News & Events

2015 Ends With a Flurry of ACA Activity

Submitted By Firm: Bond, Schoeneck & King, PLLC

Contact(s): Louis P. DiLorenzo, Thomas G. Eron

Author(s):

John C. Godsoe

Date Published: 1/11/2016

Article Type:

Share This:

Employers were treated to a number of Affordable Care Act (ACA) developments just in time for the holidays and to ring in the New Year. Many of the developments are welcome news for employers, including an extension of the ACA reporting due dates and a delay in the implementation of the so-called "Cadillac Tax." The IRS also provided much needed clarification regarding the application of various provisions of the ACA to employer-provided health coverage, including guidance regarding the effect of opt-out arrangements, flex contributions and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) on the determination of whether an offer of coverage is affordable under the ACA’s employer shared responsibility (ESR) rules, and clarifying guidance regarding how the ACA’s market reforms apply to HRAs. The highlights of these developments are summarized below.

ACA Reporting Extension

As 2015 drew to a close, many employers found themselves working diligently to prepare the appropriate ACA reporting forms in anticipation of a looming February 1, 2016 distribution deadline. The IRS gave employers a slight reprieve in the form of a two month extension. Under the extension, the deadline to provide individuals with Forms 1095-B and 1095-C has been extended from February 1, 2016 to March 31, 2016. The due date for filing Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C and 1095-C with the IRS has been extended from February 29, 2016 to May 31, 2016, if not filing electronically. If filing electronically, the deadline is extended from March 31, 2016 to June 30, 2016.

While the delays should give employers who were playing "catch up" with respect to the ACA reporting requirements a much needed break, employers who were on schedule to complete the Forms under the prior deadlines should consider taking advantage of the extra time to ensure that their reporting process has resulted in Forms that are accurate and complete.

Cadillac Tax Delay

On December 18, 2015, President Obama signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016 (Act). The Act included a two-year delay on the effective date of the 40 percent excise tax imposed on employer-sponsored health coverage that exceeds certain limits, commonly referred to as the "Cadillac Tax." The delay extends the effective date of the Cadillac Tax from January 1, 2018 to January 1, 2020. While the delay further clouds the future of the Cadillac Tax (which has been the subject of repeal discussions in Washington), for the time being, employers should continue to review their health insurance plans to determine whether they may be subject to exposure under the Cadillac Tax and plan appropriately for design changes that may be required to avoid the tax prior to the new effective date.

IRS Notice 2015-87

IRS Notice 2015-87 (Notice) provides guidance on a number of ACA compliance issues with respect to various health plan arrangements. The scope of the Notice is broad, covering a wide range of ACA issues affecting health plan sponsors. This memorandum focuses on two issues covered in the Notice: (1) how opt-out payments, flex-credits, and contributions to HRAs affect the affordability of an employer’s health coverage offer for purposes of the ESR and ACA reporting rules; and (2) clarifications regarding the application of the ACA’s market reforms to HRAs.

Affordability

With the ACA reporting deadline looming, many employers have just begun to dig into the details of when an offer of coverage is considered "affordable" for purposes of the ESR and reporting rules under the ACA. The ESR rules generally require applicable large employers to offer affordable health coverage that provides minimum value to full-time employees in order to avoid a potential penalty. The regulations provide that an offer of coverage is considered affordable under a "safe harbor" rule if the lowest cost, self-only coverage option offered to employees does not exceed 9.5% of a specified threshold (e.g., wages reported on Form W-2).

The Notice clarifies a number of issues regarding the affordability determination for purposes of the ESR and ACA reporting requirements, including:

  • Opt-Out Payments. The treatment of opt-out payments (i.e., payments that are offered to employees in exchange for waiving group health insurance coverage) has been a vexing issue for many employers. While the regulations provide that affordability for purposes of complying with the ESR rules is based on the employee’s "required contribution" for the applicable health insurance premium, the IRS has previously informally indicated that opt-out payments have the effect of increasing an employee’s contribution for health coverage above the normal salary reduction amount for the coverage. As an example, if single coverage for the lowest cost plan of an employer costs $200 a month, and an employee is offered an additional $100 per month in taxable wages if he or she declines the coverage, the IRS’ position is that the offer of the $100 has the economic effect of increasing the employee’s contribution for the coverage because the employee must forego the $100 if coverage is elected. Accordingly, in this example, the employee contribution towards the cost of coverage would be $300 because the employee must forego $100 per month in compensation, in addition to the $200 per month in salary reduction.

