Posted on

Court Upholds Exclusion of Surrogate Pregnancy Costs, But Pitfalls Remain

In an unpublished opinion*, the 10th Circuit Court in Moon v. Tall Tree Administrators, LLC (10th Cir. May 19, 2020) upheld a self-insured group health plan’s exclusion of “pregnancy charges acting as a surrogate mother” as unambiguous and enforceable, even though that exclusion was nested within a larger exclusion of “[n]on-traditional medical services, treatments, and supplies.”

In the case, Moon, an employee of Mountain View Hospital in Utah and a participant in their self-insured group health plan, asked the third party administrator in 2011 whether surrogate maternity expenses were covered and was told that they were not.  Moon underwent a surrogate pregnancy in 2013 without notifying the plan and her expenses were covered.  She agreed to act as a surrogate again in 2015, but this time the plan denied coverage for her pregnancy expenses under the cited exclusion.  Moon argued that her expenses were conventional prenatal and childbirth expenses and that because the exclusion for surrogacy expenses was nested within a larger exclusion of “non-traditional” services and treatment, it was not applicable.  The district court disagreed, and granted summary judgement for the plan.

Because it was decided on summary judgment, the 10th Circuit reviewed the matter “de novo” – i.e., as a trial court would, rather than under the “abuse of discretion” standard of review applicable under Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989) when the plan document expressly accords discretion to the plan administrator to interpret the terms of the plan document.

The 10th Circuit affirmed enforcement of the exclusion on the grounds that “a reasonable person in the position of the participant would view ‘pregnancy charges acting as a surrogate mother’ as an example of a non-traditional medical expense” and hence as excluded care.  Perhaps illustrating the legal maxim that “bad facts make bad law,” it is impossible to tell whether the court’s conclusion was tainted by the fact that the plaintiff proceeded with two separate surrogate pregnancies after confirming that that the plan did not cover this type of expense.

In an earlier case, Roibas v. EBPA, LLC, 346 F. Supp. 3d, 164 (D. Maine 2018), the exclusion simply stated “[e]xpenses for surrogacy,” and a dispute arose as to whether that referred to the cost of hiring a surrogate, or the surrogate’s own pregnancy and childbirth expenses.  The plan had already covered some prenatal coverage before learning that it was a surrogate pregnancy and denying subsequent claims.  Acknowledging that the exclusion was ambiguous, the Maine District Court upheld it out of deference accorded to the plan administrator’s interpretation of the ambiguous plan term (the Firestone standard of review applied), and based on the conclusion that the plan administrator’s interpretation was reasonable.

For sponsors of self-insured health plans, these cases highlight the importance of careful drafting of plan exclusions, particularly in an area like surrogate births where medical advancements and social trends are evolving fairly rapidly.  They also provide an inflection point to examine some of the other legal pitfalls of excluding surrogate pregnancy costs from coverage.

First, there is a practical concern presented by not always being able to know when a participant or dependent’s pregnancy is for surrogacy purposes.  The plans in both the Moon and Roibas cases unwittingly reimbursed some surrogate pregnancy expenses before terminating coverage.  Because the facts of surrogacy are not always transparent, the plan sponsor may have difficulty consistently enforcing even unambiguous exclusions of surrogate pregnancy expenses.   This could potentially lead to fiduciary breach charges.  Plan sponsors may also be hard pressed to justify denying the costs of an intended surrogate pregnancy while covering the maternity expenses of a participant who intends to permit the child to be adopted.

As for legal concerns, there are two salient ones.  First, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, applicable to employers with 15 or more employees, mandates that a group health plan cover pregnancy in the same manner as other medical conditions, making it difficult for a plan sponsor to justify excluding coverage of a pregnancy based on the way in which the mother became pregnant or on their plans for the child, once born.  Second, for non-grandfathered group health plans under the Affordable Care Act, the Act requires first-dollar coverage of preventive services including prenatal and post-natal care.  The ACA does not carve out surrogate pregnancies in this regard.  There are also potential tax consequences to providing surrogacy benefits, and fertility benefits, that are reviewed in some detail here.

As an alternative to a coverage exclusion, group health plan sponsors who want to limit the use of their plan benefits by individuals who may be compensated for a surrogate pregnancy may give thought to applying their plan’s right of reimbursement and subrogation to compensation that the participant receives.  Subject to state insurance law, this is generally how group health insurance carriers approach the issue, covering the cost of surrogate prenatal care and delivery but seeking reimbursement, or asserting subrogation rights, thereafter.**

To take this approach essentially equates the compensation paid to a surrogate by a couple struggling with infertility, to the recovery an injured participant receives from a third party tortfeasor.  Plan sponsors may have varying levels of comfort with this approach and should certainly seek ERISA counsel first, as well as counsel with expertise in surrogacy laws, as they vary significantly state to state.

