market reforms by certain employer payment plans that pay (or reimburse employees) for individual health policy premiums or Medicare Part B or Part D premiums.

This transition relief is available on a temporary basis. Employers may be eligible for relief from the excise tax as late as June 30, 2015. Specifically:

• For 2014, the relief applies to employers that are not ALEs in 2014.
• For Jan. 1 to June 30, 2015, the relief applies to employers that are not ALEs in 2015.

After June 30, 2015, these employers may be liable for the excise tax.

This relief does not extend to stand-alone HRAs or other arrangements that reimburse employees for medical expenses other than insurance premiums.

Employers eligible for this relief are not required to file IRS Form 8928 (regarding failures to satisfy requirements for group health plans) as a result of having these arrangements during the period for which the employer is eligible for the relief.

Reimbursement of Medicare and TRICARE Premiums

Notice 2015-17 notes that an arrangement under which an employer reimburses (or pays directly) some or all of Medicare Part B or Part D premiums for employees constitutes an employer payment plan. Similarly, an arrangement under which an employer reimburses (or pays directly) some or all of medical expenses for employees covered by TRICARE constitutes an HRA. In both cases, if the arrangement covers two or more active employees, it is a group health plan subject to the ACA’s market reforms.

An employer payment plan or an HRA may not be integrated with Medicare coverage or TRICARE to satisfy the market reforms, because Medicare coverage and TRICARE are not group health plans for integration purposes.

However, an employer payment plan or HRA that pays for or reimburses Medicare Part B or Part D premiums, or medical expenses for employees covered by TRICARE, is integrated with another group health plan offered by the employer for purposes of the market reforms if:

• The employer offers a group health plan (other than the employer payment plan or HRA) to the employee that does not consist solely of excepted benefits and offers coverage providing minimum value;
• The employee participating in the employer payment plan or HRA is actually enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B or TRICARE;
• The employer payment plan or HRA is available only to employees who are enrolled in Medicare Part A and Part B or Part D, or TRICARE; and
• The employer payment plan or HRA is limited to reimbursement of Medicare Part B or Part D premiums, or cost-sharing, and excepted benefits, including Medigap premiums or TRICARE supplemental premiums.

Note that, to the extent that this type of arrangement is available to active employees, it may be subject to restrictions under other laws, such as the Medicare secondary payer provisions or laws that prohibit offering financial or other incentives for TRICARE-eligible employees to decline employer-provided group health plan coverage, similar to the Medicare secondary payer rules.

An employer payment plan that has fewer than two participants who are current employees (for example, a retiree-only plan) on the first day of the plan year is not subject to the market reforms, and, therefore, integration is not necessary to satisfy the market reforms.

Also, an employer may provide more than one type of healthcare arrangement for its employees (for example, a Medicare Part B employer payment plan and a TRICARE-related HRA), provided that each arrangement meets the applicable integration or other rules.

S Corporation Healthcare Arrangements for 2-percent Shareholder-employees

Under IRS Notice 2008-1, if an S corporation pays for (or reimburses) premiums for individual health insurance coverage covering a 2-percent shareholder, the payment or reimbursement is included in income, but the 2-percent shareholder-employee may deduct the amount of the premiums (provided that all other eligibility criteria for deductibility are satisfied). Notice 2015-17 refers to this as a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement.

The Departments stated that they may issue additional guidance on the application of the market reforms to a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement. However, until further guidance is issued (and at least through the end of 2015), the excise tax will not be assessed for any failure to satisfy the market reforms by a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement.

Furthermore, until additional guidance provides otherwise, an S corporation with a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement will not be required to file IRS Form 8928 (regarding failures to satisfy requirements for group health plans, including the market reforms) solely as a result of having a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement.

However, this guidance does not apply to reimbursements of individual health insurance coverage with respect to employees of an S corporation who are not 2-percent shareholders.