    The Notice provides that the IRS intends to formalize this position in future regulations with respect to unconditional opt-out arrangements (i.e., an arrangement that conditions the opt-out payment solely upon the employee declining coverage without any other conditions, such as a requirement to provide proof of coverage from a spouse’s employer). Prior to that date, employers are not required to increase the amount of an employee’s required contribution by the amount of an opt-out payment for "affordability" purposes, provided that the opt-out arrangement was adopted prior to December 16, 2015.

    Because the treatment of opt-out payments may affect the premium tax credit eligibility of an employee who has enrolled in Marketplace (Exchange) coverage, the IRS indicated that, until further guidance becomes effective, employees may treat such payments as increasing the employee’s required contribution (thereby increasing the likelihood that the employee will be eligible for a premium tax credit). This rule applies both with respect to unconditional opt-out payments and conditional opt-out payments where the employee can demonstrate that he or she meets the applicable condition to receive the opt-out payment.
     
  • Flex Contributions to a Cafeteria Plan. The Notice provides that flex contributions under an employer’s Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 125 cafeteria plan reduce the amount of an employee’s required contribution for purposes of the ESR rules, if the amount constitutes a "health flex contribution." In order to be considered a health flex contribution, the employee: (i) may not opt to receive the amount as a taxable benefit; (ii) may use the amount to pay for minimal essential coverage; and (iii) may use the amount exclusively to pay for medical care, within the meaning of Section 213 of the Code. Flex contributions that are not health flex contributions do not reduce the employee’s required contribution. For example, a flex contribution that is available for health care coverage but could also be received in cash does not have the effect of reducing an employee’s contribution. Health flex contributions are treated as made ratably for each month of the contribution period.

    Employers who have been treating non-health flex contributions as reducing an employee’s required contribution for purposes of the ESR rules are given transition relief. Under the transition rule, for plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2017, a flex contribution that is not a health flex contribution will be treated as reducing the amount of an employee’s required contribution. The relief is not available for a flex contribution arrangement offering non-health benefits that is adopted after December 16, 2015 or that substantially increases the amount of the flex contribution after December 16, 2015.

    Additionally, for ACA reporting purposes, for plan years beginning prior to January 1, 2017, an employer who maintains a non-health flex arrangement that is eligible for the transition relief may choose to reduce the employee’s required contribution attributable to the flex contribution amount for purposes of the information reporting required on line 15 of Form 1095-C. Because this reduction could impact an employee’s eligibility for a premium tax credit, the IRS has encouraged employers not to reduce the employee’s required contribution on line 15 based on a non-health flex contribution. Employers who do not reduce the contribution on line 15 and are contacted by the IRS regarding a potential assessable payment due to the employee’s receipt of a premium tax credit will have the opportunity to demonstrate that the employee would not have been eligible for the tax credit if the employer had reduced the employee’s contribution by the non-health flex credit amount.
     
  • HRA Contributions. Under the Notice, HRA contributions that may be used by an employee to pay the premiums for employer-sponsored health plan coverage are counted towards the employee’s required contribution and therefore reduce the amount of the employee’s required contribution for affordability purposes, provided the HRA is integrated (see below for a general discussion of the integration rules). In order for these amounts to be counted towards the employee’s required contribution, the annual HRA contribution must be stated in the HRA plan or otherwise be determinable within a reasonable period of time prior to when the employee is required to make a decision to enroll. The HRA contribution is treated as made ratably for each month of the period to which it relates. This rule applies regardless of whether the employee uses the HRA to pay his or her share of contributions for the health plan coverage (i.e., the reduction is still permissible even if the employee uses the HRA contributions to pay for co-pays, deductibles, etc. and not health plan premiums).