*Unpublished opinions generally are not binding precedent but may be cited for persuasive value. The 10th Circuit covers the district courts of the states of six states of Oklahoma, Kansas, New Mexico, Colorado, Wyoming, and Utah, plus those portions of the Yellowstone National Park extending into Montana and Idaho.

**Effective January 1, 2020, Nevada is a notable exception to other states in this regard, banning carriers from denying coverage for surrogate pregnancies and from seeking reimbursement, subrogation, etc.

The above information is provided for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers should not apply the information to any specific factual situation other than on the advice of an attorney engaged specifically for that or a related purpose. © 2020 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo Credit: Christian Bowen, Unsplash.

Posted on

Texas Court ACA Ruling: 5 Takeaways

If you are in the benefits business you have already heard about a December 14, 2018 ruling by a federal trial court judge in Texas, that the entirety of the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional.  The following 5 takeaway points put the ruling into context and provide some indications of where things could head from here.

1.  For now, the ACA remains in effect.

The ruling did not stop the government, via “injunction,” from continuing to enforce the ACA as it currently stands. Instead it reached a legal conclusion (holding) that (a) the individual mandate (which imposed a tax on individuals who failed to secure coverage) was integral to the whole ACA (“the ACA keystone”), that (b) the individual mandate was constitutional because it fell within Congress’s power to levy taxes (as determined by the Supreme Court in NFIB v. Sebelius), and that (c) the reduction of the tax imposed under the individual mandate to $0 (via the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act) rendered the individual mandate, and hence the entire ACA, unconstitutional.  The Departments of Health and Human Services (“HHS”) and the IRS were defendants in the Texas court case, supporting the ACA, and following the ruling the Trump Administration issued a statement that HHS “will continue administering and enforcing all aspects of the ACA as it had before the court issued its decision.” As one consequence, applicable large employers (ALEs) must continue to comply with employer shared responsibility rules (both offers of coverage, and ACA reporting due in early 2019).

2.  The ruling is not the last word on the ACA’s fate.

As mentioned the ruling is at the trial court level in the federal court system.  It almost certainly will be appealed to the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals and then possibly to the Supreme Court. Legal scholar Nicholas Bagley has opined that the Fifth Circuit Court may have little patience for the court’s holding.  The appeals process could take months, in any event.

3.  The ruling creates uncertainty re: the ACA’s fate.

The ACA has survived two Supreme Court challenges, plus two years of full control of Congress and the White House by its most severe opponents. It had seemed to reach safe ground in recent months; indeed, some ACA concepts such as no pre-existing condition exclusions and coverage of dependents to age 26 had broad appeal in the mid-term elections, including among some Republicans. With the Texas court’s ruling, the ACA’s fate is back in watch and wait mode.  Resolution of the uncertainty will have to await completion of the legal processes described in Point No. 2.  Generally speaking, uncertainty is not good for employers, insurers, or the general economy, so eyes will be on how these sectors react in the wake of the ruling.

4.  The political landscape has changed since the last time the ACA’s constitutionality was in question.

As mentioned, some ACA provisions now appear to be “baked in” to the public’s concept of government entitlements.  Unlike in prior years, elected officials are now loathe to align themselves with the law’s total repeal. (Even the HHS notice regarding continued enforcement of the ACA expressly mentioned the ban on pre-existing condition exclusions.) So reaction to the ruling from known ACA foes has been measured, if made at all.  Prior legal setbacks for the ACA have become political footballs, but  public debate over the issues hopefully will have a more civil tone, this time around.

5.  As the ACA’s fate hangs in the balance, more radical health care reform proposals are just around the corner.

Some of the newly empowered Democratic winners of the mid-term elections are entering Washington, D.C. with ideas for health care reform that go far beyond what the ACA accomplished, including single payer systems.  Single payer systems, including, for instance, a major expansion of the Medicaid program, would disrupt the nexus between healthcare and employment that exists for many Americans.  These concepts first got broad national attention in the last presidential campaign and you can expect buzz around them to increase as the next presidential election in 2020 approaches.

