The Impact of Health Care Reform on Employers

April 5, 2010

The heath care reform measures recently signed into law by signed by President Obama promise to have a significant impact on every American.  Because employer-provided health insurance and related tax incentives will remain an important part of the post-reform system, businesses should pay particular attention to the new rules

Below is a brief overview and summary of the key components of the health care reform legislation and how it may impact individuals and small businesses. In a broad sense, the legislation will:

  • Mandate that everyone must have insurance.
  • Provide for subsidized coverage for people that can’t afford it and increase the number of people that will qualify for Medicaid.
  • Make cuts to Medicare Advantage Plans and change their payment formula.
  • Make many changes to the way insurance companies do business from not allowing them to restrict coverage based on pre-existing conditions to limiting their rates based on medical loss ratios.

Specific changes that take effect this year include:

  • Tax credits for certain small businesses
  • Small businesses qualify for a 35% tax credit if they have 10 or fewer employees, and they earn less than $25,000/year on average.
  • Small businesses qualify for a smaller tax credit if they have 25 or fewer employees with an average wage of $50,000/year or less.
  • However, small businesses do not qualify for a tax credit if they have more than 25 employees; also, any employee who earns more than $80,000/year will be excluded from the credit.
    • In 90 days, the bill will enact a temporary reinsurance program that allows employers to provide coverage for employees over the age of 55 who are not eligible for Medicare.  Concurrently, the bill enacts a temporary high-risk insurance pool for individuals with pre-existing conditions that have not had insurance for at least six months.
      • Closing the so called “doughnut hole” by providing immediate tax credits for Medicare patients who face a gap in prescription drug coverage.
      • Creation of a temporary reinsurance program to provide coverage for retirees over 55 who are not eligible for Medicare.

Those changes that are expected to take effect in, or by, 2014 are:

  • Beginning in 2014, the maximum small business tax credit will increase to 50% of the cost of health insurance obtained through an Exchange. When determining the number of full-time employees for this purpose, all members of the employer’s controlled group are taken into account, and the aggregate hours of part-time employees are converted into full-time equivalents (based on service of 2,080 hours per year). After 2014, the credit may not be taken for more than two consecutive years, beginning with the first year in which the employer offers health insurance through the Exchange.
  • By no later than 2014, states will have to set up Small Business Health Options Programs, or “SHOP Exchanges,” where small businesses will be able to pool together to buy insurance, where small business is defined as 100 employees or less though states will have the option of limiting pools to companies with 50 or fewer employees.   
  • Starting in 2014, an employer that offers a group health plan must provide “free choice vouchers” for the purchase of health coverage through an Exchange to any employee who is eligible for a premium subsidy and whose required contribution to the employer’s plan would exceed 8%, but not exceed 9.8%, of his or her household income, in each case indexed for the rate of premium growth. The voucher must be for no less than the maximum amount that the employer would have contributed to provide group health care to the employee. If the voucher exceeds the health care premium under the Exchange, the employee may receive the difference in cash, subject to income taxes.
  • Starting in 2014, businesses with more than 50 employees will be required to either offer healthcare coverage or pay a penalty of $750 a year per full-time worker. 
  • Effective upon the issuance of implementing regulations, employers with more than 200 employees will have to automatically enroll full-time employees in health coverage. The legislation would allow employees to opt-out of the coverage after automatic enrollment.
    • Elimination of pre-existing conditions and an increase in dependent coverage to age 26
    • The legislation would also require that health plans that provide dependent coverage to provide it up to age 26. Under the modified legislation, this provision would apply to existing health plans in addition to new plans beginning six months after enactment. For coverage of these non-dependent children prior to 2014, the requirement on group health plans is limited to those adult children without an employer offer of coverage.

 Those changes that are expected to take effect after 2014 are:

  • Beginning in 2018, there would be an excise tax on any “excess benefit” of employer-sponsored coverage. The legislation defines “excess benefit” as one that exceeds $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. The thresholds would be indexed to inflation.

Businesses should consult with their insurance brokers, CPAs, and lawyers to determine how the post-reform health care system affects their particular situation.  Congress and the president likely will continue to tinker with additional changes and amendments, so businesses should continue to stay informed of how they should prepare and budget for health insurance in the future.

If you would like to discuss how these changes will affect your workplace, please contact Merritt Green or Jessica Kelty of General Counsel, P.C.’s Employment Practice Group.


Severance Payments, FICA Taxes, and Possible Refunds

April 2, 2010

Has your business paid severance to employees within the last three tax years?  Did the business withhold FICA taxes on those severance payments?  If so, you may want to notify the IRS that your business is claiming a refund.

The federal tax code specifies that employers must withhold income taxes on most severance payments to employees.  Courts have been struggling for several years over whether employers must also withhold FICA taxes – the payroll taxes that cover Social Security and Medicare programs.

The IRS has taken the position that income taxes and FICA taxes are both due on severance payments.  Some taxpayers have disagreed and taken that disagreement to court.  The dispute centers on whether the reference to income taxes in the relevant section of the tax code (a) constitutes an exclusive list of required withholdings and thus employers should not also withhold FICA taxes from severance payments,  or (b) constitutes an example of required withholdings and thus employers are required to withhold FICA taxes from severance payments just as they would have withheld FICA taxes from regular salary payments.  The results of those cases have not been consistent.

THE COURT DECISIONS (SO FAR)

As of this writing, there are two relevant cases working their way through the courts.

In the first case, CSX Corp., Inc. v. United States (the “CSX case”), the U.S. Court of Federal Claims  found that severance payments were not subject to FICA tax.  The IRS appealed and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit held that severance payments are subject to FICA tax.

In the second case, Quality Stores, Inc. v. United States (the “Quality Stores case”), the Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Michigan found that severance payments are not subject to FICA tax and, on appeal, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Michigan agreed (and expressly disagreed with the Federal Circuit’s logic in the CSX case).  The IRS is appealing the Quality Stores case to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.

WHAT BUSINESSES SHOULD DO TODAY

If your business has paid severance since 2006, you should consider whether to file a request for a refund of FICA payments related to that severance.  Because the courts are clearly split, there is a significant chance that the end result will be a decision that FICA taxes are owed on the severance payments.  But you certainly will not receive a refund if you do not file a request for one.

Businesses may apply for a refund for any FICA taxes they paid on severance pay.  Because of a three year deadline, any request for a refund for severance payments that occurred during 2006 must be made by April 15, 2010.  The IRS has two options for handling the refund requests: it may defer any decision on the requests until the Quality Stores case reaches a final resolution or it may immediately reject the requests based on the decision in the CSX case.  If the IRS rejects the requests, then an applicant business will have to take court action within two years to attempt to have the court order the IRS to make the refund.

Thus, you must decide whether it is worth the time and expense of preparing a refund request given the uncertainty of success.

If you want to discuss these issues with a General Counsel, P.C. attorney and develop a strategy the works best for your business, please contact Merritt Green or Jessica Kelty of General Counsel, P.C.’s Employment Practice Group.


Tax Incentives to Hire the Unemployed

April 1, 2010

Continuing on our theme of incentive given to expanding businesses, today we draw your attention to the potential tax benefits of hiring unemployed workers.  The provisions were included in Congress’s HIRE Act, which was recently signed by President Obama.

For purposes of the incentives, unemployed workers are persons who have not worked more than 40 hours in the 60 days before being hired.  The reason the person has not been working is immaterial.  These incentives may not be used to hire relatives of the business owner and may not be used to replace employees laid off fewer than 60 days before the new hire is made.

The incentives have two parts.  The first is an immediate payroll tax exemption: during calendar year 2010, an employer will not pay their portion of the payroll taxes for any unemployed worker they hire.  The second part is a tax credit: if the employer retains the unemployed worker for a year, then the employer receives a $1,000 tax credit.

The IRS has a detailed set of questions and answers about the tax incentives.

As your business adds employees, keep these incentives in mind.  And, contact Jessica Kelty or Merritt Green of our Employment Practice Group to discuss other issues you should consider when bringing on employees.


Business Incentive Bills Become Law

March 31, 2010

Virginia Governor Bob McDonnell signed five bills into law yesterday that provide incentives to business located in or relocating to Virginia.  He signed the bills at the Center for Innovative Technology and Northern Virginia Technology Council in Herndon.  Four of the bills are of particular interest.

