June 14, 2004 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Justice Court
in New Paltz New York has come out with a ruling in favor of
same-sex marriages in the Empire State.
>The New York state court said denying same-sex
couples the right to marry would violate equal protection
measures in the state’s constitution.
The ruling came as the court threw out
charges that the town’s mayor, Jason West, violated
the law by marrying dozens of gay couples in February
without licenses, according to an Associated Press
report.
“None of the reasons stated in opposition to
same-sex marriage is paramount to the equal protection
guarantees enshrined in the state and federal
constitutions,” Judge Jonathan Katz said in his
ruling.
Joshua
Rosenkranz, the attorney representing
West saw the court’s decision as monumental in the gay and
lesbian rights movement.
“This marks the first official step in the march toward
full equality for gays and lesbians in New York
state
,”
Rosenkranz
told the AP. “It is the first time that any court in this
state has declared that same-sex couples have the same
rights, same status, and same dignity as every other
citizen.”
A spokeswoman for New York Attorney General Eliot
Spitzer told the AP, “We are reviewing the
decision.”
While the decision appears to be a clear cut victory
for same-sex marriage proponents, the case will ultimately
wind up in New York Supreme Court, a process that could
take up to two years.
Earlier this year, California’s Supreme Court
halted same-sex marriages in San Francisco and is now
considering the matter (See
CA Supreme Court Puts Gay Marriage on Hold…
For Now
). Additionally,
Multnomah County Circuit Judge Frank Bearden ordered
the Oregon’s largest county to stop issuing marriage
licenses to same-sex couples (See
Judge Halts Oregon Same-Sex Marriages
).
"Advance Reimbursements" and "Loans" For Uninsured
Medical Expenses Are Gross Income: IRS
December 30, 2002 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Internal
Revenue Service (IRS) has released Revenue Ruling 2002-80,
stating any amount paid to employees as an "advance
reimbursement" or "loan" for uninsured medical claims is not
excluded from gross income under section 105(b) of the IRS
Tax Code.
All monies given to an employee as an “advance
reimbursement” or “loan” are counted as gross income, and
thus should have the appropriate employment taxes
withheld, regardless if the employee incurred any
uninsured medical expenses during the year.
The revenue ruling examined two possible scenarios
an employer might encounter when determining the proper
way to handle “advance reimbursements” or “loans.”
An employer provides health coverage to its
employees providing for accident or health coverage
through a group health insurance policy.
The employer automatically deducts the cost of the
coverage from its employees enrolled in the insurance,
thereby applying the salary reduction amounts to the
payment of the premiums for the group health insurance
policy for the employee during the year.
To restructure the salary reduction for the group
health insurance policy, the employer makes payments to
an employee in amounts that cause the employee’s
after-tax pay from the employer to be the same or
approximately the same as what it would have been if
there were no salary reductions to pay premiums for the
group health insurance policy. These payments would be
characterizes as “advance reimbursements” of the
uninsured medical expenses.
Even though the payments are made as an “advance
reimbursements” for payments to an uninsured medical
expenses, those amounts are paid to the employee regardless
of whether the employee incurs expenses for medical care or
suffers a personal injury or sickness during the year.
The employers “advance reimbursement” plan is therefore
not an accident or health plan because it is not an
arrangement for the payment of amounts to employees in the
event of personal injuries or sickness.
In addition, the exclusion from gross income under
Section 105(b) applies only to amounts paid specifically to
reimburse medical care expenses and does not apply to
amounts that the employee would be entitled to receive
regardless of whether or not the employee incurs expenses
for medical care.
Any amount the employee received for uninsured
medical expenses given in the “advance reimbursement”
should be treated as additionally compensation with the
proper tax withholdings taken from the employee’s gross
wages.
Scenario Two
Similar facts as the first scenario, only the employer
reimburses an employee’s health insurance premiums through
“loans” rather than “advance reimbursements.” Although the
employer characterizes the payments to the employee as
“loans,” it is understood that the employee will never
become obligated to repay any of the “loans”. Under this
plan, when the employee submits uninsured medical claims,
the employer treats the reimbursements as an offset against
that amount of the “loans.”
The plan is implemented by making “loans” to the
employee sufficient to cause the employee’s after-tax pay
to remain essentially unchanged. The “loans” only become
due and payable at the time the employee submits claims for
uninsured medical expenses.
Again, the exclusion from gross income under Section
105(b) applies only to amounts paid specifically to
reimburse medical care expenses and does not apply to
amounts that the employee would be entitled to receive
regardless of whether or not the employee incurs expenses
for medical care.
Proper withholding should be taken out of the employee’s
gross wages for the full amount of the loan.