Posted on

It’s (Summer) Time for Wellness Plan Re-Design

Now that summer is here, there are only a few more months until benefit plan open enrollment for 2019 gets underway. Employers who maintain a wellness program that includes biometric testing, health risk assessments (HRAs), or medical questionnaires need to think now about how they will design their plan in the new year, as changes to the rules governing these wellness features go into effect.  This post outlines the changes and discusses the new design landscape for 2019.

What are the Changes?

During 2017 and 2018, final regulations under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) limit the financial incentive employers may offer in exchange for participating in biometric testing, HRAs or medical questionnaires, to an amount equal to 30% of the cost of individual coverage (both the employee and employer portions.) The same limit applies to surcharges or penalties for not taking part.  Companion regulations under Title II of the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA) apply the same cap to completion of an HRA or medical questionnaire by an employee’s spouse, because manifestation of a disease or disorder in a family member comprises genetic information on the employee.  The ADA regulations also disallow the 20% additional incentive tied to tobacco use, if the wellness program includes a blood test for nicotine or cotinine.  The ADA and Title II of GINA apply to employers with 15 or more employees.   We discussed the ADA and GINA rules in a prior post.

The American Association of Retired Persons (AARP) challenged the 30% incentive limit in court on the grounds that the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) failed to prove that this cap was necessary in order for participation in the biometric testing or health risk assessment (HRA) to be “voluntary” and not coercive, which is an ADA requirement.

A federal court agreed with the AARP, and vacated the 30% incentive cap effective January 1, 2019.  (Other provisions of the ADA regulations, including notification and confidentiality rules, remain in effect.)  The court also lifted a requirement that the EEOC publish new proposed regulations on the voluntary standard by August 31, 2018.   The EEOC may issue regulations in the future (and could appeal the court decision), but wellness program design for 2019 must get underway in the absence of clear guidance on the voluntariness standard.

2019 Design Landscape

The chart below illustrates the wellness rule landscape effective January 1, 2019 for employers that are subject to the ADA. Wellness regulations under HIPAA and the ACA will continue to apply, but they do not impose any limit on incentives (or penalties) for biometric testing or HRAs that are “participation only” i.e., that do not require physical activity, or specific health outcomes.

Despite the vacated EEOC standard, employers should exercise caution in setting financial incentives for biometric testing, HRAs or medical questionnaires.  Even prior to issuing regulations, the EEOC had challenged wellness programs in several court actions, ranging from a program that conditioned biometric testing and completion of an HRA on a $20 per paycheck surcharge, to one that conditioned 100% of the premium cost on taking part in an HRA. Although the cases generally were resolved in favor of the employer, they make clear that EEOC may view even modest incentives as failing the voluntary standard.

Employers should also make sure that their wellness program follows up after gathering health data through biometric testing, HRAs or medical questionnaires, with information, advice, or programs targeted at health risks.  A wellness program that fails to do so would not qualify as an employee health program under the ADA and the voluntary wellness program exceptions would not be available.

So what are some options for 2019? There are several design “safe harbors” that do not trigger the ADA voluntariness standard:

1) Eliminating biometric testing/HRAs/medical questionnaires altogether.

2) Keeping biometric testing/HRAs/medical questionnaires, but removing any financial incentive or penalty that applied to them.

3) Offering smoking cessation programs that request self-disclosure as a tobacco user (no blood test for nicotine, cotinine).

Limiting financial incentives/penalties for biometric testing/HRAs/medical questionnaires to an amount that does not exceed 10 – 15% of the individual premium is another option. This range is just high enough to encourage participation, but it is under 20%.  In AARP v. EEOC, the court’s August 2017 ruling on summary judgment cited a RAND study noting that “high powered” incentives of 20% or more may place a disproportionate burden on lower-paid employees.

What about different incentive levels for different groups of employees? First, this may be administratively impractical, and second, it might run afoul of the HIPAA/ACA requirement that the full wellness incentive or reward be made available to all “similarly situated” individuals.  Groupings of employees for this purpose must be based on bona fide, employment-based classifications that are consistent with the employer’s usual business practice, such as between full-time and part-time employees, hourly and salaried, different lengths of employment, or different geographic locations.   For many employers, these criteria may not always neatly overlap with different compensation levels.

In sum, employers who do not wish to eliminate biometric testing and HRAs/medical questionnaires from their wellness programs should anticipate living with some uncertainty about whether their financial incentives meet ADA standards.   Engaging in careful planning in the coming weeks, together with benefit advisors and legal counsel, can help keep the risk to a minimum.

