Senate GOP Health Care Bill Would Retain Most Existing Health Coverage Reporting Rules

Post by
June 23, 2017

Yesterday morning, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell released a draft version of the American Health Care Act, which would retain much of the existing health coverage reporting rules enacted as part of the Affordable Care Act.  Unlike the House bill passed on May 4, 2017 (discussed here and here), which would introduce an age-based health insurance coverage credit and corresponding information reporting requirements, the Senate bill would keep the current premium tax credit (with new restrictions effective in 2020), and leave untouched the information reporting regime under Code sections 6055 and 6056.  Thus, Applicable large employers (ALEs) would still be required to file Forms 1094-C and 1095-C pursuant to Code section 6056, even though the bill would reduce penalties for failure to comply with the employer mandate to zero beginning in 2016.  Similarly, the Senate bill does not eliminate the requirement for providers of minimum essential coverage under section 6055 to report coverage on Form 1095-B (or Form 1095-C) despite eliminating the penalty on individuals for failing to maintain coverage. The Senate bill would, however, repeal the additional Medicare tax and thereby eliminate employers’ corresponding reporting and withholding obligations beginning in 2023.

The fate of this draft bill remains uncertain, as several Republican Senators have already expressed unwillingness to support the bill, which is not expected to find any support among Senate Democrats.  We will continue to monitor further developments on the Senate bill and its impact on the information reporting regime for health insurance coverage.

Recent FAA Serves as Warning to Employers Using PEOs

A recent Internal Revenue Service Office of Chief Counsel field attorney advice memorandum (FAA 20171201F) sounds a cautionary note for employers making use of a professional employer organization (PEO).  The FAA holds a common law employer ultimately liable for employment taxes owed for workers it leased from the PEO.  Under the terms of the employer’s agreement with the PEO, the PEO was required to deposit employee withholdings with the IRS and pay the employer share of payroll taxes to the IRS.  Alas, that was not what happened.

The taxpayer did not dispute that it had the right to direct and control all aspects of the employment relationship and was thus was the common law employer with respect to the employees, but asserted that it was not liable for the unpaid employment taxes. Under the terms of the contracts between the taxpayer and the PEO, the taxpayer would pay an amount equal to the wages and salaries of the leased employees to the PEO prior to the payroll date, and the PEO would then pay all required employment taxes and file all employment tax returns (Forms 940 and 941) and information returns (Forms W-2) with respect to the employees.

After the PEO failed to pay and deposit the required taxes, the Examination Division of the IRS found the taxpayer liable for the employment tax of those workers, plus interest. The taxpayer appealed, making several arguments against its liability: (i) the PEO was liable for paying over the employment taxes under a state statute; (ii) the PEO was the statutory employer, making it liable for the employment taxes; and (iii) the workers were not employees of the taxpayer under Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978.

The Office of Chief Counsel first explained that the state law cited by the taxpayer was not relevant because it was superseded by the Internal Revenue Code. The FAA rejects the taxpayer’s second argument because the PEO lacked control over the payment of wages, and thus it was not a statutory employer. The PEO lacked the requisite control because the taxpayer was obligated to make payment sufficient to cover the employees’ pay before the PEO paid the workers.  Finally, the Office of Chief Counsel denied the taxpayer relief under Section 530 of the Revenue Act of 1978 because that provision only applies to questions involving employment status or worker classification, neither of which was at issue.  Although the FAA makes clear that the common law employer will be on-the-hook for the unpaid employment taxes, the FAA did indicate that it would be open to allowing an interest-free adjustment because the taxpayer’s reliance on the PEO to fulfill its employment tax obligations constituted an “error” under the interest-free adjustment rules.

The FAA serves as a reminder that the common law employer cannot easily offload its liability for employment taxes by using a contract. Indeed, it remains liable for such taxes and related penalties in the event that the party it has relied on to deposit them fails to do so timely.  Employers who choose to make use of a PEO should carefully monitor the PEO’s compliance with the payroll tax rules to ensure that it does not end up in this taxpayer’s position.  Alternatively, employers should consider whether to use a certified PEO under the new regime established by Congress (earlier coverage  available here and here).  When using a certified PEO, the common law employer can successfully shift its liability to the PEO and is not liable if the PEO fails to comply with the payroll tax requirements of the Code.

House Republicans’ ACA Repeal-and-Replace Bill Would Change Health Coverage Reporting Requirements

Post by
March 7, 2017

A House Republican bill, entitled the American Health Care Act, would repeal many provisions of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) but retain and expand the information reporting rules.  Released on March 6, the proposal consists of two parts: (1) a bill drafted by the House Ways and Means Committee, to eliminate the ACA’s taxes and income-based subsidies, zero out penalties for the individual and employer mandates, and establish a new individual tax credit; and (2) a bill drafted by the House Energy and Commerce Committee, to freeze and reform Medicaid.

The Ways & Means bill would help taxpayers pay for health insurance by expanding health savings accounts, and by providing an advanceable, refundable tax credit—the “health insurance coverage” credit—for purchasing state-approved, major medical health insurance and unsubsidized COBRA coverage.  Unlike the leaked bill obtained by Politico on February 24, the bills do not cap the tax exclusion for employer-provided health insurance.  Although the legislation is unlikely to pass in its current form, as it is headed for markup by the two Committees later this week, it does provide insight into the thinking of House Republicans.

Those hoping for a full repeal of the ACA’s reporting provisions will be disappointed as the ACA’s reporting regime would largely survive, at least temporarily.  Applicable large employers (ALEs), for instance, would still be required to file Forms 1094-C and 1095-C pursuant to Code section 6056, even though the bill would reduce penalties for failure to comply with the employer mandate to zero beginning in 2016.  Similarly, the Ways & Means bill does not eliminate the requirement for providers of minimum essential coverage to report coverage on Form 1095-B (or Form 1095-C) despite eliminating the penalty on individuals for failing to maintain coverage.

However, the Ways & Means bill would alter health insurance reporting in three ways.  First, the bill would establish new information reporting rules under Code section 6050X for the health insurance coverage credit beginning in 2020.  Second, the bill would expand information reporting under Code section 6055 regarding the ACA’s premium tax credits used for qualifying off-Exchange coverage in 2018 and 2019.  Third, the bill would repeal the additional Medicare tax and thereby eliminate employers’ corresponding reporting and withholding obligations beginning in 2020.

New Reporting Rules for Health Insurance Coverage Credits Beginning in 2020

The bill would replace the ACA’s premium tax credit with the health insurance coverage credit for purchasing eligible health insurance—state-approved, major medical health insurance and unsubsidized COBRA coverage—starting in 2020.  Generally, an individual is eligible for this credit only if he or she lacks access to government health insurance programs or offer of employer coverage.  The credit amount varies from $2,000 to $4,000 annually per person based on age, and phases out for those earning over $75,000 per year ($150,000 for joint filers).  The credit maxes out at $14,000 per family, and is capped by the actual amount paid for eligible health insurance.  Treasury would be required to establish a program for making advance payments of the credit, on behalf of eligible taxpayers, to providers of eligible health insurance or designated health savings accounts no later than 2020.

Reporting for Health Insurance Coverage Credit.  To administer the health insurance coverage credit, the bill would create Code section 6050X that would require providers of eligible health insurance to file information returns with the IRS and furnish taxpayer statements, starting in 2020.  The return must contain the following information: (a) the name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN) of each covered individual; (b) the premiums paid under the policy; (c) the amount of advance payments made on behalf of the individual; (d) the months during which the individual is covered under the policy; (e) whether the policy constitutes a high deductible health plan; and (f) any other information as Treasury may prescribe.  The bill does not specify how often providers would be required to file returns reporting this information with the IRS, but it would authorize Treasury to require a provider to report on a monthly basis if the provider receives advance payments.  A provider would also be required to furnish taxpayers, by January 31 of the year after the year of coverage, written statements containing the following information: (a) the name, address, and basic contact information of the covered entity required to file the return; and (b) the information required to be shown on the return with respect to the individual.

Employer Statement for Advance Payment Application.  The advance payment program would require an applicant—if he or she (or any qualifing family member taken into account to determine the credit amount) is employed—to submit a written statement from the applicable employer stating whether the applicant or the qualifying family member is eligible for “other specified coverage” in connection with the employment.  Other specified coverage generally includes coverage under an employer-provided group health plan (other than unsubsidized COBRA continuation coverage or plan providing excepted benefits), Medicare Part A, Medicaid, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, and certain other government sponsored health insurance programs.  An employer shall provide this written statement at the request of any employee once the advance payment program is established.  This statement is not required if the taxpayer simply seeks the credit without advance payment.

Employer Coverage Reporting on Form W-2.  The bill would require reporting of offers of coverage by employers on the Form W-2 beginning with the 2020 tax year.  Employers would be required to report each month in which the employee is eligible for other specified coverage in connection with employment.  This requirement would likely demand a substantial revision to the current Form W-2, which is already crowded with information.  The Form W-2 reporting requirement appears to be intended to replace the reporting rules under Section 6056 based on a statement in the Ways and Means Committee summary.

Although the budget reconciliation rules limit Congress’s ability to repeal the current coverage reporting rules, the Ways and Means Committee states that Treasury can stop enforcing any reporting not required for tax purposes.  Given the elimination of penalties for individuals who fail to maintain minimum essential coverage and ALEs that fail to offer coverage, this statement may serve as a green light to undo many of the Form 1095-B and 1095-C reporting requirements once the ACA’s premium tax credits are eliminated and Form W-2 reporting is in place in 2020.

Reasonable Cause Waiver.  The bill would make these new information returns and written statements subject to the standard information reporting penalties under Code section 6721 (penalties for late, incomplete, or incorrect filing with IRS) and Code section 6722 (penalties for late, incomplete, or incorrect statements furnished to payees).  The bill also extends the reasonable cause waiver under Code section 6724 to information reporting penalties with respect to the new health insurance coverage credit returns, so that the IRS may waive such penalties if the failure is “due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect.”

Transitional Reporting Rules for Premium Tax Credits in 2018 and 2019

The Ways & Means bill would allow the ACA’s premium tax credits to be used for off-Exchange qualified health plans in 2018 and 2019 before eliminating the credits in 2020.  The premium tax credit is a refundable, income-based credit that helps eligible individuals and families pay premiums for coverage under a “qualified health plan,” which, under current law, only includes plans sold on ACA Exchanges, and does not include catastrophic-only health plans.  The bill, however, would expand the definition of qualified health plan to include off-Exchange and catastrophic-only health insurance plans that otherwise meet the requirements for a qualified health plan, so that these types of plans would also be eligible for the premium tax credit.  Advance payment of the credit is only available for coverage enrolled in through an Exchange.

To aid in the administration of the expanded credit, the bill would amend Code section 6055(b) to require providers of minimum essential coverage to report certain information related to premium tax credits for off-Exchange qualified health plans.  Because employer-sponsored coverage does not qualify for the credit, employers sponsoring self-insured plans generally would not be required to report additional information on the Form 1095-C beyond that already required under Code sections 6055 and 6056.  Health insurance issuers who provide coverage eligible for the credit would be required to report annually to the IRS: (a) a statement that the plan is a qualified health plan (determined without regard to whether the plan is offered on an Exchange); (b) the premiums paid for the coverage; (c) the months during which this coverage was provided to the individual; (d) the adjusted monthly premium for the applicable second lowest cost silver plan for each month of coverage; and (e) any other information as Treasury may prescribe.  These new reporting requirements would apply only in 2018 and 2019, before the premium tax credit is scrapped and replaced by the health insurance coverage credit in 2020.

Repeal of Additional Medicare Tax

The bill would also repeal the additional Medicare tax under Code section 3101(b)(2), beginning in 2018.  This 0.9% tax is imposed on an employee’s wages in excess of a certain threshold (e.g., $200,000 for single filers and $250,000 for joint filers).  Under current law, employers are required to withhold and remit additional Medicare taxes when it pays wages to an employee over $200,000.  The additional Medicare tax has complicated the process for correcting employment tax errors because unlike other FICA taxes (and more like income tax withholding) the additional Medicare tax is paid on the employee’s individual income tax return.  As a result, the employer cannot make changes to the amount of additional Medicare tax reported after the end of the calendar year.  The elimination of the additional Medicare tax will likely be welcomed by employers and employees affected by it.  In addition, the bill would also repeal the net investment income tax that expanded the Medicare portion of FICA taxes to non-wage income for individuals with incomes in excess of certain thresholds.

What to Expect Next

The fate of the legislation is uncertain, and it will likely undergo substantive changes before House Republicans move the bill to the floor.  A key issue that House Republicans are reportedly debating is how to structure the health insurance coverage tax credit.  Additionally, the decision to eliminate the cap on tax breaks for employer-provided health insurance that was included in the draft language leaked in late February may mean that the legislative proposal will need to be amended to include another funding source.  However these issues are resolved, the legislation makes it clear that a health insurance reporting regime is likely to survive Republicans’ ACA repeal-and-replace efforts.  We will continue to monitor further developments on the proposal and its impact on the information reporting regime for health insurance coverage.

