November 7, 2024 - The 2023 reporting season was the ninth time employers who have been applicable large employers (ALEs) since the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) inception filed the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. While one would expect employers would have mastered how to accurately report the necessary information to the IRS, the truth is almost all employers with a workforce with non-static hours (meaning a workforce which does not consistently work 40 hours a week) are still struggling to report accurately and in many instances in a timely fashion. To complicate matters further the IRS is struggling to accurately assess the employer shared responsibility payments (ESRP) that are part of the ACA’s jigsaw puzzle for funding the premium tax credits individuals can receive from State exchanges if certain parameters are satisfied. These issues are creating a minefield leading to legal issues for many employers.

The 2025 open enrollment season is rapidly approaching. Earlier this month the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2024-35 which, among other items, set the affordability threshold for employers in 2025. In order to avoid a potential section 4980H(b) penalty an employer must make sure one of its plans provides minimum value and is offered at an affordable price. An actuary will determine whether the minimum value threshold has been satisfied and this is generally not an issue for employers. However, an employer is in control as to whether the plan it is offering meets the affordability threshold.

March 11, 2024 - The deadline to provide the 2023 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS is April 1, 2024 (as a result of March 31, 2024 landing on a Sunday). While this is the ninth time employers who have been Applicable Large Employers since the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) reporting requirement kicked in, many employers are still making easily avoidable mistakes. At the top of the list of easily correctible mistakes is timely filing the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. In private practice I have recently seen the IRS begin to provide pushback against employers who have failed to timely file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C and insist that the employer pay a penalty of up to $310 per late return!

November 1 - In late September a private practice client of mine received a letter from the IRS with good news! The letter stated that my client was being provided a credit because the IRS determined that an individual who had previously triggered a section 4980H(b) penalty was not in fact eligible for a premium tax credit (PTC). As a result of the employee not being eligible for a PTC, the employee could not trigger a section 4980H(b) penalty so the IRS provided my client with a credit (note the penalty stemmed from a year prior to me representing this client as we are currently working our way through an IRS appeal for a penalty in a later year). While this is definitely good news for my client, the situation highlights the failure of HHS, the Exchanges, and the IRS to send out section 1411 notices, set up a separate 1411 appeals process, and follow the clear text of the ACA. The rest of this article will explore how a proper section 1411 notice could have allowed my client to avoid this situation.

October 3, 2023 - It is hard to believe, but soon employers will be in the middle of reporting the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS for the 2023 reporting season. With the reporting season quickly approaching, we thought it was an appropriate time to provide an update on some items we feel are critical to consider in the coming months.

August 24, 2023 - The 2024 open enrollment season is quickly approaching and more so than any year to date employers are going to need to use extreme caution to ensure their health plan is affordable. This week the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2023-29 which, among other items, set the affordability threshold for employers in 2024. In order to avoid a potential section 4980H(b) penalty an employer must make sure one of its plans provides minimum value and is offered at an affordable price. An actuary will determine whether the minimum value threshold has been satisfied and this is generally not an issue for employers. However, an employer is in control as to whether the plan it is offering meets the affordability threshold.

May 23, 2023 - In private practice I was recently working on a Letter 226J appeal for the 2018 calendar year when I came across something I had not encountered before that troubled me. The enclosed Form 14765 included an employee who had worked and been offered minimum value coverage along with the employee’s spouse and dependents for all 12 months of the year. Therefore, line 14 was completed with 1E. The employer attempted to use the Form W2 affordability safe harbor but the IRS disallowed the safe harbor because the employee’s line 15 amount was greater than 9.56 percent (the affordability threshold for 2018) of the amount entered in box 1 of the employee’s Form W2.

With the higher penalty amounts, employers who do not offer minimum essential coverage (MEC) or who offer unaffordable coverage to their full-time employees could face significantly increased financial exposure in 2024. Eployers should invest in tools or seek assistance from professionals to streamline their reporting process and avoid costly mistakes.

On January 1, 2019 the Affordable Care Acts (ACA) individual mandate was removed at the federal level. As a result, a number of States (California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Vermont and Washington, D.C.) adopted individual mandates. The States that have implemented an individual mandate have frequently implemented additional reporting requirements. The remainder of this paper provides and overview of the details of the pertinent States’ reporting requirements.

It is time for the eighth year of ACA reporting. Employers should already be working through the data collection portion of the process. We wanted to refresh everyone’s recollections on some basic things that can reduce headaches down the line. Additionally, we wanted to provide an exciting notice regarding appealing potential ACA penalties.

The 2022 Affordable Care Act (ACA) reporting season will be the 8th year employers are required to submit the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS. Since its inception the ACA reporting requirements have left many employers confused and frustrated. The solution to the ACA reporting obligation for many employers was to outsource the task to an “expert ACA reporting service” with a deep understanding of the rules and regulations. This certainly appears like a sound strategy. However, after years of ACA reporting and the IRS finally getting around to assessing penalties under the ACA it has become apparent that many of the “ACA reporting experts” turned out to be all hat, no cattle. This has left employers exposed to the penalties associated with the ACA. In an effort to assist employers report accurately to the IRS, Accord Systems is now offering an audit service, which had previously only been available as part of our standard package to Accord clients, to everyone! The remainder of this article discusses some of the issues employers have encountered with ACA reporting and how Accord Systems audit system can assist any employer.

October 13, 2022 - The draft instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for the 2022 reporting season were released in early October with only nominal changes compared to 2021. However, and importantly, employers who file incorrect or incomplete Forms 1095-C with the IRS may suffer costly penalties that the IRS did not begin to utilize until the 2021 reporting season. The remainder of this article will explore the changes made in the draft instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C in 2022.

October 6, 2022 - Many employers have received Letters 226J from the IRS since it began enforcing the employer mandate penalties associated with the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While the IRS was very lenient with employers during the initial years of reporting, the IRS has more stringently enforced the law with each successive year. Beginning with the 2017 calendar year the IRS began checking if an employer was eligible for the affordability safe harbors the employer was inserting in line 16 for its workforce. When the IRS determined the employer was not eligible for the affordability safe harbor based on information submitted by the employer or established benchmarks (such as the line 15 amount, box 1 of the Form W2, or the federal poverty line), the IRS penalized employers who had employees receive a premium tax credit or cost sharing subsidy. This is an egregious position by the IRS and goes against the clear, unambiguous language of the ACA. The remainder of the article explores the actual affordability standard set forth by the ACA and discusses the consequences employers have faced as a result of the IRS’ flagrant position.

