Benefits Bryan Cave

Benefits BCLP

Health Care Reform

Main Content

Employer Shared Responsibility Payments May Have No Statute of Limitations

In Chief Counsel Memorandum 20200801F, released on February 21, 2020, the IRS established its position that no statute of limitations applies to employer shared responsibility payments that may be assessed under Section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code (the “Code”).  This IRS internal guidance should serve as a warning for applicable large employers that non-compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules can result in significant penalties that may be assessed at any time in the future.

The IRS bases its position on the fact that the information returns on Forms 1094-C and 1095-C do not provide sufficient information to calculate the tax liability due by an employer under Section 4980H of the Code.  In Beard v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 766 (1984), aff’d 793 F.2d 139 (6th Cir. 1986), the tax court set forth a four-part test for determining whether a document is sufficient to start a statute of limitations under Section 6501 of the Code, with the first test requiring that the document include sufficient data to calculate the taxpayer’s tax liability.  In the IRS’s view, since neither Form 1094-C nor the Form 1095-C includes information with respect to an employee’s eligibility for a premium tax credit – which is necessary data for determining whether a Section 4980H penalty applies – an employer cannot know whether it has potential liability under Section 4980H at the time those forms are filed.  As a result, the IRS concluded that the statute of limitations

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 6: Forming an AHP: Legal and Governance Structure

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.”  One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”).  In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018 and its final rule on June 19, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration by providing a high-level, summary overview of the three types of arrangements that fall under the umbrella of health arrangements sponsored by associations, which include Affinity Arrangements, Group Insurance Arrangements and AHPs.  In Part 2 of this “Deep Dive” series, we compared plan features of the three types of arrangements under current law.  In Part 3 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the qualification requirements for AHPs under current law.  In Part 4 of

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 5: The Final AHP Rule

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.” One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”). In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018 and its final rule on June 19, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration by providing a high-level, summary overview of the three types of arrangements that fall under the umbrella of health arrangements sponsored by associations, which include Affinity Arrangements, Group Insurance Arrangements and AHPs. In Part 2 of this “Deep Dive” series, we compared plan features of the three types of arrangements under current law. In Part 3 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the qualification requirements for AHPs under current law. In Part 4 of this Deep

J, K, L, M and N: What’s In a Letter?

Over the last few months, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been replying to responses to their Letter 226-J, which notifies employers of a proposed Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (ESRP). The IRS has recently updated its website to include additional information on its Letter 227 series. The various letters either close the ESRP case or provide the employer with next steps.

If you responded to a Letter 226-J, the reply from the IRS will come in the form of one of the following four 227 letters:

  • Letter 227-J. If you submitted a completed Form 14764, ESRP Response agreeing to the ESRP amount proposed in your Letter 226-J, the IRS will acknowledge its receipt using Letter 227-J and provide instructions for making the ESRP. If full payment is not received within 10 days, the IRS will issue a Notice and Demand for the outstanding balance.
  • Letter 227-K. You want this letter. Letter 227-K acknowledges acceptance of the information you provided disputing the proposed ESRP amount and renders a determination that no ESRP is due. The case is closed and no further action is required.
  • Letter 227-L. The IRS acknowledges receipt of your response to Letter 226-J and notifies you of the revised ESRP amount using Letter 227-L. An updated ESRP Summary Table and Form 14765 (PTC Listing) will be included. If you agree with the revised ESRP amount, you must submit a completed Form 14764, ESRP Response with the required payment. If you disagree with the revised ESRP

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 4

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.”  One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”).  In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration by providing a high-level, summary overview of the three types of arrangements that fall under the umbrella of health arrangements sponsored by associations, which include Affinity Arrangements, Group Insurance Arrangements and AHPs.  In Part 2 of this “Deep Dive” series, we compared plan features of the three types of arrangements under current law.  In Part 3 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the qualification requirements for AHPs under current law.  In this installment of the “Deep Dive” series, we will examine the qualification requirements for AHPs under the

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 3

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.” One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”). In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we examined the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration by providing a high-level, summary overview of the three types of arrangements that fall under the umbrella of health arrangements sponsored by associations, which include Affinity Arrangements, Group Insurance Arrangements (“GIAs”), and AHPs. In Part 2 of this “Deep Dive” series, we compared plan features of the three types of arrangements under current law.  In this installment of the “Deep Dive” series, we will examine the qualification requirements for AHPs under current law.

