Source: https://slphrbenefitsupdate.com/category/tax/tax-qualification/
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 22:20:18+00:00

Document:
Tax exempt organizations and tax exempt employee benefit plans take note. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) exempt organization determination procedures are changing.
Employee benefit plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and advisors should review and update their benefit and compensation plan designs and testing in response to the just released tables of covered compensation under § 401(l)(5)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations for the 2019 plan year in new Revenue Ruling 2019-06.
The new tables are available in the advance release copy of Revenue Ruling 2019-06, scheduled for official publication in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2019-14 on April 1, 2019.
The Revenue Ruling provides tables of covered compensation under § 401(l)(5)(E) of the Internal Revenue Code and related regulations for the 2019 plan year.
For this purpose, covered compensation is average of the contribution and benefit bases in effect under section 230 of the Social Security Act for each year in the 35 year period ending with the year in which an employee attains social security retirement age.
As the change will impact plan contribution limits, discrimination testing and other plan and contribution design and administration, employer and other plan sponsors, fiduciaries, administrators and service providers should evaluate the effects of the adjustments so as to maximize their ability to anticipate and respond to the adjustments.
A ruling by a Federal District judge on Friday (December 14, 2018) ruled unconstitutional the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) touches off a new wave of uncertainty about the future of the massive healthcare reform law commonly known as Obamacare just as the enrollment period for 2019 health coverage ended. While Federal District Judge Reed O’Connor finds in his ruling released on Friday that amendments passed by Congress last December robbed the ACA of its original constitutionality, only time will tell if the ruling actually will end the ACA reforms or the effect of such ruling on the hotly debated ACA reforms and other statutory and regulatory reforms Congress and the Trump Administration subsequently prospectively or retrospectively. Consequently, health plans, their employer and other sponsors, insurers, administrators, and fiduciaries; health care providers, consumers and others will need to watch developments closely.
Justice O’Connor’s decision was released one day before the last day of the enrollment period for Americans to elect whether and what coverage, if any, to enroll in through the Obamacare exchanges for calendar 2019.
In Texas v. US, Texas Governor Greg Abbott and other Republican governors challenged the constitutionality of the ACA following passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA). The plaintiffS argued the TCJA rendered the ACA unconstitutional because it repealed the individual mandate of the ACA upon which the Supreme Court previously found the ACA constitutional.
In the 2012 decision in Nat’l Fed’n of Indep. Businesses v. Sebelius (NFIB), 567 U.S. 519, 530–38 (2012) written by Chief Justice Roberts, the Supreme Court ruled that Congress could not rely upon the Commerce Clause for Constitutional authority to enact the ACA. However, the Supreme Court nevertheless found the Individual Mandate provisions of the ACA preserved the constitutionality of the ACA as a constitutional exercise of Congress’ Taxing Power.
In Texas v. US, the plaintiff governors argue that the repeal of the Individual Mandate as part of Congress’ passage of the TCJA last December robbed the ACA of its constitutionality. They say it is no longer fairly readable as an exercise of Congress’s Tax Power and continues to be unsustainable under the Interstate Commerce Clause. They further urge that if they are correct, the balance of the ACA is untenable as inseverable from the Invalid Mandate. Judge O’Connor agreed with the plaintiff’s in his ruling on Friday. Now it remains to be seen if his ruling will face and withstand the appeal and if so, what effect it will have on Obamacare overall and other subsequent statutory and regulatory reforms.
Uphold part but not all of the decision, leaving some parts in place but not others.
pending further decisions, it remains unclear if subsidies, prohibitions against preexisting conditions, guaranteed issue, cost regulations, benefit and coverage mandates and other insurance reforms, health care billing and other reforms will survive.
Meanwhile, regardless of the outcome of the appeals, the decision and its fallout almost certainly will touch off more debate in Congress. With health care reform already a hot topic, more Congressional battles were inevitable. However the decision adds a new and significant wrinkle to the politics of the health reform fight.
In January November’s election will cause the leadership of the House of Representatives is set to transfer from Republicans to Democrats while leaving control over the Senate in the hands of Republications. With leadership of the two legislative bodies split, Democrats are unlikely to be able to use their new control of the House to enact legislation that would overrule outright an adverse decision by the courts. Consequently, Democrats will have an uphill battle if the court decision stands unless and until they can regain Senate control. Instead they are likely to be related to the role occupied by the House the past 4 years in which bills to enact the Democrat vision will pass the House only to die a quick death in the Republican controlled Senate or face veto by the Republican President.
