Version III of Senate GOP Health Care Bill Retains Same Health Coverage Reporting Rules

Post by
July 20, 2017

Senate Republicans have just released another update to the Better Care Reconciliation Act, which would repeal and replace the Affordable Care Act.  This updated bill preserves the same health coverage reporting rules under the prior version that was released a week ago on July 13 (discussed here).  Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell stated that he expects a vote early next week on a motion to start the debate on either a repeal-and-replace bill or a standalone ACA-repeal bill.

Updated FAQs on FFI Agreement Renewal

Post by
July 19, 2017

Recently, the IRS updated its FATCA frequently asked questions to include four new FAQs addressing the renewal of foreign financial institution (FFI) agreements.  The new FAQs address the requirement that financial institutions (FIs) must renew their FFI agreements by July 31, 2017, pursuant to Revenue Procedure 2017-16, to be treated as having in effect an FFI agreement as of January 1, 2017.

FAQ#8 clarifies that, generally, FATCA requires the following types of FIs to renew their FFI agreements: participating FFIs not covered by an intergovernmental agreement (IGA); reporting Model 2 FFIs; reporting Model 1 FFIs operating branches outside of Model 1 jurisdictions (other than branches treated as nonparticipating FFIs under Article 4(5) of the Model 1 IGA).  By contrast, renewal is not required for the following types of entities: reporting Model 1 FFIs that are not operating branches outside of Model 1 jurisdictions; registered deemed-compliant FFIs (regardless of location); sponsoring entities; direct reporting non-financial foreign entities (NFFEs); and trustees of trustee-documented trust.

FAQ#9 provides that entities that do not need to renew their FFI agreements do not need to take any action—and do not even need to select “No” on the “Renew FFI Agreement” link—to remain on the FFI list and retain their Global Intermediary Identification Number (GIIN).

FAQ#10 clarifies that an entity that, before January 1, 2017, entered into the FFI agreement under Rev. Proc. 2014-38 (which terminated on December 31, 2016), and that failed to renew its FFI agreement by July 31, 2017, will be considered a nonparticipating FFI as of January 1, 2017, and will be removed from the FFI List.

If an entity that is required to renew its FFI agreement incorrectly selected “No” when asked if renewal is required, FAQ#11 provides that the entity can simply return to the FATCA FFI Registration system home page, click on the “Renew FFI Agreement” link, and select “Yes” to complete the renewal application before the deadline on July 31, 2017.

Updated Senate GOP Health Care Bill Retains Additional Medicare Tax and Most Health Coverage Reporting Rules

Post by
July 13, 2017

This morning, Senate Republican leaders released an updated Better Care Reconciliation Act that would largely retain the existing health coverage reporting regime enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA). In contrast to the prior Senate bill (see prior coverage), the updated bill would keep in place the 3.8% net investment income tax, as well as the 0.9% additional Medicare tax, which employers are required to withhold and remit when paying wages to an employee over a certain threshold (e.g., $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for joint filers). The updated bill is otherwise similar to the prior bill from a health reporting standpoint, as it would keep the current premium tax credit (with new restrictions effective in 2020) and retain the information reporting rules under Code sections 6055 and 6056. (The House bill passed on May 4, 2017 (discussed here and here), by contrast, would introduce an age-based health insurance coverage credit along with new information reporting requirements.) The updated bill would also zero out penalties for the individual and employer mandates beginning in 2016.

In addition to the ACA repeal-and-replace efforts in the Senate bill, the House Committee on Appropriations included in its appropriation bill a provision that would stop the IRS from using its funding to enforce the individual mandate or the related information reporting rule under Code section 6055 for minimum essential coverage (on Form 1095-B or 1095-C). This provision would be effective on October 1 this year. Apart from significantly cutting IRS funding, however, the appropriation bill would not otherwise affect IRS enforcement of information reporting by applicable large employers regarding employer-provided health insurance coverage. Thus, even if both the Senate health care bill and the House appropriation bill were to become law as currently proposed, applicable large employers would still be required to file Forms 1094-C and 1095-C pursuant to Code section 6056 in the coming years.

Late Form W-2s Doubled, Penalties to Come

Post by
July 12, 2017

The earlier filing deadline on January 31 for Forms W-2 resulted in more than double the number of late-filed returns, according to Tim McGarvey, Social Security Administration branch chief, who was speaking on an IRS payroll industry conference call.  He said that, to date, the SSA has received close to 50,000 late Form W-2 submissions, compared to an average of 25,000 late submissions annually in the past few years.  In response to an inquiry from the Tax Withholding & Reporting Blog, Mr. McGarvey indicated that the 50,000 submissions represent approximately 4 million late-filed 2016 Forms W-2.

In addition to the jump in the number of late-filed returns, Mr. McGarvey said that the number of Forms W-2c filed has also increased dramatically—up 30 percent from last year.  In response to an inquiry, Mr. McGarvey reported that the SSA has received approximately 2.7 million Forms W-2c in 2017, with some 2.2 million of those correcting 2016 returns.  That compares to a total of approximately 2 million Forms W-2c processed in 2015.

The January 31 deadline for filing and furnishing recipients with the Form W-2 and a Form 1099-MISC that reports nonemployee compensation (Box 7) became required under the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes (PATH) Act to combat identity theft and fraudulent claims for refund (see prior coverage).

Late filers and those that struggled to provide accurate filings by the January 31 deadline should take steps now to prepare for the 2017 filing season.  Employers who provide taxable non-cash fringe benefits (such as the personal use of company cars) may want to consider imputing income for those benefits using the special accounting rule and flexibility in Announcement 85-113, if they are not already doing so.  Announcement 85-113 permits employers to treat non-cash fringe benefits as received on certain dates throughout the year (such as on the first of each month, each quarter, semi-annually, or annually).  It also allows employers to treat the value of non-cash fringe benefits actually received in the last two months of the calendar year as received in the following calendar year.  Making use of these rules can ease the year-end payroll crunch.  The earlier employers can provide copies of Forms W-2 to employees, the greater the chance there is for employees to identify errors and request corrections before the January 31 filing deadline.

First Friday FATCA Update

Post by
July 7, 2017

Since our last monthly FATCA update, the IRS has updated its online FATCA portal to allow foreign financial institutions to renew their FFI agreements (see prior coverage).

Recently, the Treasury released the Model 1B Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) between the United States and Montenegro.  The IRS also released the Competent Authority Agreements (CAAs) implementing IGAs between the United States and the following treaty partners:

  • Bahrain (Model 1B IGA signed on January 18, 2017);
  • Croatia (Model 1A IGA signed on March 20, 2015);
  • Greenland (Model 1A IGA signed on January 17, 2017); and
  • Panama (Model 1A IGA signed on April 27, 2016).

Under FATCA, IGAs come in two forms: Model 1 or Model 2.  Under a Model 1 IGA, the foreign treaty partner agrees to collect information of U.S. accountholders in foreign financial institutions operating within its jurisdiction and transmit the information to the IRS.  Model 1 IGAs are drafted as either reciprocal (Model 1A) agreements or nonreciprocal (Model 1B) agreements.  By contrast, Model 2 IGAs are issued in only a nonreciprocal format and require FFIs to report information directly to the IRS.

A CAA is a bilateral agreement between the United States and the treaty partner to clarify or interpret treaty provisions.  A CAA implementing an IGA typically establishes and prescribes the rules and procedures necessary to implement certain provisions in the IGA and the Tax Information Exchange Agreement, if applicable.  Specific topics include registration of the treaty partner’s financial institutions, time and manner of exchange of information, remediation and enforcement, confidentiality and data safeguards, and cost allocation.  Generally, a CAA becomes operative on the later of (1) the date the IGA enters into force, or (2) the date the CAA is signed by the competent authorities of the United States and the treaty partner.

The Treasury Department website publishes IGAs, and the IRS publishes their implementing CAAs.

Mobile Workforce Bill Passes House Again, Senate Fate Uncertain

Post by
July 7, 2017

On June 20, 2017, the House of Representatives passed legislation to simplify state income tax rules for employees who temporarily work outside their home state.  Under the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act of 2017 (H.R. 1393), a state generally could tax a nonresident’s wages earned in the state only if he or she is working in the state for more than 30 days during the year.  Likewise, employers would have no corresponding duty to withhold and report the tax unless the 30-workday threshold is met.  Propelled by bipartisan support, similar measures have twice passed in the House in 2012 and 2015 but failed to gain traction in the Senate.  Currently, legislation similar to the House bill is awaiting Senate consideration, and once again, faces an uphill battle amidst concerns that the bill would cause significant revenue losses to certain states—including New York—with large employment centers close to state borders.

The bill is intended to reduce confusion and compliance costs stemming from inconsistent state income tax laws on nonresident employees and their employers.  Currently, forty-three states impose personal income tax on wages, including nonresidents’ wages earned in the state.  Thus, a traveling employee working on temporary projects in multiple states may be obligated to file and pay taxes in each of those states, and the employer would have corresponding withholding and reporting obligations.  Although states have three main measures that reduce compliance costs, the measures are largely piecemeal and inconsistent.  First, states generally provide an income tax credit for income taxes paid to other states, but the credit system does not eliminate the travelling employee’s obligation to file a nonresident return and the employer’s obligation to withhold and report the tax.  Second, some states waive the income tax obligations of nonresident employees and employers based on de minimis earnings and/or time spent in the state, but the waiver thresholds vary, and not all states have them.  Third, some bordering states have entered into reciprocity agreements under which each state agrees not to tax each other’s residents’ wages (see prior coverage of NY-NJ reciprocity agreement).  But these agreements only cover one-third of the states, and are geared toward regular commuters living near state borders, rather than employees traveling to multiple states for temporary work.

The bill would impose a 30-workday threshold on state income taxation of nonresidents, but would not prevent states from adopting higher or other types of thresholds.  Reciprocity agreements of bordering states, for instance, would still be effective.  Moreover, the bill allows an employer to avoid withholding and reporting penalties if they simply rely on their employees’ annual determination of days to be spent working in the nonresident state (barring actual knowledge of fraud, collusion, or use of a daily time and attendance system).  The bill also defines what constitutes a workday to minimize double counting.  The bill would not cover the wages of professional athletes, professional entertainers, certain production employees, and prominent public figures paid on a per-event basis.  Additionally, the bill does not specifically address equity or trailing compensation and employees who work for more than one related employer.

The bill likely faces an uphill battle in the Senate because the bill would cause significant revenue losses to certain states.  Generally, states that have large employment centers close to a state border (e.g., Illinois, Massachusetts, California, and New York) would lose the most revenue, while their neighboring states (e.g., New Jersey) from which employees travel would gain revenue.  Notably, New York would likely lose between $55 million and $120 million per year—an amount greater than the estimated revenue impact on all the other states combined (a $55 million to $100 million loss).  For these reasons, three members of the House Committee on the Judiciary opposed the bill and proposed to replace the 30-workday threshold with a 14‑workday threshold.  This is, not coincidentally, the threshold New York currently has in place for employer withholding obligations (but not for employee income tax liability or employer reporting obligations).  Although rejected, the effort to reduce the threshold may ultimately reshape the bill in the Senate or signal its continued lack of action.

With the Senate preoccupied with other legislative matters such as health reform (see prior coverage of health insurance reporting under the American Health Care Act) and opposition from some powerful Senators, it is unclear whether the Senate will consider the mobile workforce bill despite bipartisan interest.  In the meantime, employers with employees temporarily working in multiple states must continue to meet their nonresident state income tax withholding and reporting obligations.  We will continue to monitor further developments on the mobile workforce bill and its impact on state income tax filing, withholding, and reporting rules.