The IRS is also considering whether additional guidance is needed on the federal tax treatment of 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangements. However, until additional guidance provides otherwise, taxpayers may continue to rely on Notice 2008-1 with regard to the tax treatment of these arrangements for all federal income and employment tax purposes.

To the extent that a 2-percent shareholder is allowed both the deduction described above and a premium tax credit for coverage through an Exchange, Revenue Procedure 2014-41 provides guidance on calculating the deduction and the credit with respect to the 2-percent shareholder.

Notice 2015-17 also noted, however, that the market reforms do not apply to a group health plan that has fewer than two participants who are current employees on the first day of the plan year. Thus, an arrangement covering only a single employee (whether or not that employee is a 2-percent shareholder-employee) generally is not subject to the market reforms, whether or not the reimbursement arrangement otherwise constitutes a group health plan.

However, if an S corporation maintains more than one of these types of arrangements for different employees (whether or not 2-percent shareholder-employees), all are treated as a single arrangement covering more than one employee, so that this exception does not apply.

Employer Payment Plans under Code Sections 105 and 106

The notice also addresses Revenue Ruling 61-146 (Rev. Rul. 61-146), which has been cited by some as authority permitting employer payment plans under the tax code. Under Rev. Rul. 61-146, employer reimbursements of an employee’s individual insurance premiums are excluded from the employee’s gross income under Code Section 106. This exclusion also applies if the employer pays the premiums directly to the insurance company.

According to the IRS, this guidance regarding the tax exclusion continues to apply. This means only that the payments are excludable from the employee’s gross income under Section 106 (regardless of whether the employer includes the payments as wages on the Form W-2).

However, the IRS stated that Rev. Rul. 61-146 does not address the application of the ACA’s market reforms, and should not be read as containing any implication regarding the application of those market reforms.

An arrangement under which an employer provides reimbursements or payments that are dedicated to providing medical care (such as cash reimbursements for the purchase of an individual market policy) is, itself, a group health plan. Accordingly, the arrangement is subject to the ACA’s market reform rules applicable to group health plans, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. These employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, do not comply with the ACA.

The notice supplements two Information Letters previously issued by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel. Letter 2014-0037 and Letter 2014-0039 addressed the ability of employers to reimburse employees’ medical expenses with pre-tax dollars under Code Section 105. These letters note that, although the ACA has not changed the tax treatment under Section 105 or 106, these arrangements violate the ACA’s prohibition on annual limits because they reimburse medical expenses up to a fixed amount.

Prior Employer Payment Plan Guidance

• 24, 2013: Department FAQs addressed compliance of HRAs with the ACA’s market reforms.
• 13, 2013: IRS Notice 2013-54 and DOL Technical Release 2013-03 clarified that HRAs, certain health FSAs and other employer payment plans are considered group health plans subject to the ACA’s market reforms, and they cannot be integrated with individual policies to satisfy those requirements. As a result, effective for 2014 plan years, these plans are essentially prohibited.
• May 13, 2014: IRS FAQs addressed the consequences for employers that reimburse employees for individual health insurance premiums. These arrangements may trigger an excise tax of $100 per day for each applicable employee ($36,500 per year for each employee) under Code Section 4980D.
• 6, 2014: Department FAQs clarified that employer payment plans do not comply with the ACA’s market reforms and may subject employers to penalties, whether provided on a pre- or after-tax basis.

CIBC of Illinois, Inc. Merges With Strategic Employee Benefit Services of Champaign

CIBC of Illinois, Inc. Merges With Strategic Employee Benefit Services of Champaign

 

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Kankakee, IL– (February 9, 2015)- William Johnson, Chairman and CEO of CIBC of Illinois, Inc. is pleased to announce the successful merger of CIBC of Illinois and Strategic Employee Benefit Services of Champaign (SEBS). The new organization will operate as CIBC of Illinois, Inc. and include offices in both Kankakee and Champaign.

“This is an extremely exciting development for both of our organizations,” said Johnson. “The expertise that CIBC possesses in the ever-changing world of employee benefits and group health insurance is exactly what businesses are demanding, and the SEBS connection to the Central and Southern Illinois markets is a great opportunity for us to deliver these solutions on a consistent basis. The synergies we gain via this new powerhouse organization will position CIBC as an industry-leader in both size and capabilities that we deliver to businesses.”

As a result of the merger, former SEBS Benefit Consultant Tony Johnston was named as President and Chief Operating Officer for both the Kankakee and Champaign offices, and Erin Beck remains as Chief Financial Officer for CIBC.

“This is a great opportunity for the SEBS team to further commit to the exciting business opportunity of employee benefits, “said Tony Johnston. “Our extensive client base will now have access to the cutting edge benefits knowledge, wellness resources, technology, and regulatory compliance that is requisite in the healthcare reform era.”

About CIBC of Illinois, Inc.

CIBC is a leader in the development and implementation of innovative employee benefits plans. Headquartered an hour south of Chicago in Kankakee and with a branch office in Champaign, CIBC serves private sector clients, non-profit organizations, governmental bodies and agencies and Taft-Hartley health and welfare funds across the Midwest. Over the past two decades, they have creatively addressed the employee benefits needs of hundreds of organizations — some with as few as two employees and others with as many as 25,000 employees around the globe.

###

Elder Care Benefits: Employers Can Provide Generational Benefits

High Deductible Plan Options: Bringing Consumerism and Cost-Savings to tthe Marketplace

CIBC of Illinois specializes in Group Benefit plans, and in order to best serve our clients, we also employ consultants that specialize in individual and family health insurance plans. In both of these areas, we continually get asked about high deductible plans because, in most cases, there is a significant cost advantage found in these types of plans. Hopefully this article will provide some basic information, and as always, please contact us for a detailed analysis.

Moving From a Standard Plan to an HDHP

There is no such thing as a one-size-fits-all health plan. Everyone has different health insurance needs depending on their health care requirements along with those of their dependents. While some prefer standard deductible health insurance (often called a PPO health insurance plan), people are increasingly switching to a High Deductible Health Plan (HDHP) with a Health Savings Account (HSA) as a better way to maximize their health care dollars.

Standard Plans vs. HDHPs

Standard plans and HDHPs are set up much in the same way. Under both plans, the member pays a premium for coverage. Both must cover preventive services free of charge. If a member receives nonpreventive medical care, he or she pays a deductible—a specified amount of money that the insured must pay before an insurance company will pay a claim. The chief difference between the plans is that under an HDHP, premium payments are considerably lower and the deductible is considerably higher.

The minimum deductibles for HDHPs are established by the IRS. For 2015, the minimum deductible is $1,300 for individuals and $2,600 for families. Comparatively, standard plans come with a deductible that is generally quite a bit lower.

The cost of the higher premiums for HDHP plans is offset by two factors. First, as previously mentioned, the premium price for an HDHP is much lower than standard plans. This means that members who use little or no medical care during the year can save hundreds of dollars that would otherwise go to unnecessary health coverage, while still remaining compliant with the individual mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

While some people prefer standard deductible health insurance, people are increasingly switching to an HDHP with an HSA as a better way to maximize their health care dollars.

The second major factor setting HDHPs apart from standard plans is the addition of an HSA.

Health Savings Accounts

HSAs are one of several types of tax-advantaged health accounts, and are exclusively available to people enrolled in an HSA-compliant HDHP.

With an HSA, the account holder or his or her employer (usually both) make contributions into a savings account. No taxes are deducted from money placed into the account, as the HSA contribution is withdrawn from a paycheck before taxes are assessed. While in the savings account, the money can earn interest. The employee is free to spend that money on qualified medical expenses.

The total amount that can be placed in an HSA per year is capped by the IRS. For 2015, the maximum contribution limit is $3,350 for individuals and $6,650 for families, though account holders over 55 years old may contribute an extra $1,000 to those totals.

