• Skip to content
  • Skip to primary sidebar

Header Right

  • Home
  • About
  • Contact

Archives for December 2014

Update on $100 Per-Day Penalty for Reimbursing Employees for Health Insurance

December 11, 2014 by curcurucpa

Share This:

A short while back, we issued an alert about the $100 per-day per-employee penalty for violating the Affordable Care Act’s market reform provisions.  OnAlert November 6, the Department of Labor issued additional guidance on its FAQ page that makes clear that the market reform provisions were stricter than originally thought.

Brief Background

The market reform provisions place a whole host of new restrictions on employer-provided group health plans.  These provisions apply to all employer-provided group health plans—including small businesses with less than 50 employees.  The provisions were not affected by the one or two year delay in the mandate for large employers to provide health coverage.

The chief issue is that group health plans cannot have annual or lifetime limits on coverage.  The market reform provisions include medical reimbursement plans in the definition of group health plans.  Many small businesses reimburse their employees for the cost of the employees’ individual health insurance and for other medical expenses under medical reimbursement plans.  The problem is that these medical reimbursement accounts are treated as having limits on coverage because the plans almost always have an annual limit.  If the employer only reimburses employees for individual health insurance and for no other medical expenses, the annual limit is treated as being the amount the employer is paying to reimburse the employee for individual health insurance premiums.

How Things Just Got Worse

It was previously believed that employers could avoid the $100 per-day per-employee penalty if the employer included the health insurance reimbursement in the employee’s taxable compensation.

According to DOL Q#1, an employer that reimburses employees for an individual health policy has established a group plan because the arrangement’s purpose is to provide medical care to employees.  The employer cannot avoid this result by treating reimbursements as after-tax payments.   Now, even if the employer treats the reimbursement as after-tax, the employer will still be subject to the penalty.

The penalty is too large ($36,500 per employee per year) to ignore.  It is unlikely that this penalty will be delayed since the DOL issued guidance on this issue in the past month.

How to Avoid the Penalty

IRS Notice 2013-54 allows employees to freely choose between cash and an after-tax amount that they have the option (not the requirement) to apply toward health insurance.  These arrangements will still avoid the penalty as long as the employee is free to spend the cash anyway she wants.  The employee will then be able to deduct the health insurance premium as a medical expense (but only if the employee’s total medical expenses exceed 10% of AGI, or 7.5% of AGI if the employee is age 65 or older).

If the employee is required to purchase health insurance with the additional taxable income, the employer will be subject to the penalty.

The other way employers may avoid the penalty is by purchasing an Affordable Care Act-approved employer-sponsored group health plan.

Finally, the penalty will not apply if only one employee is reimbursed for individual health insurance and/or other medical expenses.

Example:  ABC Corp has two employees.  Each employee earns $40,000 per year.  ABC Corp is willing to reimburse the employees for their individual health insurance coverage.  Each policy’s premium is $4,000 per year.  ABC Corp can increase the employees’ compensation by around $4,000 to cover the health insurance premium (it probably is best if the additional pay does not exactly match the premium).  As long as the employee is free to use the additional compensation for any purpose, the employer will not be subject to the penalty.  If ABC Corp requires the additional compensation to be used to pay the premium, the penalty will apply.

If you have questions about how this applies to you, please contact us.

 

freeconsultation

Buzzkill Disclaimer:  This post contains general tax information that may or may not apply in your specific tax situation. Please consult a tax professional before relying on any information contained in this post.

Filed Under: Uncategorized

Child’s Investment Income Can be Taxed at Parents’ Higher Tax Rate

December 4, 2014 by curcurucpa

Share This:

A common tax strategy among high wealth individuals is to shift income to their children where it will be taxed at a lower tax rate.  If the child works in kiddie taxthe taxpayer’s business, this can be done by putting the child on payroll.  The taxpayer can deduct the payroll (as long as it is reasonable considering the services the child provides) and the payroll is taxed as income at the child’s lower tax rate.

Another technique is to shift income producing assets to the child.  The intent is to have the investment income taxed at the child’s lower tax rate.  However, the IRS is wise to this technique and if the child’s investment income exceeds $2,000, the excess investment income is taxed at the parents’ higher tax rate.  This rule is known as the kiddie tax.

When Does the Kiddie Tax Apply?

The kiddie tax applies if:

(1) the child’s unearned income is more than $2,000

(2) the child meets one of the following age requirements

  • the child is under age 18 at the end of the year
  • the child is age 18 at the end of the year and the child’s earned income did not exceed one-half of the child’s own support for the year
  • the child is a full time student who is under age 24 at the end of the year and the child’s earned income did not exceed one half of the child’s own support for the year (excluding scholarships)

(3) at least one of the child’s parents is alive at the end of the year

(4) the child is required to file a tax return for the year

(5) the child does not file a joint return for the year

It is important to keep in mind that the kiddie tax only applies to unearned income, earned income such as wages is not subject to this provision.

Example:  Joan, who is in the 25% tax bracket, transfers investments to her child, Tommy (age 15).  Tommy has interest income of $3,200 in 2014.  The first $1,000 is sheltered by his standard deduction.  The next $1,000 is taxed at his tax rate of 10%.  The remaining $1,200 of interest income is taxed at Joan’s 25% tax rate.

How to Avoid the Kiddie Tax

It is possible to minimize the kiddie tax by shifting to children investment assets that do not generate current taxable income, such as:

Municipal Bonds:  These investments are not subject to federal tax and therefore escape the kiddie tax.

Growth Oriented Investments:  An example would be growth stocks or mutual funds that do not pay large dividends to shareholders. Most of the income is capital appreciation that is recognized for tax purposes when the investment is ultimately sold.  If the child can hold the growth stocks past age 23 (if the child is a full time student), the stocks can be sold without being subject to the kiddie tax.

U.S. Discount Bonds:  These bonds are issued at a discount and do not generate taxable interest income until they are redeemed.  The bonds can be redeemed after the child is no longer subject to the kiddie tax.

If you have questions about how this applies to you, please contact us.

 

freeconsultation

Buzzkill Disclaimer:  This post contains general tax information that may or may not apply in your specific tax situation. Please consult a tax professional before relying on any information contained in this post.

Filed Under: Uncategorized Tagged With: investment income, kiddie tax

Primary Sidebar

Search

Archive

  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • June 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • April 2017
  • February 2017
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • October 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • November 2010
  • October 2010
  • September 2010
  • August 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010
  • March 2010
  • February 2010
  • January 2010
  • December 2009
  • November 2009
  • October 2009
  • August 2009
  • July 2009
  • June 2009
  • November 2008
  • October 2008
  • September 2008
  • May 2008
  • April 2008
  • March 2008

Category

  • Best Business Practices
  • Business Tax
  • Estate Planning
  • Michigan Tax
  • Personal Tax
  • Restaurants
  • Small Business Tax
  • Uncategorized

Copyright © 2014 · https://curcurucpa.com/blog