Posted on

California’s Dynamex Decision: What it Means for ERISA Plans

The California Supreme Court ruled on April 30, 2018 that, for purposes of coverage under California wage orders, employers must start with the presumption that a worker is a common law employee, and then may properly classify him or her as an independent contractor only if all of the following three criteria are met:

  1. The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring business in connection with the performance of the work;
  2. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
  3. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

Although the Dynamex ruling is limited to classification of workers under the California wage orders, it’s practical effect is likely to be much broader, as employers are unlikely to use one definition of employee for wage and hour purposes, and another definition for, say, reimbursement of business expenses, or benefit plan eligibility.

Speaking of which, what is the likely impact of the Dynamex ruling on employee benefit plans? Will employers have to offer coverage retroactively to the hire date of the now-reclassified independent contractors? Must they offer coverage going forward?

ERISA plans look to the federal definition of common law employee, which in turn looks to federal case law and an IRS multi-factor test.   So the Dynamex decision does not itself create eligibility under an ERISA plan.   What if individuals who were reclassified as employees under the ABC test were to claim retroactive eligibility under an ERISA plan, however?  As a starting point, it is helpful to look at how most plan documents currently define “eligible employee” and how they treat the issue of workers who were engaged as independent contractors, but later are classified as common law employees.

Most prototype 401(k) plan documents – and some health plan documents in use by “self-insured” employers – contain what is commonly referred to as “Microsoft language” — under which plan eligibility will not extend retroactively to individuals who are hired as independent contractors, even if they later are classified as employees. The language came into common use after the Ninth Circuit ruling in Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 120 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied.522 U.S. 1098 (1998), which held that long-term, “temporary” workers, hired as independent contractors, were employees for purposes of Microsoft’s 401(k) and stock purchase plan.[1]

For example, a prototype 401(k)/profit sharing plan that is in wide use provides as follows:

“Eligible Employee” means any Employee of the Employer who is in the class of Employees eligible to participate in the Plan. The Employer must specify in Subsection 1.04(d) of the Adoption Agreement any Employee or class of Employees not eligible to participate in the Plan. Regardless of the provisions of Subsection 1.04(d) of the Adoption Agreement, the following Employees are automatically excluded from eligibility to participate in the Plan:

(1) any individual who is a signatory to a contract, letter of agreement, or other document that acknowledges his status as an independent contractor not entitled to benefits under the Plan or any individual (other than a Self-Employed Individual) who is not otherwise classified by the Employer as a common law employee, even if such independent contractor or other individual is later determined to be a common law employee; and  (2) any Employee who is a resident of Puerto Rico.

And a self-insured group health plan document from a well-known provider states as follows:

The term “Employee” shall not include any individual for the period of time such individual was classified by the Employer as an independent contractor, leased employee (whether or not a “Leased Employee” under the Code section § 414(n)) or any other classification other than Employee. In the event an individual who is excluded from Employee status under the preceding sentence is reclassified as an Employee of the Employer pursuant to a final determination by the Internal Revenue Service, another governmental entity with authority to make such a reclassification, or a court of competent jurisdiction, such individual shall not retroactively be an Employee under this Plan. Such reclassified Employee may become a Covered Person in this Plan at such later time as the individual satisfies the conditions of participation set forth in this Plan. (Emphasis added.)

The Microsoft language, if present, may resolve the issue of retroactive coverage. What about coverage going forward? If a worker has provided services as an independent contractor but cannot retain that status under the ABC test, and is hired as a common-law, W-2 employee, does the first hour of service counted under the plan begin the day they become a W-2 employee, or the date they signed on as an independent contractor? The Microsoft provisions quoted above would suggest that service would start only when the common-law relationship starts, however employers are cautioned to read their specific plan documents carefully and to consult qualified employment and benefits law counsel for clarification. If the desire is to credit past service worked as an independent contractor, it may be advisable to seek IRS guidance before doing so, as fiduciary duties require that plan sponsors act in strict accordance with the written terms of their plan documents.

Finally, what about insured group health and welfare documents, such as fully insured medical, dental, vision, disability or life insurance? The policies and benefit summaries that govern these benefits probably won’t contain Microsoft language and may define eligible status as simply as “you are a regular full-time employee, as defined by your [Employer].”