On the other hand, Republicans also could not overcome a decision unfavorable to their agenda for the opposite reason: Despite control of the majority in the Senate and having a Republican President opposed to the ACA, Republicans can’t enact legislation without winning a majority of votes in the House.
On the other hand, either party can and almost certainly will use its veto power over the other party’s agenda. The fight likely will spill over into budget, immigration, workforce and other jet legislation that otherwise might and should enjoy bipartisan support in Congress.
As the litigation proceeds, concerned parties will want to keep a close eye of the Courts, the regulation and enforcement actions of the Trump Administration and the Congress.
Meanwhile, it is important to keep in mind that implementation of Judge O’Connor’s decision is stayed pending appeal.
Past Chair of the ABA Managed Care & Insurance Interest Group, a Fellow in the American College of Employee Benefit Counsel, the American Bar Foundation and the Texas Bar Foundation, Ms. Stamer is nationally recognized as a thoughtleader in health benefits and health care matters domestically and internationally. She has been continuously involved the design, regulation, administration and defense of managed care and other health and employee benefit, health care, human resources and other staffing and workforce arrangements, contracts, systems, and processes. As a continuous component of this work, Ms. Stamer has worked closely with these and other clients on the design, development, administration, defense, and breach and data recovery of health care, workforce, insurance and financial services, trade secret and other information technology, data and related process and systems development, policy and operations throughout her career.
Employers should invite employees to update their Form W-4 withholding and finalize other 2019 payroll and income tax withholding arrangements based on guidance for 2019 published by the IRS and Treasury Department in Notice 2018-92 on November 26, 2018.
Many U.S. employers had delayed making changes to their income and payroll tax withholding pending the anticipated release by the IRS and Treasury Department of a revised Form W-4 and related income and payroll tax guidance updated to reflect changes to the Internal Revenue Code enacted as part of the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (P.L. 115-97)(“Trump Tax”) at the end of 2017.
Following the enactment of Trump Tax, most businesses have operated in reliance upon interim guidance published by the agencies at the beginning of the year to carryout their 2018 withholding obligations.
Until recently, the IRS and Treasury Department were expected to complete for use in 2019 the major overhaul of the Form W-4 and related guidance in response to the Trump Tax amendments to Sections 3402, 3405 and other Code rules. When the revision of the Form W-4 proved more complex than anticipated, however, the IRS and Treasury Department in September, 2018 announced that release of the newly designed and updated Form W-4 would be delayed from 2019 to 2020.
Provides that for 2019, withholding on annuities or similar periodic payments where no withholding certificate is in effect is based on treating the payee as a married individual claiming 3 withholding allowances under § 3405(a)(4).
The Code generally requires employees that experience a change that reduces the number of withholding exemptions that the employee qualifies to claim to notify their employer and complete a new Form W-4 within 10 days of a specified event date. Interim relief published by the IRS and Treasury Department provides relief to workers whether the change in withholding eligibility results solely due to a Code change enacted as part of Trump Tax. Otherwise, however, employees generally still remain obligated to keep their withholding up-to-date. Since employees often are unaware of or overlook this responsibility, employers generally should encourage workers to review and update their Form W-4 withholding elections in connection with annual enrollment periods and in conjunction with other life or other changes likely to affect the withholding eligibility of the worker.
©2018 Cynthia Marcotte Stamer. Non-exclusive right to republish granted to Solutions Law Press, Inc.™ For information about republication or the topic of this article, please contact the author directly. All other rights reserved.
On Thursday, August 13, the House Ways & Means Committee will hold hearings on retirement rule reforms intended to change multiemployer plan rules to make it easier for small businesses to offer and their employees and independent contractors to participate in retirement plans and provide retirement plan relief for participants proposed in the Family Savings Act of 2018, H.R. 6757.
Part of recently 3-bill tax package dubbed “Tax Reform 2.0” introduced on Monday, September 10, H.R. 6757 would remove certain regulatory barriers restricting the types of small-business employers who are permitted to band together to offer a retirement plan through a multiple employer plan (MEP).
Protect the ability of participants invested in lifetime income options through an employment-based retirement plan against losing these investment guarantees when their employer changes recordkeepers.
Sponsored by Rep. Mike Kelly (R-PA), and cosponsored by Rep. Paul Mitchell (R-MI), House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Kevin Brady (R-TX), and all other Ways and Means Committee Republicans, H.R. 6757, the bill enjoys strong support among House Republicans and President Trump.
Read the legislation and share your feedback!