September 15, 2022 - Many employers will soon begin preparing the final details for the 2023 open enrollment season. This year employers will need to pay particular attention to the employee’s share of the premium payment for health coverage. The 2023 plan year will have the lowest Affordable Care Act affordability threshold to date, 9.12 percent. The remainder of this article will explore the details employers need to be aware of for the 2023 plan year and discuss some strategies employers can implement to minimize IRC section 4980H exposure.

August 30, 2022 - One issue that has been percolating since the IRS began enforcing the employer mandate penalties under Internal Revenue Code section 4980H in late 2017 is whether the IRS even had the authority to do so in light of the fact that very few section 1411 notices were ever provided to employers. The letter 226J the IRS has been providing employers asserts that “the letter certifies, under section 1411 of the Affordable Care Act, that for at least one month in the year, one or more of your full-time employees was enrolled in a qualified health plan for which a PTC was allowed.” But, as discussed thoroughly below, a letter 226J is not and cannot be a section 1411 notice. Furthermore, a close review of the statutory language, the regulations, and the preamble explaining the various regulations make it clear that a section 1411 notice was a precondition to an employer being penalized under IRC section 4980H. As a result, employers who do not receive a section 1411 notice cannot be penalized under IRC section 4980H. Unfortunately, employers continue to not receive an imperative protection granted to them by the Affordable Care Act. This clearly violates employers’ right to due process.

August 1, 2022 - The 2023 open enrollment season is quickly approaching and more so than any year to date employers are going to need to use extreme caution to ensure its health plan is affordable. This week the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2022-34 which set the affordability threshold for employers in 2021. In order to avoid a potential section 4980H(b) penalty an employer must make sure one of its plans provides minimum value and is offered at an affordable price. An actuary will determine whether the minimum value threshold has been satisfied and this is generally not an issue for employers. However, an employer is in control as to whether the plan it is offering meets the affordability threshold.

June 28, 2022 - In our previous publication we explored the uncertainty surrounding a scenario where a non-applicable large employer (non-ALE) acquires an ALE in the middle of a year. While it is clear that a controlled group is treated as one employer for determining ALE status, the details of how a merger operates with ALE status midyear is far from clear. The IRS recognized all of the unanswered questions surrounding mergers and acquisitions related to the ACA so it released Notice 2014-49 which overviewed some of the issues and solicited comments. Unfortunately, the IRS has not issued additional guidance since the Notice. Regardless of the position the IRS takes, it is clear there is currently not sufficient detail in Part IV of the Form 1094-C to accurately account for the details of an employer’s controlled group.

June 17, 2022 - The second installment in our series focuses on issues some employers are having with line 15. Many employers are receiving unwelcomed Letters 226J with proposed penalties under IRC section 4980H. These letters include a Form 14765 with the IRS disallowing the Form W-2 affordability safe harbor by placing an XF on line 16 as opposed to the employer’s entry of 2F. The employees listed on the Form 14765 went to an exchange and were deemed eligible to receive a premium tax credit. As a result of the IRS disallowing the employer’s attempt to utilize the Form W-2 affordability safe harbor by placing 2F in line 16, the IRS is penalizing the employer under IRS section 4980H for not having offered affordable coverage. Frequently, the cause of the error is due to a mistake of the employer or the employer’s service provider. This is leading to a waste of IRS and employer resources through appealing the IRS penalties. For these reasons the IRS should allow an employer to put the line 15 amount as a percentage of an employee’s box 1 Form W2 wages if the employer’s offer is stated to the individual in such a fashion.

May 25, 2022 - After the 2021 instructions were released Accord Systems performed an audit on our software to make sure the automation process was working properly in light of the updated language in the final instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. Particular attention was paid to lines 14, 15, and 16 of the Form 1095-C. These three lines are one of the main tools the government uses to assess the section 4980H penalties against an employer. Lines 14, 15, and 16 tell the government a 12-chapter narrative about the employee entered on the Form 1095-C.

May 11, 2022 - In 2022 for the first time since the Affordable Care Act’s inception, the threshold for employers to be able to use the federal poverty line (FPL) affordability safe harbor fell for calendar year plans. Many employers utilize the FPL affordability safe harbor as it can allow them to utilize the 1A code on line 14 of the Form 1095-C which in turn allows them to leave lines 15 and 16 of the Form 1095-C blank. As a result, employers who were toeing the line to be able to use the FPL affordability safe harbor needed to take action to adjust down the employee’s share of the premiums for health coverage. The question this article explores is what employers who sponsor non-calendar year plans can do if their plan’s premium payment structure was already setup.

February 25, 2022 - While the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is over 10 years old many questions still linger in the weeds for employers navigating the complex regulatory environment. One area where there is still a lot of uncertainly involves mergers and acquisitions. The IRS requested comments on myriad merger issues related to the ACA back in 2014 when it released Notice 2014-49. However, further guidance has not been issued which has resulted in uncertainty. One question that remains unanswered is what happens when a non-applicable large employer (non-ALE) acquires 100 percent of the stock in an applicable large employer (ALE) in the middle of the year. The remainder of this article explores this question.

January 18, 2022 - Recently, I have assisted a number of clients in private practice who have had the Form W-2 affordability safe harbor rejected by the IRS. As a result, the IRS has proposed penalties under IRC section 4980H(b). Fortunately, these clients have had good documentation and proof that their offer of coverage was in fact affordable and was within the threshold of the Form W-2 affordability safe harbor for the applicable year. As a result, we have been able to have the penalties abated to $0. The remainder of this article will provide an overview of the issue as well as provide tips on how to avoid this issue moving forward with reporting.

Last week the IRS published proposed regulations that provide employers, health insurance issuers, and government agencies an automatic extension to furnish individual statements for the Forms 1095-B and 1095-C. The proposed regulations also made some subtle changes to other Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions. The remainder of this article discusses the changes made by the proposed regulations and the impact those changes will have on employers.

The draft instructions, for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for the 2021 reporting season were released in late September with subtle but important changes. To an untrained eye these changes may fly under the radar. However, for the first time since the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA’s) inception employers who file incorrect or incomplete Forms 1095-C with the IRS may suffer costly penalties. The remainder of this article will explore the changes made in the draft instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C in 2021.

Soon employers will be in the middle of reporting the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS for the 2021 reporting season. It is hard to believe but this will be the seventh year of Affordable Care Act (ACA) reporting. With the reporting season quickly approaching we thought it was an appropriate time to review five items that are pertinent to 2021 reporting or the offers of coverage employers will be making in the coming months for the 2022 calendar year.

Delta Air Lines created national headlines last week when it announced that it would charge $200 extra in premiums per month for its unvaccinated employees participating in its health plan. Any employer looking to implement a similar strategy should do so with extreme caution due to provisions in the Affordable Care Act (ACA). All employers are grappling with ensuring the safety of their workforce in an environment where COVID-19 is prevalent. Unfortunately, for employers wishing to incentivize employees to receive a COVID-19 vaccine through a wellness program, there could be a steep Affordable Care Act penalty to pay. The remainder of this article will explain why a wellness program centered around employees receiving a COVID-19 vaccination may be costly to the employer.

Recently, the IRS sent out another round of employer mandate penalties for the 2018 tax year. Some of the latest round of penalties I have reviewed and am assisting employers appeal through my private practice, disallowed the employer from utilizing the affordability safe harbors. This article briefly discusses what is occurring and why the IRS penalizing employer after an employer has fallen short of the affordability safe harbor goes directly against the language of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and the accompanying regulations.

In late May the IRS released its 2021 draft Form 1095-C. The 2021 reporting season will be the seventh time applicable large employers (ALEs) have been required to furnish the IRS the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. While many employers are settling into the annual reporting requirement, there are still many employers who are falling short of the required guidelines and are being penalized. In this article we discuss the changes made to the 2021 Form 1095-C.

Just as many employers were rushing to complete and submit the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS, President Biden signed The American Rescue Plan into law. Among other items, and of the utmost importance to employer compliance departments, The American Rescue Plan significantly expands the number of individuals who are eligible for a premium tax credit in 2021 and 2022. As a result, employers must be particularly diligent with their ACA compliance in 2021 and 2022. The remainder of this article examines this issue in greater detail.

As we have written about extensively, the 2020 reporting season is the inaugural year in which certain employers with California residents are required to report to the State. Accord Systems has successfully filed with the State on behalf of many of our clients. However, a few clients had data that was causing an error message to appear related to the TIN numbers being listed in Part III of the Form 1095-C. Oddly, the federal returns with the exact same data were accepted by the IRS. The rest of this article examines the issue and what the California Franchise Tax Board is doing to correct the issue.

Lately, we have had an influx of inquiries regarding our State reporting services. The 2020 reporting season was the inaugural year in which certain employers with California residents were required to report to the State. To our surprise many large vendors who offer Federal ACA reporting services failed to setup systems that could report to the State of California. The rest of the article examines an egregious error we saw repeatedly when exclusively filing State returns on behalf of certain clients. Regardless of whether an employer needed to file with the State of California, the items discussed in this article apply to all employers with ACA filing obligations.

President Biden and recent IRS correspondence necessitates all prudent employers to consider past performance before selecting an ACA Vendor. With the change in power that occurred in January 2021, it is important that employers and brokers evaluate what it means for the landscape of ACA reporting. President Biden has always been a staunch defender of the ACA, meaning the ACA is here to stay.

A new year brings new Affordable Care Act reporting responsibilities to some lucky employers with residents in the State of California. For the first time in 2021, employers who have employees who are residents of the State of California may have reporting responsibilities as a result of the State’s individual mandate which went into effect in 2020. In this article, we explore two critical differences employers must be aware of before reporting to California’s Franchise Tax Board.

On October 15, 2020 the IRS finally released its draft instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. While we knew substantial changes were coming to the instructions as a result of Individual Coverage HRAs (ICHRAs), the IRS also made changes that will impact every employer required to file the Forms. As a result of most employers not offering ICHRAs and for simplicity we have decided to break the articles into two parts. The first part will discuss the changes made in the draft instructions that will impact every employer. The second part will discuss the changes made to employers who offer ICHRAs. The remainder of the article discusses the changes made to the 2020 iteration of the Form 1094-C and 1095-C instructions.

On October 2, 2020 the IRS issued its seemingly annual transition relief Notice which provides an automatic extension from the deadline to furnish the Forms 1095-B and 1095-C statements to individuals. Additionally, the IRS again extended the good faith efforts standard to the 2020 Forms. Finally, the Notice discusses the conditions that need to be satisfied to not furnish the Form 1095-B to individuals and the extremely limited circumstances an employer would not have to provide the Form 1095-C to an individual. The details of the Notice are discussed in the remainder of this article.

Beginning on January 1, 2020 California residents were subject to the State’s individual mandate. The State’s individual mandate closely resembles the federal Affordable Care Act (ACA) individual mandate which was neutered beginning in 2019 when its penalty was reduced to $0. Similar to other State which have enacted an individual mandate, California’s individual mandate includes employer reporting responsibilities. The remainder of this article explains what employers need to know regarding their reporting responsibilities related to California’s individual mandate.

The 2021 open enrollment season is quickly approaching. This week the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2020-36 which, among other items, set the affordability threshold for employers in 2019. In order to avoid a potential section 4980H(b) penalty an employer must make sure one of its plans provides minimum value and is offered at an affordable price. An actuary will determine whether the minimum value threshold has been satisfied and this is generally not an issue for employers. However, an employer is in control as to whether the plan it is offering meets the affordability threshold.

On July 13, 2020 the IRS released the draft 2020 iteration of the Form 1095-C. At first glance, it appears there have been significant changes to the Form 1095-C. However, in reality, most employers will complete the Form 1095-C exactly the way they did in previous years. The remainder of this article briefly discusses the changes made in the draft Form.

Over the past few days Accord Systems has experienced significant trouble trying to submit the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS on our clients’ behalf. While we have certainly experienced difficulties in previous years, 2019 has presented a host of unique problems. We did some due diligence and were fortunate to have multiple people at the IRS get back to us to let us know the IRS is aware of the problems. The remainder of this article summarizes what we learned and what an employer should do in light of the deadline to electronically submit the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS being March 31, 2020.

Earlier this week we released part 1 of our series on the COVID-19 pandemic. While the future and how long the world has to cope with COVID-19 is unknown, it is clear, unfortunately, that many employers will have to layoff and/or reduce the hours of service of a certain segment of their workforce. We have been inundated with questions regarding the crisis and the impact it may have on an employer’s workforce as it relates to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In part 1 of this COVID-19 series we examined the importance of plan document language, how the look back measurement method will be impacted as a result of COVID-19, and how an employer’s applicable large employer (ALE) status may be impacted by COVID-19. In part 2 of this COVID-19 series we will examine how the Affordable Care Act (ACA) will impact an employer who rehires employees after a layoff and how the ACA interacts with certain provisions of the Families First Coronavirus Response Act.

A large portion of the business world has come to a screeching halt in the last week as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. While the future and how long the world has to cope with COVID-19 is unknown, it is clear, unfortunately, that many employers will have to layoff and/or reduce the hours of service of a certain segment of their workforce. We have been inundated with questions regarding the crisis and the impact it may have on an employer’s workforce as it relates to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The purpose of this article is to address some of the frequent questions we have received that we envision many employers will encounter in the weeks and months to come. However, before we start examining the COVID-19 ACA questions, it is important for every employer to review and determine what its health plan document says regarding eligibility.

The scariest thing about the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for every employer is the massive penalties associated with it. Many employers have received a notice of proposed penalties under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) sections 4980H(a) or 4980H(b) (also known as the employer mandate penalty or employer shared responsibility payment) for hundreds of thousands of dollars. In fact, it is not uncommon to see penalties under the employer mandate exceed $1,000,000. In 2019 the IRS started hammering employers with proposed penalties under IRC sections 6721 and 6722. These penalties frequently exceeded $100,000. One often overlooked question when discussing IRS penalties is whether a statute of limitation applies. The IRS recently addressed the statute of limitations question with respect to the IRC section 4980H penalties. The remainder of this article examines the IRS’ position and the statute of limitations questions related to the other prominent employer related ACA penalties being assessed under IRC sections 6721 and 6722.

On December 18, 2019 the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals finally weighed in on the Texas District Court ruling from last December. The District Court previously held that Congress’s amendment to reduce the Individual Mandate to $0 through the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 made the provision unconstitutional. Furthermore, the District Court held ruled that the Individual Mandate was inseverable from the rest of the ACA so the District Court struck down the entire ACA. The District Courts decision was appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. The Fifth Circuit decided four issues when reviewing the District Court’s decision which ruled at least some of the parties hand standing, that the Individual Mandate as currently constructed in unconstitutional, and, most importantly, remanded the case to the District Court for a closer inspection as to the question of the Individual Mandate being severable from the remaining Affordable Care Act (ACA) provisions. The remainder of this paper exams each of the four issues decided by the Fifth Circuit with a greater emphasis placed on the fourth issue of severability.

On December 2, 2019 the IRS issued its seemingly annual transition relief Notice which, among other items, provides an automatic extension from the deadline to furnish the Form 1095-C statements to individuals. Additionally, the IRS again extended the good faith efforts standard to the 2019 Forms. This year the Notice provides new transition relief provisions related to the fact that the Individual Mandate is $0 beginning in 2019. The details of the Notice are discussed in the remainder of this article.

The IRS released the draft instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C on November 13, 2019. While many, including us as discussed in our previous article, expected some changes as a result of the Individual Mandate being reduced to $0 beginning in 2019, the draft instructions were virtually identical compared to the 2018 iteration of the instructions. The remainder of the article touches on the few changes, almost entirely, numerical that were made to the 2019 instructions.

We are half way through October and the IRS still has not released the draft Forms or instructions for the 1094-C and 1095-C. In the past, the draft Forms and instructions for the 1094-C and 1095-C have been released in August and then finalized in September. The remainder of this article discusses why the draft Forms and instructions could have been delayed this year and how it could create some problems for States trying to implement their own reporting requirements in 2020.

Since the IRS began enforcing the Affordable Care Act (ACA) it has been lenient in its enforcement of the penalties associated with the ACA particularly with regard to late and incorrect Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. This position appears to have changed with regard to the 2017 reporting season. Late last week and early this week a number of employers received a Notice 972CG from the IRS. The Notice 972CG proposes penalties under IRC section 6721 for late or incorrect filings. The remainder of this article explains the Notice 972CG and the basic steps employers who receive this letter should follow.

The penalty associated with the Individual Mandate of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was reduced to $0 beginning in 2019. As a response, the State of New Jersey enacted its own Individual Mandate beginning in 2019 to try to guard against adverse selection in the State’s Exchange. New Jersey’s Individual Mandate created more reporting obligations for employers who have employees who are New Jersey residents. New Jersey recently provided additional details regarding its Individual Mandate. To complicate an employer’s reporting responsibilities further, the State of California created its own Individual Mandate beginning in 2020. The California Individual Mandate will create additional employer reporting responsibilities beginning in 2021. The remainder of this article discusses the new details we have learned about the New Jersey Individual Mandate and the California Individual Mandate.

Beginning on January 1, 2019 the Individual Mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was reduced to $0 (effectively making the Individual Mandate obsolete at the Federal level). To protect against adverse selection, the State of New Jersey enacted its own Individual Mandate beginning in 2019 which mimics the ACA’s Individual Mandate prior to it being reduced to $0. From an employer’s perspective the New Jersey Individual Mandate will create additional reporting requirements in February 2020 for employers who have employees who reside in New Jersey. This article summarizes what employers need to consider with regard to New Jersey’s new reporting requirements in 2020.

The fourth year of Affordable Care Act (ACA) reporting is behind us which means it is time to begin thinking about future reporting years. Many employers are still making basic mistakes which we plan to highlight in articles that will be published shortly. In this article we discuss the growing consequences of making such mistake as we tracked down the premium adjustment percentage (PAP) which allowed us to calculate the section 4980H(a) and 4980H(b) penalties for 2020. This article explains the Code provision and the math behind the 2020 penalty amounts.

The IRS recently sent a wave of Letters 226J to employers the IRS believes owe a section 4980H penalty. As we discussed in our most recent article, often times the employer’s service provider has made an error completing the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C which has led to the employer receiving a Letter 226J. By far the most prevalent error that leads to an employer receiving a Letter 226J is the employer checking the “No” box or forgetting to check the “Yes” or “No” box on line 23 (or, alternatively, on some of the lines from line 24 through line 35). This article explains why making this mistake leaves employers exposed to the section 4980H penalty even for employees whom the employer has coded with a seemingly protective offer code (1A, 1C, 1E, etc.) and an affordability safe harbor (2F, 2G, or 2H).

The fourth reporting season for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is fast approaching. Employers who are filing for the 2018 calendar year electronically will have until April 1, 2019 to report the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to the IRS. Unfortunately, most employers are in the problematic, yet understandable, position of being unaware of what the service provider is reporting to the IRS on their behalf. The purpose of this paper is to provide an employer a few tools to check to see if its service provider is fulfilling its obligation of accurately reporting on the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. If an employer encounters or has encountered in previous years one or more of the five issues discussed in this paper, it is probably time to find a new service provider.

Recently I have been contacted in private practice by several employers who inadvertently failed to offer coverage to employees who needed to be offered coverage. As a result of the inadvertent errors, the employers will have to complete the Forms 1095-C for certain employees with 1H on line 14 and line 16 left blank. This code combination is concerning as the employee could trigger the section 4980H penalties for that particular month. And, as many employers have learned the IRS is serious about the enforcement of the section 4980H penalties through the Letter 226J. In the worst case scenario, the inadvertent errors cause the employer to drop below the 95 percent threshold for certain months. This results in any exposure under section 4980H being under the exponentially more costly section 4980H(a) penalty. This paper examines a common error with the break in service rules due to the way things were handled in the pre-ACA landscape.

Late Friday evening a District Court judge in Texas ruled the Individual Mandate provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was unconstitutional. Furthermore, the District Court ruled that the Individual Mandate was inseverable from the rest of the ACA so the District Court struck down the entire ACA. Subsequently, and most importantly for purposes of employer actions moving forward, the White House has stated that the ACA will remain the law of the land while the District Court decision is reviewed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and, then most likely, the Supreme Court of the United States. This article provides a brief overview of the decision and provides guidance on how an employer should handle the decision.

On November 29, 2018 the IRS provided every employer an automatic extension from the deadline to furnish the Form 1095-C statements to individuals. Additionally, the IRS extended the good faith efforts standard to the 2018 Forms. Both of these items are beneficial to employers but also will make the IRS less forgiving of late filers.

Two recent events have signaled that the employer mandate will continue to be stringently enforced in the years ahead. First, Democrats obtained control of the House in the 2018 midterm elections. While Republicans retained control of the Senate, the split Congress will make it challenging if not entirely impossible to repeal the employer mandate portion of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Perhaps more importantly, the IRS has begun to send out Letters 226J to employers it believes owe a penalty under section 4980H of the Code (the code provision that enforces the employer mandate portion of the ACA). The remainder of this article provides an overview of the signals that all point to continued stringent enforcement of the employer mandate.

The IRS recently released the final instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C with minimal changes compared to the final instructions from 2017. Most of the changes made compared to previous iterations were so minor they are not even worth mentioning, but somewhat baffling and lacking grammatical support, such as putting Arabic numbers like “4” instead of spelling out “four”. This article provides a brief summary of the most important change, the enforcement of the employer mandate which was not occurring when previous final instructions were released, discusses the few substantive changes and key dates, and provides a brief overview of penalties associated with the Forms. The article concludes by repeating our discussion of a problem that persists related to the code 2F on line 16 of the Form 1095-C.

The employer reporting requirements of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) are now almost four years old. For many, it has been an arduous process each year to comply with the rules laid out in the 2010 law but only recently enforced. For others, the right technology along with a couple of years of experience has turned the ACA reporting into a routine annual exercise.

As the surge of employers receiving a Letter 226J continues some employers have received a different letter, a Letter 5699, from the IRS related to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). A Letter 5699 is the vehicle the IRS is using to inquire about an employer’s reason for not filing the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C with the IRS in previous years. This article explains the Letter 5699, reviews when an employer must file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C, and discusses other considerations an employer should make when responding to the Letter 5699.

For the last eight months many unlucky employers have received a Letter 226-J from the IRS. The Letter 226-J is the mechanism that the IRS is using to inform employers if the IRS believes the employer owes the IRS money as a result of the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) employer mandate. Once an employer receives a Letter 226-J, it must respond to the IRS, or the employer will be forced to pay the penalty amount stated on the Letter 226-J. Therefore, the best strategy is to avoid the Letter 226-J by ensuring you submit accurate data on the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. Accord can help.

On July 11, 2018 the IRS released draft copies of the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for 2018. We are still awaiting the instructions for both Forms which will provide more details, but we wanted to provide a brief summary of what we learned from the draft Forms.

A few months back we wrote about how the affordability threshold was increasing significantly in 2019. Seeing this significant jump in the affordability threshold I was curious to see the adjusted section 4980H(a) and (b) penalty amounts related to the employer mandate for 2019. After all, we are halfway through 2018 and employers will soon need to make final decisions about their coverage options for the 2019 calendar year. After thoroughly reviewing the IRS website and other sources, I discovered there has been virtually nothing written about the section 4980H penalty amounts for 2019. Fortunately, after reviewing the Code and figuring out the premium adjustment percentage, it was easy to determine the penalty amounts for 2019 which were released in April 2018. This article explains the Code provision and the math behind the 2019 penalty amounts.

It is never too early to start thinking about the 2019 open enrollment season. Late last week the IRS released Rev. Proc. 2018-34 which, among other items, set the affordability threshold for employers in 2019. In order to avoid a potential section 4980H(b) penalty an employer must make sure one of its plans provides minimum value and is offered at an affordable price. An actuary will determine whether the minimum value threshold has been satisfied and this is generally not an issue for employers. However, an employer is in control as to whether the plan it is offering meets the affordability threshold.

In three years of serving clients of all size, level of complexity and industry, Accord Systems has developed a deep understanding of the requirements the ACA has placed on employers, as well as the impact on time and resources compliance has placed on HR, benefits and payroll. That experience led us to develop Forms Express. Our mission was to create the most efficient software and processes available for those employers who need to devote 30 minutes or less per month to tracking and reporting for ACA compliance, as well as production of 1095-C forms for employees. Forms Express is an affordable, efficient and accurate alternative to the administrative burdens and costly expense of ACA reporting. Read more at accord-aca.com

The deadline to file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C with the IRS has passed for the third time. Similar to the two previous reporting seasons, many employers are receiving error messages indicating that there is an incorrect taxpayer identification number (TIN) submitted with their 2017 Forms. This is creating confusion as to what actions an employer must take to remedy the TIN errors. Fortunately, the IRS position has not changed and an employer still does not need to go through the solicitation process if it receives a TIN error message for an incorrect TIN! This article is intended to explain how the IRS software searches TINs, the TIN error messages an employer may receive, and what an employer needs to do if it received an error message indicating there is a TIN issue with one (or more) of the Forms 1095-C it submitted to the IRS.

The deadline to file the 2017 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for paper filers, February 28, 2018, has come and gone. Therefore, to timely file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C an employer’s only option is to file the Forms electronically. The deadline to electronically file the 2017 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C with the IRS is April 2, 2018. If an employer is not prepared by the deadline, the employer may receive an automatic 30 day extension by filing a Form 8809 with the IRS. This would extend the electronic deadline until April 30, 2018. This article provides basic instructions regarding how an employer should complete the Form 8809. Any employer who is unable to meet the March 31, 2018 deadline needs to complete the Form 8809 prior to next Monday.

Over the past several months some employers have received a Letter 226J from the IRS proposing a penalty under section 4980H of the Internal Revenue Code. The letters provided by the IRS to employers have provided many lessons for employers moving forward either to avoid these penalties entirely or to be able to effectively respond to such a letter. The following are four items an employer should consider to place itself in an optimal position in future years.

On December 22, 2017 the IRS provided every employer an automatic extension from the deadline to furnish the Form 1095-C statements to individuals. Additionally, the IRS extended the good faith efforts standard to the 2017 Forms. This is a surprise that should be helpful to employers but also will make the IRS less forgiving of late filers.

The IRS recently released sample versions of the Forms 14764 and 14765. While the IRS previously discussed these Forms in the sample Letter 226J, additional details were provided with the release of the specific Forms. This article describes the new details disclosed by the release of the Forms.

The IRS took another big step in the enforcement of the employer mandate penalty by releasing a sample Letter 226J. As discussed in a previous article, the IRS plans to provide a Letter 226J to each Applicable Large Employer member (ALE member) it believes owes an employer mandate penalty (or an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (ESRP) as the Letter 226J references the penalty). This article discusses what new items the IRS disclosed in the sample Letter 226J.

Last week we wrote about the Boston Business Journal reporting, the employer mandate penalty notices would soon be sent by the IRS. While many may view this as the boy crying wolf yet again, the IRS has updated its Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act to expound upon the questions related to Making an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (see questions 55 through 58). The procedures which were updated on November 2, 2017 are the IRS’ strongest signal that the employer mandate penalties are imminent. This article describes the details the IRS has provided regarding the enforcement of the employer mandate penalties and the corresponding appeals procedures.

Last week, the Boston Business Journal, citing unnamed IRS and White House officials, reported that the IRS would be issuing employer mandate penalty notices in November. If the report is true, this would continue the IRS’ more stringent enforcement of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) in 2017 as previously discussed in articles regarding the IRS enforcing each Applicable Large Employer member (ALE member) filing its own Form 1094-C and the IRS requiring the ACA information to be completed on individual tax returns for the 2017 calendar year. This article explores some scenarios as to why the IRS may be contacting an employer with an employer mandate penalty notice.

Last week the IRS released a statement on the IRS website informing the public that it would not accept individual tax returns in 2017 that did not indicate whether the individual had health coverage, had an exemption from the individual mandate, or will make a shared responsibility payment under the individual mandate. Therefore, for the first time, an individual must complete line 61 (as shown in previous iterations) of the Form 1040 when filing his/her tax return. This article explains what the new IRS position means for the future of ACA compliance from an employer’s perspective.

Employers who sponsor a calendar year plan and who have adopted the look back measurement method will soon be reaching the end date of the standard measurement period. Just as in previous years, this has brought to my attention a lingering problem with the setup of many employers standard measurement periods. Unfortunately, many employers have setup standard measurement periods that start prior to October 3 of the particular year in question, in this case October 3, 2016. This article explains why starting a standard measurement period prior to October 3 creates a problem and addresses a few potential solutions.

Over the past six months many employers have received notifications from the IRS that they have failed to file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C with the IRS. This type of noncompliance is often due to the employer failing to file a Form 1094-C for each Applicable Large Employer (ALE) member. The instructions to the Form 1094-C are clear that each ALE member must file a Form 1094-C. However, many employers only filed one Form 1094-C for all of its ALE members. Employers who filed in this manner are receiving letters from the IRS inquiring where the Forms 1094-C are for the employer’s other ALE members.

Last week the draft instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C were released with minimal changes compared to the final instructions from 2016. Most of the changes made in the draft instructions are the elimination of discussions related to the transition relief provisions that applied in previous years, but can never apply for the 2017 Forms. Pleasantly this makes the instructions a bit shorter yet just as fun to read. This article provides a brief summary to the changes and new notes added to the draft instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C, discusses key dates, and provides a brief overview of penalties associated with the Forms. The article concludes by discussing a problem that persists related to the code 2F on line 16 of the Form 1095-C.

Open enrollment season is fast approaching so every employer will need to begin to finalize the prices of the plan or plans that it will offer its employees. In order to avoid a potential section 4980H(b) penalty an employer must make sure one of its plans provides minimum value and is offered at an affordable price. An actuary will determine whether the minimum value threshold has been satisfied and this is generally not an issue for employers. However, an employer is in control as to whether the plan it is offering meets the affordability threshold.

A few weeks back I was curious as to what the adjusted section 4980H(a) and (b) penalty amounts related to the employer mandate would be in 2018. After all we are getting late in 2017 and employers will soon need to make final decisions as to their coverage options for the 2018 calendar year. After thoroughly reviewing the IRS website and looking elsewhere we discovered there has been virtually nothing written about the section 4980H penalty amounts for 2018. Fortunately, after reading the Code and figuring out what the premium adjustment percentage was for 2018 it is easy to determine the penalty amounts for 2018. This article explains the Code provision and the math behind the 2018 penalties.

On August 14, 2017 the IRS released its second iteration of the draft Form 1095-C for 2017. Previously on July 27, 2017, the IRS had released draft copies of both the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. We anticipate the instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C to be released any day. However, as the reporting season is fast approaching, here is a brief summary of what we have learned from the draft Forms released to date.

When John McCain cast his no vote on the latest health care bill another Republican plan to repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act was essentially defeated. This has been a recurring theme for all of the bills that have been stuck in Congress over the last five months. All the bills debated and voted upon by both the House and Senate have cast a cloud of confusion over what an employer must do to comply with the ACA. The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of what the current law requires for the 2017 reporting season and things to keep in mind for the 2018 open enrollment period.

Employers are now two and half years into operating in the employer mandate world. The employer mandate caused many employers to amend the eligibility conditions for their health plans to avoid potential penalties. Unfortunately, some employers are failing to document the eligibility conditions for their health plans. Other employers have documented their health plan’s eligibility conditions but failed to coordinate the eligibility conditions with their insurance company. These two oversights are starting to cause employers expensive problems. This article explores the dangers of not documenting and coordinating the eligibility conditions of an employer’s health plan.

Just like the 2015 reporting season, one of the most common errors employers received when submitting the Form 1094-C/Form 1095-C packet for the 2016 reporting season was an error message stating there is an incorrect taxpayer identification number (TIN). As many learned last year, the TIN error could be a result of incorrect data entry, a marriage that occurred midyear changing the last name of an individual, but frequently was caused for no apparent reason. This article is intended to explain how the IRS software searches TINs, the improvements that have been made, and what an employer needs to do if it received an error message indicating there is a TIN issue with one (or more) of the Forms 1095-C it submitted to the IRS. The good news is an employer still does not need to go through the solicitation process if it receives a TIN error message for an incorrect TIN! A recent conversation with the IRS reaffirmed this position.

It is possible we have finally arrived at the month in which the IRS will begin to assess penalties against employers who fell short of the employer mandate standards under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Speculation that employer mandate penalties may be assessed in May 2017 are largely based on the recently released TIGTA audit report which referenced several IRS tools required to assess the penalties being launched in May 2017. As a result, a publication explaining how an employer should handle a potential penalty from the IRS is appropriate at this time.

On April 7, 2017 the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration (TIGTA) released its findings from its audit conducted to assess the IRS’s ability to ensure compliance with the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) employer mandate. The audit discovered several major issues with the technology being used to assist the IRS enforce the employer mandate. The technological trouble the IRS is experiencing is undoubtedly one of the reasons the IRS has not penalized a single employer under the employer mandate. This article briefly explores some of the issues discussed in the audit report and how an employer should use the findings of the report in the future.

On Monday March 6, 2017 the Republicans released a bill that would repeal and replace certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The bill has faced harsh criticism from both Democrats and certain Republicans and as currently constructed is unlikely to pass. Nonetheless, it is the first step in the process of repealing or amending the ACA which still appears inevitable under the country’s current leadership. This article provides a brief summary of five items employers should be aware of in the bill.

The deadline to file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for paper filers, February 28, 2017, is only days away. An employer who has elected to, or is required to, file electronically will have until March 31, 2017 to file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. If an employer is not prepared by the requisite deadline, the employer may receive an automatic 30 day extension by filing a Form 8809 with the IRS. This extends the paper deadline until March 30, 2017 and the electronic deadline to May 1, 2017. This article provides basic instructions regarding how an employer should complete the Form 8809.

If an employer has not already done so, it will soon be completing the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for the 2016 calendar year. Despite being the second year these Forms are required to be filed by Applicable Large Employers (ALE), there is still a significant amount of confusion surrounding the deadlines and details related to the Forms. This article is intended to provide a reminder of five important issues related to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C.

President Trump and the Republicans have made it clear that changes are coming to the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Congress has already taken preliminary, complicated steps through budgetary reconciliation to repeal key parts of the ACA and President Trump signed an executive order calling for a prompt repeal of the ACA. While neither action impacts an employer’s obligation to file the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C in 2016, all indications are significant changes are coming to the ACA in the future. On the surface, a repeal of the ACA appears to provide employers relief from complicated, burdensome regulations. However, examining recent benefit trends and the pre-ACA landscape, employers could be in store for a flood of complicated State and local laws if the ACA is repealed.

Tomorrow, January 20, 2017, President Trump will officially take office. This has led many to speculate on the immediate demise of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While changes to the ACA are assuredly coming, these changes are unlikely to impact the 2016 ACA reporting requirements. The deadline for employers to furnish the Form 1095-C employee statements is March 2, 2017. If an employer has not already begun the process of completing a Form 1095-C for its applicable employees, there is not much time left to accurately complete lines 14, 15, and 16, print and address the Forms, and place the Forms in the mail.

Employers have recently begun to hear back from the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) regarding their appeal of the section 1411 notices they received. Many employers have been surprised to learn their appeal was unsuccessful with HHS as they offered the employee in question minimum value coverage at an affordable price under the Affordable Care Act’s (ACA) standard for each month of the 2016 calendar year. For better or worse, an unsuccessful HHS appeal is the end of the HHS appeals process for an employer. Therefore, the employer is stuck with the adverse HHS decision. This article explains why employers experiencing an unsuccessful HHS do not need worry and instead should be thankful as everyone is winning from the employer’s perspective in the scenario.

We recently worked with an employer who was utilizing the look back measurement method to the fullest extent. The employer had the intention of rescinding coverage to certain ongoing full-time employees. While this strategy is certainly possible, there are many hoops an employer executing this strategy must jump through to accomplish this task. This article explains how an employer can execute this strategy, but explains why it is not worth the cost for all but the largest of employers.