These limits are significantly higher than other types of tax-advantaged health accounts, and unlike the other options, HSAs have additional unique features that allow you to save more money and keep it over a longer period of time. Whereas funds in health Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) and Health Reimbursements Arrangements (HRAs) come with an expiration date or a maximum carry-over dollar amount, HSAs allow you to build your balance as high as you wish in perpetuity. Except for the cap on total contributions per year, there are no limits on how much money can be in your account and how long it remains open.

Additionally, HSAs are individually owned accounts, meaning employees take the account—including any employer contributions—with them if they leave their employer.

Using Health Care with an HDHP

Because of the high deductibles associated with HDHPs, having an HDHP means you need to become a smart health care shopper.

The most important thing to keep in mind is that some types of health care products and services cost much more than similar items, and the more expensive option may not be necessary for the treatment you require.

Additionally, like most other health plans, HDHPs cover preventive services at no cost. Preventive care is defined as medical checkups and tests, immunizations and counseling services used to prevent chronic illnesses from occurring. Preventive care not only keeps you healthy, but it can also monitor and even reduce the risk of developing future, costly health problems.

Most types of specific preventive services are listed here. While it can sometimes be difficult to determine if a specific medical service qualifies as preventive, you can call your health plan to learn if a service is considered preventive before receiving it.

Other medial savings strategies people with HDHPs should consider are:

• Using a generic in place of a name brand prescription can result in significant savings. While there is not a generic version for every type of drug, the only difference between a branded drug and a generic counterpart is the name; they both have the same active ingredients. If you need medication, find out what class of drugs your prescription is classified under. If you receive a name brand prescription from a doctor, ask if a generic is available.
• Emergency Room vs. Urgent Care.Like prescriptions, there is a sizable cost adjustment between emergency rooms and urgent care. It is very expensive for hospitals to support all of the equipment and staff that an emergency room requires, so visits to the emergency room generally cost much more than those to a doctor’s office or an urgent care center. If you develop a problem that needs to be treated quickly, but it is not life threatening or risking disability, go to an urgent care clinic.
• Qualified Medical Expenses. Use your HSA to pay for qualified medical expenses without paying taxes. Qualified medical expenses include the costs of diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, and the costs for treatments affecting any part or function of the body. These expenses include payments for medical services rendered by physicians, surgeons, dentists and other medical practitioners. They also include the costs of equipment, supplies and diagnostic devices needed for these purposes. Like preventive care, there can sometimes be uncertainty surrounding what is an allowable qualified medical expense. Specific qualified medical expenses are approved by the IRS, and a list of them can be found here.

HDHPs and HSAs are not the ideal health coverage plan for everyone. However, for many people, HDHPs are a great way to avoid paying for superfluous coverage and HSAs are an excellent vehicle for stockpiling tax-free money to use on future health care needs.

ACA Update: Feds Prohibit All Employer Reimbursement of Individual Premiums

Due to the rising costs of providing group health insurance, some employers have considered helping employees pay for individual health coverage instead of offering an employer-sponsored group plan. However, these employer reimbursement arrangements do not comply with Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements.

On Nov. 6, 2014, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury issued FAQs clarifying that all individual premium reimbursement arrangements are prohibited. Despite the previously widespread understanding that only pre-tax reimbursement arrangements are prohibited, the clarification includes pre-tax and post-tax premium reimbursements and cash compensation for individual premiums.

An employer arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for an individual market policy is considered to be part of a plan, fund or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax for the employee. Therefore, the arrangement is group health plan coverage subject to the ACA’s market reform provisions.

In addition, the Nov. 6 FAQs clarify that an employer cannot offer a choice between enrollment in the standard group health plan or cash only to employees with a high claims risk. This practice constitutes unlawful discrimination based on one or more health factors, which violates federal nondiscrimination laws.

Violation of this guidance by offering prohibited individual premium reimbursement arrangements to employees may trigger penalties. Under Code Section 4980D, an employer could be fined an excise tax of $100 per day for each applicable employee ($36,500 per year per employee).

The information contained in this newsletter is not intended as legal advice. Please consult a professional for more detailed analysis and specific information.