Employers that are “applicable large employers” under the Affordable Care Act must count individuals who have been re-classified as common-law employees under the ABC test toward the group of employees to whom they offer minimum essential coverage; this group must comprise all but 5% (or, if greater, all but 5) of its full-time employees.  Unfortunately, there is potential ACA liability for failing the 95% offer on a retroactive basis. Public comments on the final employer shared responsibility regulations requested relief from retroactive coverage when independent contractors were reclassified as common-law employees, but the Treasury Department specifically failed to grant such relief, noting in the preamble to the final regulations that doing so could encourage worker misclassification.  Whether the customary 3-year tax statute of limitations would apply in such situations is not entirely clear; also unclear is whether employers could successfully argue that workers that fail the ABC test still somehow could classify as non-employees for federal common-law purposes.

Bottom line? Every California employer paying workers other than as W-2 employees should be re-examining those relationships under the ABC test and should be consulting qualified employment law counsel, and benefits law counsel, about the consequences of any misclassification, both on a retroactive basis (particularly with regard to the ACA), and going forward (all benefit plans).

[1] Another Ninth Circuit case, Burrey v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 159 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. 1998), essentially followed the Microsoft ruling, but with specific regard to “leased employees” as defined under Internal Revenue Code § 414(n). A discussion of leased employees is beyond the scope of this post.

Posted on

Top 10 Questions re: Management Carve Outs in Group Health Plans

            Employers value flexibility in designing their group health benefits so as best to attract and retain qualified personnel. One issue that remains perpetually murky, in this regard, is the legality of management carve-outs, whereby an employer offers certain group health insurance options or classes of coverage only to management or other highly paid groups.   The following true or false discusses some of the rules that come into play.

  1. The ACA contains a rule that restricts employers’ ability to offer different insured group health benefits to highly compensated employees, than to other employees.

             TRUE:  Under Section 2716 of the Public Health Service Act, which was incorporated into the Affordable Care Act (ACA), non-grandfathered, insured group health plans generally must satisfy nondiscrimination rules similar to those that apply to self-insured group health plans under Section 105(h) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). These rules generally require some measure of parity between higher-paid employees, and non-highly paid employees.  Limited scope dental or vision plans provided under policies separate from group medical coverage are excepted.

  1. However, the IRS is not currently enforcing the ACA nondiscrimination rules for insured group health plans.

             TRUE:  In 2011 the IRS postponed enforcement of these rules, pending publication of regulations that will guide employers as to how to comply. As we approach the ACA’s eighth anniversary in March 2018, regulations have yet to issue.  When regulations do issue they will apply on a prospective (going forward) basis.

  1. Therefore employers have free reign to offer different benefits to management employees or other highly-compensated groups of employees.

             FALSE:   Although there are some circumstances in which employers may offer different and/or better group health insurance to management or other highly-paid employee groupings, the Section 125 cafeteria plan rules do impose some design restrictions.  These rules will apply to employers that have any type of Section 125 cafeteria plan arrangement, including premium-only plans (e.g., employees’ share of premiums are paid on a pre-tax basis, with no other cafeteria plan features) and to employers with other cafeteria plan features such as a health flexible spending account or dependent care flexible spending account.  The rules are explained in the questions that follow.

  1. All management employees are “highly-compensated employees” for cafeteria plan testing purposes.

             FALSE: First, the technical term is “highly-compensated individuals,” and it includes the following groups, which will not necessarily overlap 100% with an employer’s management group population:

  • Officers during the prior plan year
  • Greater than 5% shareholders (in either the preceding or current plan year)
  • Highly compensated employees (those earning more than $120,000 in 2017 are highly compensated employees in 2018)
  • Spouses or dependents of any of the above.
  1. If I maintain just a premium-only plan and all employees can participate and elect the same salary reductions for the same benefits, the premium only plan is nondiscriminatory.

             TRUE.  Proposed cafeteria plan regulations that issued in 2007 provide this safe harbor rule. Employers may rely on the proposed rules.

  1. If I maintain just a premium-only plan and don’t meet the requirements of the safe harbor, the POP is automatically discriminatory.

            FALSE.  Under these circumstances your premium-only plan will not satisfy the safe harbor mentioned above, but it could still pass other applicable nondiscrimination tests.  There is some uncertainty, under the 2007 proposed regulations, as to whether the only applicable test applies to eligibility, or whether there is a benefits component of the test.  It may be best to consult a seasoned third party administrator, or benefits attorney, if you have questions.

  1. If my cafeteria plan fails all types of nondiscrimination testing, all is lost.

             FALSE. The 2007 proposed regulations permit “disaggregation” – breaking up one plan into separate component plans – one benefitting participants who have completed up to three years of employment, and another benefitting those with three or more years of employment.  Each component plan must separately pass cafeteria nondiscrimination rules applicable to eligibility, and contributions and benefits.  Plans that fail nondiscrimination testing as a whole may pass testing after permissive disaggregation.  The proposed regulations did not discuss whether plans may be disaggregated based on factors other than length of employment, and further guidance on this point would be welcome.