HRAs

In prior guidance (IRS Notice 2013-54), the IRS addressed a number of important issues related to the application of the ACA’s market reforms to HRAs. The market reforms cited in the prior guidance as problematic with respect to HRAs were: (i) the requirement that a group health plan may not establish an annual limit on the dollar amount of benefits that are considered essential health benefits; and (ii) the requirement that non-grandfathered group health plans must provide certain preventive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements for these services. IRS Notice 2013-54 established the general rule that an HRA covering active employees satisfies these market reforms if it is integrated with another group health plan that satisfies the reforms, but will not be considered integrated if it may be used to purchase individual market coverage, including Marketplace coverage. The Notice provided clarification regarding these rules in the following circumstances:

  • Retiree-Only HRAs May be Used to Purchase Individual Market Coverage. The Notice reaffirmed prior guidance indicating that an HRA that covers fewer than two participants who are current employees (such as a retiree-only HRA) is not subject to the market reforms. Accordingly, such a plan may be used to purchase individual market coverage, even if the amounts available to the retiree are determined in whole or in part by amounts credited during a period in which the individual participated in an integrated HRA covering active employees. However, any month in which such HRA funds are available, the participant in the HRA will not be eligible for a premium tax credit with respect to the purchase of Marketplace coverage for that month.
     
  • Unused Amounts Credited to HRA While Integrated May Not be Used to Purchase Individual Coverage. Amounts that were credited to an HRA covering active employees while the HRA was integrated with other group health plan coverage generally may be used to reimburse medical expenses in accordance with the terms of the HRA after an employee ceases to be covered by the other integrated health plan coverage. However, these credited amounts may not be used to purchase individual coverage after the employee covered by the HRA ceases to be covered by the other integrated group health plan coverage. Accordingly, an HRA covering active employees may not permit the purchase of individual market coverage, even with respect to unused amounts credited to an employee while the HRA was integrated with other group health plan coverage.
     
  • Amounts Credited to an HRA Prior to January 1, 2014. The Notice reaffirmed that amounts credited to an HRA prior to January 1, 2014, including any amounts credited prior to January 1, 2013 and any amounts that were credited during 2013 under the terms of an HRA in effect on January 1, 2013, may be used after December 31, 2013 to reimburse medical expenses in accordance with those terms without causing the HRA to fail to comply with the market reforms. If the HRA terms in effect on January 1, 2013 failed to define a set amount to be credited during 2013, the amounts credited during 2013 may not exceed the amounts credited for 2012 and may not be credited on an earlier schedule or faster rate than the crediting schedule or rate that applied during 2012.
     
  • Family HRA Integration. HRAs may be designed to reimburse the eligible medical expenses of an employee’s spouse and/or dependents (Family HRA). The Notice clarified that a Family HRA is permitted to be integrated with an employer’s other group health plan for purposes of the market reforms only as to the individuals who were enrolled both in the HRA and the employer’s other group health plan. If an employee’s spouse and/or dependents are not enrolled in the employer’s other group health plan coverage, their coverage is not considered integrated, and as a result, the HRA will fail to satisfy the market reforms. However, under a transition rule, the IRS will not treat an HRA and group health plan that would otherwise be integrated based on the terms of the plan as of December 16, 2015 as failing to be integrated for plan years beginning before January 1, 2017, solely because the HRA covers the expenses of a spouse and/or dependent who is not enrolled in the employer’s other group health plan. But, the employer will be responsible for reporting the HRA coverage as minimum essential coverage for each individual covered by the HRA who is not also enrolled in the employer’s group health plan.

Conclusion

These ACA developments prove once again that the only thing predictable about ACA guidance is that it is unpredictable and subject to change. The ACA reporting delay provides applicable large employers subject to the ESR rules with some welcome additional time to complete and assess the accuracy of their reporting forms. The guidance in the Notice regarding health coverage affordability determinations for applicable large employers who maintain opt-out arrangements, flex credits, or HRAs should help employers assess how to complete line 15 of Form 1095-C and understand their potential exposure under the ESR rules. Also welcome was an indication in the Notice that the IRS will not impose penalties for ACA reporting failures, provided that the employer can show that it has made good faith efforts to comply with the information reporting requirements.

Finally, as mentioned above, in addition to the issues addressed in this memorandum, the Notice addressed a wide array of other issues affecting group health plan sponsors. We will provide guidance regarding these ACA developments in future updates.

Find a Member

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

Stephen HirschfeldAs an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld
Partner 

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel

Sanmina-SCI

Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.

Starwood

We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel