IRS Issues Guidance on Reporting Cost of Health Plan Coverage

January 3, 2012 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The Internal Revenue Service has issued interim guidance on informational reporting to employees about the cost of their group health insurance coverage.

Notice 2012-9 restates and amends the interim guidance on informational reporting to employees of the cost of their employer-sponsored group health plan coverage initially provided in Notice 2011-28. This informational reporting is required under § 6051(a)(14) of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), enacted as part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 (the Affordable Care Act), Public Law, 111-148, to provide useful and comparable consumer information to employees on the cost of their health care coverage.  

Notice 2012-9 supersedes Notice 2011-28 and makes the following changes to the guidance provided in Notice 2011-28:  

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

  • Modifies Q&A-3 to provide that until further guidance is issued, the reporting requirement will not apply to tribally chartered corporations wholly owned by Federally recognized Indian tribal governments.  
  • Modifies Q&A-3 to clarify the application of the interim relief from the reporting requirement for employers filing fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year.  
  • Modifies Q&A-7 to clarify the application of the reporting requirement to certain related employers not using a common paymaster.  
  • Adds a new example to Q&A-19 that demonstrates that the reporting requirement does not apply to coverage under a health flexible spending arrangement (FSA) if contributions occur only through employee salary reduction elections.  
  • Modifies Q&A-20 to clarify that the standard for determining whether coverage under a dental plan or vision plan is subject to the reporting requirement is based upon the same standard for determining whether the coverage is subject to the rules set forth in the regulations under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).  
  • Modifies and corrects Q&A-23 to clarify that the reporting requirement does not apply to the cost of coverage includible in income under § 105(h), or payments or reimbursements of health insurance premiums for a 2% shareholder-employee of an S corporation who is required to include the premium payments in gross income.  
  • Modifies Q&A-28 to clarify the application of the reporting requirement if a composite rate is used with respect to the premium charged active participants, but not the premium charged under COBRA to a qualifying beneficiary.  

The notice also provides the following additional guidance through new Q&A’s:  

  • Provides that employers are not required to include the cost of coverage under an employee assistance program (EAP), wellness program, or on-site medical clinic in the reportable amount if the employer does not charge a premium with respect to that type of coverage provided under COBRA to a qualifying beneficiary (Q&A-32).  
  • Clarifies that employers may include the cost of coverage under programs not required to be included under applicable interim relief, such as the cost of coverage under a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) (Q&A-33).  
  • Clarifies how to calculate the reportable amount for coverage only a portion of which constitutes coverage under a group health plan (Q&A-34).  
  • Clarifies how to calculate the reportable amount if an employer is provided notice after December 31 of a calendar year of events that occurred on or before December 31 of a calendar year that affect the prior year’s coverage, such as an employee providing an employer notice of a divorce or other change in family status that occurred during a prior calendar year (Q&A-35).  
  • Clarifies how to calculate the reportable amount where coverage extends over the payroll period including December 31 (Q&A-36).  
  • Clarifies the application of the exception for certain hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance offered by an employer on an after-tax basis (Q&A-37 and Q&A-38).  
  • Provides that the reportable amount is not required to be included on a Form W-2 provided by a third-party sick pay provider (Q&A-39).  

 

Notice 2012-9 is at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-09.pdf.

EEOC Files Suit Against Grand Central Partnership

January 3, 2012 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – Grand Central Partnership, Inc. (GCP) violated a consent decree and committed new illegal acts, according to the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC).

The EEOC lawsuit says GCP fired a black Rastafarian security officer in retaliation for his complaints about threats of violence and racism.

In 2009, EEOC and GCP settled an earlier lawsuit about GCP’s treatment of Rastafarian and Caribbean security officers with a consent decree filed in federal court. In that settlement, the parties had agreed that GCP would offer accommodations for the religious practices of the Rastafarian security officers and not retaliate against Rastafarian security officers for their participation in the lawsuit. As part of that settlement, GCP is still subject to supervision by the federal court in that action.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The new lawsuit claims in 2010, the hostility toward Rastafarians at GCP erupted again when a non-Caribbean security officer threatened to shoot and kill a group of Rastafarian officers. After a white security supervisor made light of the physical threats made to the Rastafarian security officers, one Rastafarian security officer objected to the supervisor’s conduct and his past discrimination. Additionally, he called the supervisor a racist for referring in the past to a group of Rastafarians with the “N word” and threatening to stand in the way of their getting paid for their work. After the security officer complained to the supervisor and telephoned EEOC, GCP fired him about three months later.

The EEOC filed suit, Civil Action No.11 Civ. 9682 SDNY, in U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, after attempting to reach a voluntary pre-litigation settlement.

«