  1. The IRS does not audit cafeteria plans so it doesn’t matter anyway.

FALSE. Although audits specific to a cafeteria plan are seldom seen, the IRS could expand a payroll audit or other business or benefit plan audit to encompass operation of a cafeteria plan, even a premium-only plan.  Therefore it is important to comply with the cafeteria plan nondiscrimination rules.

  1. Our company pays 100% of health premiums for highly compensated individuals directly to the carrier (or the employees pay themselves on an after-tax basis), so there is no cafeteria plan nondiscrimination issue.

             TRUE.  However, any insured group health plan design that provides better treatment for higher paid employees may fall afoul of the ACA nondiscrimination regulations mentioned in questions 1 and 2, when they issue; although the regulations will apply prospectively, neither employers nor their highly compensation staff should assume that preferential health plan designs are more than temporary.

  1. A “Simple” Cafeteria Plan is exempt from Section 125 nondiscrimination rules.

             TRUE.  A nondiscrimination safe harbor applies to “simple” cafeteria plans under Code Section 125(j), however those plans are subject to other design restrictions that may prove unworkable for many employers, including mandated employer matching or non-elective contributions. They are also limited to employers with 100 or fewer employees on business days during either of the two preceding years.

Posted on

IRS Gifts Large Employers an ACA Reporting Extension

Under the ACA, Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) must comply with annual reporting and disclosure duties under Section 6056 of the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”). These include filing, with the IRS, a Form 1094-C transmittal form, together with copies of Form 1095-C individual statements that must also be furnished to full-time employees (and to part-time employees who enroll in self-insured group health plans).

In a holiday-time gift to ALEs, the IRS just extended the deadline to furnish Form 1095-Cs to employees by 30 days, from January 31, 2018, to March 2, 2018. ALEs must still file Form 1095-C employee statements with the IRS by the normal deadline of February 28, 2018 (paper) or April 2, 2018 (e-file). However, due to the across-the-board extension to March 2, 2018, the IRS will not be granting any permissive 30-day extensions to furnish Form 1095-C to employees. And, while granting the extension, the IRS still encourages ALEs to furnish the 2017 employee statements as soon as they are able, and also to file or furnish late rather than not file or furnish at all, where applicable. ALEs may still obtain an automatic extension on the filing deadlines by filing Form 8809, and may obtain an additional, permissive 30-day filing extension upon a showing of good cause. In summary, the deadlines for 2017 ACA reporting are as follows:

File 2017 Form 1094-C with IRS:           February 28, 2018 (paper); April 2, 2018, (e-file)

File 2017 Form 1095-Cs w/IRS:               February 28, 2018 (paper); April 2, 2018 (e-file)

Furnish 2017 Form 1095-Cs to Employees:       March 2, 2018

Additionally, the IRS extended, for another year, the transition relief that has been in place since ACA reporting duties first arose in 2015. Under the transition relief, the IRS will not impose penalties on employers who file Forms 1094-C or 1095-C for 2017 that have missing or inaccurate information (such as SSNs and dates of birth), so long as the employer can show that it made a good faith effort to fulfill information reporting duties. There is no relief granted for ALEs who fail to meet the deadlines (as extended) for filing or furnishing the ACA forms, or who fail to report altogether.

This news is be welcome given that all U.S. employers will be grappling with new income tax withholding tables early in 2018 given the passage of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which President Trump signed in to law on December 22, 2018. We’ll be providing more information on the Act’s impact on employment benefits after the Christmas holiday.

Posted on

IRS Rolls Out Collection Process for ACA Large Employer Penalty Tax

The IRS is rolling out enforcement of the large employer “pay or play” penalty tax for 2015, with preliminary penalty calculation letters anticipated to begin to be issued between now and the end of 2017.   This will potentially impact employers who, over 2014, averaged 100 or more full-time employees, plus full-time equivalents, and who in 2015 either did not offer group health coverage to at least 70% of its full-time employees, or offered coverage that was “unaffordable,” as defined under the ACA, and for whom at least one full-time employee qualified for premium tax credits on a health exchange.