One bill grants an income tax deduction on capital gains related to investments made in science-based or bio-tech startups between July 1, 2010, and June 30, 2013, encouraging investments in those businesses.

Another provides for temporary (45-day) licensing of professionals from other states, easing the transition for licensed professionals who move to or expand into Virginia.

A third bill establishes a grant program that may ultimately provide $22 million to the Ignite Institute, a Fairfax County-based nonprofit engaging in molecular diagnostics and drug development.

A fourth bill broadens the eligibility rules for the Governor’s Development Opportunity Fund and the Virginia Economic Development Incentive Grant, giving the governor more flexibility in tailoring incentives to lure growing businesses into Virginia.

The Washington Post has a writeup of the event, and the governor’s office has a press release detailing the new laws.


Virginia’s “Amazon Tax” Fails to Survive the House

February 25, 2010

Virginia residents are required under the Virginia tax code to pay a consumer’s use tax. This means that residents are to keep records of all purchases on which they did not pay the Virginia sales tax — for instance, for on-line purchases, purchases from mail-order catalogues or TV home shopping channels, and purchases from interstate outlets — and to pay the 5% sales tax themselves on their annual returns.

Of course, there are obvious issues of compliance with the consumer’s use tax, and in practice it is difficult to enforce on and collect the taxes generated by online sales. In order to combat this, earlier last week the Virginia State Senate approved the “Amazon Tax,” which would require internet retailers to collect the sales tax on purchases made from within Virginia themselves, and then pass the sales tax on to the Commonwealth.

The primary intended target of the bill are on-line retailers such as Amazon. The bill, SB 660, is touted to fix a ‘loop-hole’ in the Virginia tax system, whereby large e-tailers, like Amazon or Overstock.com, who have no physical presence within the state and thus do not meet the nexus requirements of Virginia Code Section 58.1-612, are not required to register to collect sales taxes.

However, large online retailers conduct a fair percentage of their sales through “affiliates,” smaller organizations and businesses who refer customers to the retail companies, and these affiliates in turn get a sales commission for their referrals of generally around 10-15%. SB 660 would alter the nexus requirements so that the presence of in-state affiliates would make a company like Amazon a dealer for purposes of Virginia tax law:

Dealer registration for sales and use taxes; sufficient contact. Provides that a dealer is presumed to be soliciting or transacting business in Virginia by an independent contractor, agent, or other representative if the dealer enters into an agreement with a resident of Virginia under which the resident, for a commission or other consideration, refers potential customers to the dealer if the cumulative gross receipts from sales by the dealer to purchasers in Virginia who are referred to the dealer by all residents with this type of agreement with the dealer are in excess of $10,000 during the preceding four quarterly periods. Such dealer presumed to be soliciting or transacting business in Virginia would be required to register for retail sales and use tax purposes.

Today, the bill failed to clear the House of Delegates Finance subcommittee, and is now dead in the water. Those in favor of the bill have argued that passing the bill is a matter of “fairness,” in order to level the playing field between “online giants” and “mom-and-pop brick-and-mortar” operations. In practice, however, when Amazon Tax Bills have been passed in other states, online retailers have reacted by simply dropping all of their in-state affiliates, causing the “mom-and-pop” online retailers to be devastated while the online retailer giants simply carry on as before. This has occurred previously in both North Carolina and Rhode Island, where Amazon dropped all of its local affiliates after those states passed their own versions of the Amazon Tax Bill. Because of this, the Finance subcommittee did not approve the Virginia bill’s passage:

The prospect of losing small local businesses that earn money from their own Web pages, much of it through links to Internet giants like Amazon.com, led the House Finance subcommittee to reject arguments from several traditional retailers[.]

Although SB 660′s supporters acknowledge the bill’s failure to achieve desired results in other states, Virginia legislators have claimed that the problem is not with the bill itself, but rather with the “integrity” of large online retailers:

Despite the enthusiastic tone of the assembled retailers, similar online sales tax bills in other states have failed to deliver on promised revenue. Amazon and Overstock simply end their relationships with affiliate advertisers in the state and head elsewhere, avoiding the sales tax, but still remaining a competitor.