Notice 2016-70, Notice 2016-4, Notice 2016-04, extension, individual Form 1095-C, Form 1095-C deadline, Form 1094-C deadline, IRS extension, good faith efforts

The election of President Trump on Wednesday morning created new complications and uncertainty in the already complex world of the Affordable Care Act and, in particular, ACA compliance in 2016. In this article we explore the four possible outcomes that may occur with regard to 2016 reporting. As the math below shows, the logical choice for all employers is compliance with the ACA reporting requirements in 2016.

We recently performed an audit on our software to make sure the automation process was working properly in light of the updated language in the final instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. Particular attention was paid to lines 14, 15, and 16 of the Form 1095-C. These three lines are one of the main tools the government uses to assess the section 4980H penalties against an employer. Lines 14, 15, and 16 tell the government a 12 chapter narrative about the employee entered on the Form 1095-C.

Earlier this week the final instructions to the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C were released. We have previously written two articles separately discussing how the draft instructions impact the Form 1094-C and the Form 1095-C. The points made in each of these articles remain valid as the final instructions do not change anything of substance from the draft instructions. The remainder of this article discusses a few points the final instructions emphasized and provides five key takeaways from the 2016 final instructions.

Despite almost being two years into the Play or Pay provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) there is still confusion surrounding some aspects of the complex provision. The ACA provides an employer the option to offer 95 percent of its full-time employees minimum essential coverage or risk paying a section 4980H penalty. If the look back measurement method is adopted, an employee can be classified as a full-time employee, a part-time employee, a variable hour employee, a seasonal employee, or an ongoing employee. The remainder of this publication reviews the rules of the look back measurement method as it relates to ongoing employees. Previous publications detailed the rules for the other four categories of employees.

Despite almost being two years into the Play or Pay provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) there is still confusion surrounding some aspects of the complex provision. The ACA provides an employer the option to offer 95 percent of its full-time employees minimum essential coverage or risk paying a section 4980H penalty. For section 4980H purposes, a full-time employee is an employee who averages at least 30 hours of service per week. An employer can treat 130 hours of service as the monthly equivalent of 30 hours per week. Additionally, an employer has the option to adopt the look back measurement method. The logical choice for almost every employer is to adopt the optional look back measurement method to track its employees’ hours of service. This publication is the second part of a three part series. All of the points, such as documenting the look back measurement method and counting hours of service, discussed in first part of the three part series are relevant for the second part. A future publication will detail the rules for the last category, ongoing employees.

Despite almost being two years into the Play or Pay provision of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) there is still confusion surrounding some aspects of the complex provision. The ACA provides an employer the option to offer 95 percent of its full-time employees minimum essential coverage or risk paying a section 4980H penalty. If the look back measurement method is adopted, an employee can be classified as a full-time employee, a part-time employee, a variable hour employee, a seasonal employee, or an ongoing employee. The remainder of this publication reviews the rules of the look back measurement method as it relates to full-time employees and some basic features of the look back measurement method. Future publications will detail the rules for the other four categories of employees.

In early August the draft instructions were released for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for 2016. While not much has changed, there are some differences in the Forms compared to 2015 and the IRS emphasized certain areas we assume many filers struggled with in 2015. This article is intended to provide an overview of the changes, provide helpful reminders, and point out things the IRS emphasized in the instructions to the Form 1094-C. Read more at accord-aca.com

In early August the draft instructions were released for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for 2016. While not much pertinent has changed, there are some differences in the Forms compared to 2015. This article is intended to provide an overview of the changes, provide helpful reminders, and point out things the IRS emphasized in the instructions to the Form 1095-C. Read more at accord-aca.com

Earlier this week we caught up with a knowledgeable person at the IRS regarding an employer’s solicitation obligations for an incorrect taxpayer identification number. Almost every employer who submitted a packet of Form 1095-Cs received an AIRTN500 error message for at least one of the Form 1095-Cs.

One common error an employer received from the Affordable Care Act Information Return system when submitting a packet of Form 1095-Cs was an error reporting that a Form 1095-C was submitted with an incorrect taxpayer identification number. The error code displayed when this occurs is AIRTN500 which signifies an individual name and TIN does not match the IRS database.

On August 2, 2016 the IRS published in the Federal Register proposed regulations which among other things attempt to clarify the confusion regarding taxpayer identification number solicitations. This is the government’s third attempt to clarify the issue since the creation of IRC section 6055.

Many employers have struggled to apply the rules discussed in the Affordable Care Act, often complaining that the rules are too complex and create too much work. We understand that initially the rules can be burdensome and hard to apply. However, we have great news for employers with seasonal employees. Seasonal employees are almost always going to be treated the exact same way and no Form 1095-C will need to be reported for the typical seasonal employee.

At the beginning of the decision tree for any Affordable Care Act (ACA) analysis is whether the employer is an Applicable Large Employer (ALE). Beginning in 2016 and each year after, an employer has one way to determine its ALE status. An ALE, which is defined in the text of the ACA, is an employer who averaged at least 50 full-time employees (including full-time equivalent employees (FTEs)) on business days during the preceding calendar year. If an employer is not an ALE, it is not subject to the employer mandate penalties (also known as the IRC section 4980H(a) and (b) penalties) and typically does not have reporting obligations. When calculating an employer’s ALE status, the controlled group rules apply.

To assist employers with this complex issue Accord created Form Patrol which does not allow an employer to submit a Form 1095-C with impossible code combinations. We believe accurate line 14, 15, and 16 codes combinations is an obligation an employer has in order to fulfill its good faith efforts standard for the 2015 calendar year.

One of the most common errors employers are receiving when submitting the Form 1094-C/Form 1095-C packet is an error message stating there is an incorrect taxpayer identification number. The incorrect TINs could be a result of incorrect data entry, a marriage that occurred during the year changing the employee’s last name which no longer matches the system the federal government uses, or an employee intentionally falsifying his/her TIN. Regardless of the reason, an employer needs to take appropriate steps to avoid a penalty for filing a Form 1095-C with incorrect information.

The best way for an employer to fully protect itself from a 4980H penalty is to offer coverage that provides minimum value at an affordable price to all of its full-time employees and their dependents. This article explores how an employer can ensure that its offer of coverage will be deemed affordable. Read more at accord-aca.com.