The sample penalty summary table the IRS has just circulated leaves space for a six-figure annual penalty amount, so substantial amounts of business revenue could be at stake in the collection process. Below is a timeline beginning with receipt of a notice from the IRS of a preliminary penalty calculation (Letter 226J), which includes the penalty summary table; the timeline is based on recently-updated IRS FAQs on the penalty collection process.   Employers must respond by the date set forth in the Letter 226J, which generally will be 30 days from the date of the letter. However due to habitually slow IRS internal processing, employers may have less than two weeks from date of actual receipt, to prepare a response.  ACA reporting vendors may not be equipped to assist with responses to preliminary penalty assessments, so employers who receive a Letter 226J identifying a preliminary penalty amount should look to ERISA or other tax counsel, or an accountant with knowledge of the ACA, in order to best protect their interests.  Not all IRS communication forms referenced below had been released as of the date of this post but it will be updated as the forms become available.

  1. The start point is an employer who is an ALE for 2015 (based on 2014 headcount) and who has one or more FT employees who obtain premium tax credits for at least one month in 2015, as reflected in ACA reporting (and an affordability safe harbor or other relief was not available).
  2. The ALE receives Letter 226J with enclosures, including the penalty summary table, Form 14764 Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (ESRP) Response, and Form 14765 Premium Tax Credit (PTC) List, identifying employees who potentially trigger ACA penalties.
  3. The ALE has until the response date set forth on Letter 226J to submit Form 14764 ESRP Response and backup documentation. The deadline will generally be no more than 30 days from date of Letter 226J but internal IRS processing may cut in to that time budget.
  4. The IRS will acknowledge the ALE’s response, via one of five different versions of Letter 227.
  5. The ALE either takes the action outlined in Letter 227 (e.g., makes original or revised ESRP payment), or
  6. the ALE requests a pre-assessment conference with IRS Office of Appeals, in writing, within 30 days from the date of Letter 227, following instructions set forth in Letter 227 and in IRS Publication 5, Your Appeal Rights.
  7. If ALE fails to respond to Letter 226J or Letter 227, the IRS will assess the proposed ESRP payment amount and issue Notice CP 220J, notice and demand for payment.
  8. Notice CP 220J will include a summary of the ESR payment amount and reflect payments made, credits applied, and balance due, if any; it will instruct ALE how to make payment. Installment agreements may be reached per IRS Publication 594.
Posted on

ACA Cheat Sheet for 2017 & 2018

On Tuesday, September 26, 2017, Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) announced that Republicans would abandon efforts to pass ACA repeal and replace legislation, namely the much-amended American Health Care Act of 2017, and on September 30, 2017 their chance to pass any other version of repeal and replace this year as a budget reconciliation measure, requiring only 51 votes, also expires.  For the remainder of 2017, then, applicable large employers and their brokers and advisers should refresh their familiarity with employer shared responsibility rules under the ACA.  Below is a cheat sheet with affordability safe harbor thresholds, applicable large employer penalty tax amounts, and out-of-pocket maximums for 2017 and for fast-approaching 2018.  Sources are Revenue Procedures 2016-24 and 2017-36, and the Final Rule on Benefit and Payment Parameters for 2017 and 2018.

Capture2018aca

Posted on

Offer Opt-Out Payments? Don’t Get Snared in Overtime Liability

If you are an employer within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and offer cash payments to employees who opt out of group health coverage (“opt-out payments”), what you don’t know about the court’s 2016 opinion in Flores v. City of San Gabriel may hurt you.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit court held that opt-out payments had to be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime payments under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In May 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the opinion, making it controlling law within the Ninth Circuit, and hence in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.

The Flores case arose when a group of active and former police officers in the City of San Gabriel sought overtime compensation based on opt-out payments they received between 2009 and 2012 under a flexible benefits plan maintained by the City.  The plan required eligible employees to purchase dental and vision benefits with pre-tax dollars; they could also use the plan to purchase group health insurance.  Employees could elect to forgo medical benefits upon proof of alternative coverage; in exchange they received the unused portion of their benefits allotment as a cash payment added to their regular paycheck.  The opt-out payments were not insubstantial, ranging from $12,441 annually in 2009 to $15,659.40 in 2012.  The City’s total expenditure on opt-out payments exceeded $1.1 million dollars in 2009 and averaged about 45% of total contributions to the flexible benefits plan over the three years at issue.

The court held that the City had not properly excluded the opt-out payments from the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes under the FLSA, as they were items of compensation even though not tied directly to specific hours of work, and further that the “bona fide” benefit plan exception did not apply, because, inter alia, the cash opt-out payments received under the flex plan comprised far more than an “incidental” portion of the benefits received.