“If they decide to leave and not respect fairness and integrity in business, then they’re not the types of businesses we want in Virginia anyway,” said [Republican Virginia State Senator] Hanger.

State Senator Hanger vows to re-introduce the bill next year.


FedEx Ground Drivers Are Independent Contractors According To IRS

November 12, 2009

This BusinessWeek article reports on how the Internal Revenue Service, without explanation, decided that some 12,000 delivery people working for FedEx Ground were properly classified as independent contractors instead of employees, thus enabling FedEx to not have to pay $319 million in unpaid employment taxes.  While that is good news for FedEx, the IRS also announced that early next year it will be undertaking extensive audits of some 6,000 other companies, yet to be determined, to see if they are properly categorizing their workers.

The holiday season often features an increase of hiring to handle Christmas shopping, and some economists are predicting that most laid off workers that get rehired will be rehired as independent contractors instead of employees when the economy improves.  As a result, it is important for employers to understand the difference between employees and independent contractors so that they won’t run afoul of the IRS.  We blogged earlier on the IRS’s tips on distinguishing between these types of hires here.


Virginia Offers Amnesty Window For Delinquent Taxpayers

September 28, 2009

Today Governor Tim Kaine announced that delinquent taxpayers who pay their back taxes sometime between October 7 to December 5, 2009 will receive an full amnesty on accrued penalties and a 50 percent reduction in interest accrued by the end of the period.  This tax amnesty window is available to most individuals, corporations, estates, trusts, and partnerships.  Delinquent taxpayers who fail to pay by December 5 will be assessed an additional 20 percent penalty.  More information on the amnesty program can be found here.

Right now, Maryland is also conducting a similar amnesty program, ending on October 30.


Petition For Appeal Filed In Constitutional Tax Challenge

September 24, 2009

Last week, GCPC filed a Petition for Appeal with the Virginia Supreme Court on behalf of the petitioner, FFW Enterprises, in its constitutional challenge to two Virginia taxes that tax only commercial/industrial real property to fund transportation improvements.  The Petition can be found here.  Our earlier post in which we discussed the case itself is here.


Challenge To Two Virginia Taxes Headed To Virginia Supreme Court

September 8, 2009

A Virginia business’s constitutional challenge to two Virginia transportation taxes was rejected by the Fairfax County Circuit Court and is now headed to the Virginia Supreme Court.  GCPC represents the petitioner, FFW Enterprises.

The taxes subject to this challenge are Va. Code §§ 58.1-3221.3 and 33.1-435.  The first statute allows local governments within the Northern Virginia Transportation Authority to assess a tax on commercial and industrial real property to pay for transportation improvements throughout the taxing jurisdiction.  The second statute allows for the creation of special transportation districts in which commercial and industrial real property, as well as taxable leasehold estates, can be taxed to raise money for transportation improvements within that district.  FFW Enterprises owns commercial real property in Tysons Corner that is subject to both taxes, and filed its complaint seeking to have the taxes struck down as unconstitutional and have the proceeds from those taxes returned to the taxpayers.

Although this challenge may be seen as controversial because Va. Code § 33.1-435 is the tax being used to fund Fairfax County’s share of the cost for Phase I of the Dulles Metrorail extension, the implications of this challenge actually go far beyond any one project.  Simply put, if these taxes pass constitutional muster, then the General Assembly will be able to force commercial and industrial real property owners to shoulder the entire burden of any and all public improvements throughout the Commonwealth.  Read more after the jump.

Read the rest of this entry »


Ten Tips From The IRS On Employees Verses Independent Contractors

September 3, 2009

Employees and independent contractors are treated differently under the tax laws.  As a result, employers sometimes prefer to be hiring one rather than the other.  However, the test as to whether a given hire is an employee or an independent contractor is an objective one — an employer who thinks they are hiring an independent contractor may well find out down the line that the hire is actually an employee, thus subjecting the employer to potential tax bills and penalties.  To help employers determine whether a given hire is an employee or an independent contractor, the IRS has recently issued ten tips for guidance.  A more in-depth examination is here.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.