Recognized by her peers as a Martindale-Hubble “AV-Preeminent” (Top 1%) and “Top Rated Lawyer” with special recognition LexisNexis® Martindale-Hubbell® as “LEGAL LEADER™ Texas Top Rated Lawyer” in Health Care Law and Labor and Employment Law; as among the “Best Lawyers In Dallas” for her work in the fields of “Labor & Employment,” “Tax: Erisa & Employee Benefits,” “Health Care” and “Business and Commercial Law” by D Magazine, Cynthia Marcotte Stamer is a practicing attorney board certified in labor and employment law by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization and management consultant, author, public policy advocate and lecturer widely known for 30+ years of health industry, health and other benefit and insurance, workforce and other management work, public policy leadership and advocacy, coaching, teachings, and publications.
Highly valued for her rare ability to find pragmatic client-centric solutions by combining her detailed legal and operational knowledge and experience with her talent for creative problem-solving, Ms. Stamer’s clients include employers and other workforce management organizations; employer, union, association, government and other insured and self-insured health and other employee benefit plan sponsors, benefit plans, fiduciaries, administrators, and other plan vendors; managed care organizations, insurers, self-insured health plans and other payers and their management; public and private, domestic and international hospitals, health care systems, clinics, skilled nursing, long term care, rehabilitation and other health care providers and facilities; medical staff, health care accreditation, peer review and quality committees and organizations; managed care organizations, insurers, third party administrative services organizations and other payer organizations; billing, utilization management, management services organizations; group purchasing organizations; pharmaceutical, pharmacy, and prescription benefit management and organizations; claims, billing and other health care and insurance technology and data service organizations; other health, employee benefit, insurance and financial services product and solutions consultants, developers and vendors; and other health, employee benefit, insurance, technology, government and other management clients.
A former lead consultant to the Government of Bolivia on its Pension Privatization Project with extensive domestic and international public policy concerns in pensions, healthcare, workforce, immigration, tax, education and other areas, Ms. Stamer has been extensively involved in U.S. federal, state and local health care and other legislative and regulatory reform impacting these concerns throughout her career. Her public policy and regulatory affairs experience encompassess advising and representing domestic and multinational private sector health, insurance, employee benefit, employer, staffing and other outsourced service providers, and other clients in dealings with Congress, state legislatures, and federal, state and local regulators and government entities, as well as providing advice and input to U.S. and foreign government leaders on these and other policy concerns.
Ms. Stamer has extensive health care reimbursement and insurance experience advising and defending plan sponsors, administrators, insurance and managed care organizations, health care providers, payers, and others about Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare and Medicaid Advantage, Tri-Care, self-insured group, association, individual and employer and association group and other health benefit programs and coverages including but not limited to advising public and private payers about coverage and program design and documentation, advising and defending providers, payers and systems and billing services entities about systems and process design, audits, and other processes; provider credentialing, and contracting; providers and payer billing, reimbursement, claims audits, denials and appeals, coverage coordination, reporting, direct contracting, False Claims Act, Medicare & Medicaid, ERISA, state Prompt Pay, out-of-network and other nonpar insured, and other health care claims, prepayment, post-payment and other coverage, claims denials, appeals, billing and fraud investigations and actions and other reimbursement and payment related investigation, enforcement, litigation and actions. Scribe for the ABA JCEB annual agency meeting with HHS OCR, she also has worked extensively on health and health benefit coding, billing and claims, meaningful use and EMR, billing and reimbursement, quality measurement and reimbursement, HIPAA, FACTA, PCI, trade secret, physician and other medical, workforce, consumer financial and other data confidentiality and privacy, federal and state data security, data breach and mitigation, and other information privacy and data security concerns.
The 2018 maximum deductible Health Savings Account (HSA) contribution for individuals with family coverage under a high deductible health plan (HDHP) is $6,900, rather than the lower $$6850 limitation that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Department of Treasury originally identified as the 2018 maximum deduction amount last March.
The mid-year change in the 2018 annual limit that Internal Revenue Code § 223(b)(2)(B) sets for the maximum deductible HSA contribution for individuals with family coverage under a HDHP announced in Revenue Procedure 2018-27 on April 26 corrects a mistake in the amount of the 2018 annual limit amount that the Treasury Department and the IRS previously announced in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 on March 2, 2018. Revenue Procedure does not change any other annual limitation or any other requirement under section 223 for calendar year 2018.