Despite the significant potential impact of getting this classification wrong, the City appears not to have sought a legal opinion on whether it could permissibly exclude the opt-out payments under the FLSA. Instead, a City employee testified that it followed its normal process of classifying the item of pay through joint decision by the payroll and human resources departments, without any further review of the classification or other due-diligence.  For this oversight, the court awarded liquidated damages against the City for failure to demonstrate that it acted in good faith and on the basis of “reasonable grounds” to believe it had correctly classified the opt-out payments under the FLSA.  Further, the court approved a three-year statute of limitations for a “willful” violation of the FLSA, rather than the normal two year period, on the grounds that the City was on notice of its FLSA requirements, yet took “’no affirmative action to ensure compliance with them.’”

Although Flores involved a benefit plan maintained by a public entity, there is nothing in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that limits its scope to public entity employers.

Therefore employers within the Ninth Circuit who offer opt-out payments should review their payroll treatment of these amounts and seek legal counsel in the event there if potential overtime liability under the FLSA. They should also confirm that cash opt-out payments remain an “incidental” percentage of total flex benefits, which the Department of Labor has defined in a 2003 opinion letter as no more than 20% of total plan benefits.  In Flores the Ninth Circuit found the 20% threshold to be arbitrary, but suggested that it was likely lower than 40% of total benefits.  Finally, employers offering opt-out payments should also revisit the other legal compliance hurdles that these payments present under the ACA, which after its recent reprieve from repeal/replace legislation, remains, for now, the law of the land.

Posted on

Waiting for the Other Shoe to Drop: IRS Begins ACA Reporting Penalty Process

Repeal and replacement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) by the American Health Care Act (AHCA) may be underway in Washington D.C., but until a final version of the AHCA is signed into law, the ACA is the law of the land. In fact, the IRS is currently issuing notices to employers that require them to disclose whether they complied with ACA large employer reporting duties, or their excuse for not doing so, where applicable. This post describes the notices and how to respond to them.

By way of background, the ACA required large employers to furnish employee statements (Forms 1095-C) and file them with the IRS under transmittal Form 1094-C, and the Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) imposes separate penalty taxes for failing to timely furnish and file the required forms. Large employer reporting was required for 2015 and 2016, even if transition relief from ACA penalty taxes applied for 2015. The potential penalties can be very large – up to $500 per each 2015 Form 1095-C statement ($250 for not furnishing the form to the employee and $250 for not filing it with IRS) – up to a total annual penalty liability of $3 million. The penalty amounts and cap are periodically adjusted for inflation.

Employers that failed to furnish Form 1095-C and file copies with Form 1094-C may receive the IRS notices, called “Request for Employer Reporting of Offers of Health Insurance Coverage (Forms 1094-C and 1095-C)” and also known as Letter 5699 forms. Forms may be received regarding reporting for 2015 or 2016. Employers that receive a Letter 5699 form will have only thirty days to complete and return the form, which contains the following check boxes:

  • Employer already complied with reporting duties;
  • Employer did not comply but encloses required forms with return letter;
  • Employer will comply with reporting duties within ninety days (or later, if further explained in the form);
  • Employer was not an Applicable Large Employer for the year in question; or
  • Other (requiring a statement explaining why required returns were not filed, and any actions planned to be taken).

The Letter also provides: “[i]f you are required to file information returns under IRC Section 6056, failure to comply may result in the assessment of a penalty under IRC Section 6721 for a failure to file information returns.”

Employers receiving Letter 5699 forms should contact their benefit advisors immediately and plan to respond as required within the thirty-day limit; it may be necessary to request an extension for employers that are just realizing that they have reporting duties and need to prepare statements for enclosure with their response. In this regard, the IRS offers good faith relief from filing penalties for timely filed but incomplete or incorrect returns for 2015 and 2016, but relief from penalties for failures to file entirely for those years is available only upon a showing of “reasonable cause,” which is narrowly interpreted (for instance, due to fire, flood, or major illness).

Large employers should not look to coming ACA repeal/replacement process for relief from filing duties and potential penalties. The House version of the AHCA does not change large employer reporting duties and it is unlikely the Senate or final versions of the law will do so. This is largely because procedural rules limit reform/repeal provisions to those affecting tax and revenue measures, which would not include reporting rules.   Thus the reporting component of the ACA will likely remain intact (though it may be merged into Form W-2 reporting duties), regardless of the ACA’s long-term fate in Washington.

Note:  a modified version of this post was published in in the Summer 2017 issue of Risk & Business Magazine (Carle Publishing).