Current Qualification Requirements for AHPs

ERISA provides that an employee benefit plan may be maintained by an association of

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 2

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across State Lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American People.” One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”). In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we started examining the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration by providing a high-level, summary overview of the three types of arrangements that fall under the umbrella of health arrangements sponsored by associations. This week, we compare features of the three types of arrangements when such arrangements are offered on a fully-insured basis.

Plan Feature Group Insurance Arrangement Affinity Plan Association Health Plan (fully-insured) ACA plan design requirements (e.g., requirement to provide essential health benefits) Look to size of employer to determine the extent to which ACA plan design requirements apply Look to size of employer to determine the extent to which ACA plan design requirements apply ACA requirements relating

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 1

First in a Series

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across State Lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American People.” One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”). In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018.

With the renewed focus on AHPs, we will be examining the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration in this “Deep Dive” series. First in our series is a high-level, summary overview of the three types of arrangements that fall under the umbrella of health arrangements sponsored by associations: Affinity Arrangements, Group Insurance Arrangements (“GIAs”), and AHPs.

Affinity Arrangements

  • A trade group or association (e.g., a local chamber of commerce) endorses a specific health plan.
  • The insurance carrier for the health plan pays a royalty to the trade group or association.
  • The insurance carrier issues standard fully-insured policies to members of the association who elect to purchase

Play Time is Over: IRS Reveals Process for Assessing ACA Penalties

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced a “pay or play” scheme, effective January 1, 2015, in which Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) must offer affordable qualifying healthcare to their full-time employees (and their dependent children) or pay a penalty. Despite President Trump’s first Executive Order (discussed here) directing a rollback of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and instructing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to minimize the “unwarranted economic and regulatory burden of the act,” the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) quietly updated its Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the ACA to include the first official guidance detailing the process for enforcement of the penalty. Notably, this update coincided with an IRS announcement that penalties for the 2015 calendar year will be assessed late this year.

The ALE penalty process starts with Letter 226J, which the IRS will send to ALEs it believes owe a penalty based on information reported on Forms 1095-C and 1094-C. The letter will explain the penalty calculations and describe steps to follow depending on whether the ALE agrees or disagrees with the proposed penalty amount.

If you receive Letter 226J and disagree with the proposed penalty, you may:

  • Complete, sign and date Form 14764 ESRP Response (to be included with Letter 226J);
  • Include a statement explaining the basis for your disagreement

“Who” May Object to the Contraceptive Coverage Mandate, and why?

New rules issued by the Trump administration, including both interim final and temporary regulations effective October 6, 2017, significantly expand “who” may object to the Patient Protection and Affordable Coverage Act’s (PPACA) contraceptive coverage mandate and why those entities or individuals may object.

Background:

Under the PPACA, the Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA), a division of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), has the authority to require that certain preventive care and screenings for women be covered by specific group health plans and health insurance issuers.  HRSA has used that discretion to require, among other things, contraceptive coverage.  HHS, the Department of Labor, and the Department of the Treasury, the agencies tasked with enforcing that requirement, have permitted certain health insurance issuers and group health plans with religious objections, such as non-profit organization and church plans, to receive an exemption or accommodation from this requirement.  As a result of the Hobby Lobby litigation, closely held for-profit organizations with religious objections to contraceptive coverage were added to the list of entities which could request an accommodation; however, accommodations are intended to shift the cost of providing these services and supplies to third-party administrators and health insurance issuers rather than permitting a group health plan to truly not offer the services or supplies.

The new world order:

The first interim final rule and associated temporary regulations provide that all non-governmental plan sponsors and health insurance issuers that object to contraceptive coverage based on sincerely held

The attorneys of Bryan Cave Leighton Paisner make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.