Before Revenue Procedure 2018-27, the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B) for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP at $6,850 for 2018 – a $50 reduction in the amount of the 2018 limit amount set in Revenue Procedure 2018-18, which reduced the originally announced 2018 limit amount of $6,900 that the Treasury Department and IRS previously had announced in May 4, 2017 in Revenue Procedure 2017-37. After publishing the original $6,900 limit in Revenue Procedure 2017-37, Congress changed the rules on inflation adjustments as part of “An Act to Provide for Reconciliation Pursuant to Titles II and V of the Concurrent Resolution on the Budget for Fiscal Year 2018” (the Act), Pub. L. 115–97, 131 Stat. 2504, enacted December 22, 2017. Consequently, on March 2, 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2018-18, announcing the reduction of the 2018 limit to $6,850 to reflect the statutory amendments to the inflation adjustments under the Act. However, IRS and Treasury say that the recently announced change in the 2018 annual limitation resulted after stakeholders informed the Treasury Department and the IRS that implementing the $50 reduction to the limitation on deductions for individuals with family coverage would impose numerous unanticipated administrative and financial burdens. Specifically, stakeholders informed the Treasury Department and the IRS that the costs of modifying the various systems to reflect the reduced maximum, as well as the costs associated with distributing a $50 excess contribution (and earnings), would be significantly greater than any tax benefit associated with an unreduced HSA contribution (and in some instances may exceed $50). Some stakeholders also pointed to section 223(g)(1), which requires annual inflation adjustments for HSAs to be published by June 1 of the preceding calendar year, as another indication that a current year change would be unduly burdensome.
In response to these concerns, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is in the best interest of sound and efficient tax administration to allow taxpayers to treat the $6,900 annual limitation originally published in Rev. Proc. 2017-37 as the 2018 inflation adjusted limitation on HSA contributions for eligible individuals with family coverage under an HDHP. Accordingly, $6,900 now is the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B) for an individual with family coverage under an HDHP for calendar year 2018.
Before this announced change, some individuals may have received distributions of HSA contribution amounts that were treated as in excess of the annual contribution limit amount before publication of Revenue Procedure 2018-27. Revenue Procedure 2018-27 outlines two alternatives for dealing with these distributions.
Under the first alternative, an individual who receives a distribution from an HSA of an excess contribution (with earnings) based on the $6,850 deduction limit published in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 may repay the distribution to the HSA and treat the distribution as the result of a mistake of fact due to reasonable cause under Q&A-37 of Notice 2004-50. The portion of a distribution (including earnings) that an individual repays to an HSA by April 15, 2019, is not included in the individual’s gross income under section 223(f)(2) or subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4). The repayment is not subject to the excise tax on excess contributions under section 4973(a)(5). Also, mistaken distributions that are repaid to an HSA are not required to be reported on Form 1099-SA or Form 8889 and are not required to be reported as additional HSA contributions. However, in accordance with Q&A-76 of Notice 2004-50, a trustee or custodian is not required to allow individuals to repay mistaken distributions.
Alternatively, Revenue Procedure 2018-27 states that an individual who receives a distribution from an HSA of an excess contribution (with earnings) based on the $6,850 deduction limit published in Rev. Proc. 2018-18 and does not repay the distribution to the HSA may treat the distribution in accordance with section 223(f)(3), which describes the treatment of excess contributions returned before the due date of return. Thus, the excess contribution generally would not be included in gross income under section 223(f)(2) or subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4), provided the distribution is received on or before the last day prescribed by law (including extensions of time) for filing the individual’s 2018 tax return. However, Revenue Procedure 2018-27 adds that the tax treatment under this alternative does not apply to distributions from an HSA that are attributable to employer contributions (pursuant to a cafeteria plan election or otherwise) if the employer does not include any portion of the contributions in the employee’s wages because the employer treats $6,900 as the annual limitation on deductions under section 223(b)(2)(B). In that case, unless the distribution from the HSA is used to pay qualified medical expenses, the distribution is includible in the employee’s gross income under section 223(f)(2) and subject to the 20 percent additional tax under section 223(f)(4).
The author of the “Texas Payday Act,” and numerous other highly regarded publications on wage and hour and other human resources, employee benefits and compensation publications, Ms. Stamer is well-known for her 30 years of extensive wage and hour, compensation and other management advice and representation of restaurant and other hospitality, health, insurance, financial services, technology, energy, manufacturing, retail, governmental and other domestic and international businesses of all types and sizes.
You are currently browsing the archives for the Tax Qualification category.

References: § 401
 § 401
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 § 3405
 § 223