IRS Provides Guidance on De Minimis Safe Harbor for Errors in Amounts on Information Returns

Post by
January 4, 2017

The IRS today released Notice 2017-09 providing guidance on the de minimis safe harbor for errors in amounts reported on information returns.  The safe harbor was added to Sections 6721 and 6722 by the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act).

Under the statute, filers are not subject to penalties under either Section 6721 and 6722 if an amount reported on the return is within $100 of correct amount or within $25 if the amount is an amount of tax withheld.  However, if the payee requests a corrected return, the filer must file and furnish one or the payee is liable for potential penalties.  Prior to the enactment of the PATH Act, any error in an amount was considered consequential and could result in a penalty—even if the error was only one cent.  With this change, de minimis errors no longer necessitate corrected information returns or payee statements.  The safe harbor is effective for information returns and payee statements required to be filed after December 31, 2016.

Notice 2017-09 specifies that the safe harbor will not apply in the event of an intentional error or if a payor fails to file a required information return or furnish a required payee statement.  In other words, a filer cannot use the safe harbor to increase the filing threshold for reporting by arguing that the amount that should have been reported was within $25 of a threshold.  Accordingly, if a filer determines that a Form 1099-MISC was not required because the amount paid to the payee was $550 and later determines the amount paid was actually $650, the safe harbor would not apply.  Similarly, filers cannot apply the safe harbor to avoid penalties for payees of interest of less than $100 for whom they did not file a Form 1099-INT because the filer incorrectly believed the interest paid was less than $10.

The notice also clarifies the process by which a payee may request a corrected information return by electing that the safe harbor not apply.  If the payee makes such an election and the payor furnishes a corrected payee statement and files a corrected information return within 30 days of the election, the error will be deemed to be due to reasonable cause and neither Section 6721 or 6722 penalties shall apply unless specific rules specify a time in which to provide the corrected payee statements, such as for Forms W-2.  The notice leaves unanswered, however, how this rule will apply when a payee has an ongoing election not to apply the safe harbor in effect as described below.

The notice permits payors to prescribe any reasonable manner for making the election, including in writing, on-line, or by telephone, provided that the payor provide written notification of the manner prescribed before the date the payee makes an election.  If on-line elections are prescribed by the payor, the payor must also provide another means for making an election.  If the payor has prescribed a manner for making such an election, the payee must make the election using the prescribed manner and elections made otherwise are not valid.  If the payor has not prescribed a manner for making the election, the payor may make an election in writing to the payor’s address on the payee statement or by a manner directed by payor after making an inquiry.  The payor may not otherwise limit the payee’s ability to make the election.

Payees are permitted to make an election with respect to information returns and payee statements that were required to be furnished in the calendar year of the election.  Alternatively, a payee may make an election for such returns and payee statements and all succeeding calendar years.  The statute did not clearly envision an ongoing election as prescribed in the notice.  The decision to allow for an ongoing election as opposed to an annual election requirement raises compliance concerns with respect to small payors who do not have electronic vendor management systems and with respect to payees who only receive intermittent payments that may have been inactivated in the payor’s systems.

The payee may subsequently revoke an election at any time after the election is made by providing written notice to the payor.  The revocation applies to all information returns and payee statements of the type specified in the revocation that are required to be filed and furnished, respectively, after the date on which the payor receives the revocation.

A valid election must: (1) clearly state that the payee is making the election; (2) provide the payee’s name, address, and taxpayer identification number (TIN); (3) identify the type of payee statement(s) and account number(s), if applicable, to which the election applies if the payee wants the election to apply only to specific statements; and (4) if the payee wants the election to apply only to the year for which the payee makes the election, state that the election applies only to payee statements required to be furnished in that calendar year.  If the payee does not identify the type of payee statement and account number or (ii) the calendar year to which the election relates, the payor must treat the election as applying to all types of payee statements that the payor is required to furnish to the payee and as applying to payee statements that are required to be furnished in the calendar year in which the payee makes the election and all succeeding calendar years.

The notice indicates that it does not prohibit a payee from making a request with respect to payee statements required to be furnished in an earlier calendar year.  It is not clear, however, whether such a request must be honored by the payor.

With respect to Forms W-2, Notice 2017-09 encourages employers to correct any errors on Forms W-2c even though the safe harbor may apply.  The notice expresses concern that failure to correct de minimis errors on Forms W-2 will result in combined annual wage reporting (CAWR) errors.  Under the CAWR program, the IRS compares amounts reported on Forms 941 with those reported on Forms W-3 and the processed totals from Forms W-2.  When the amounts do not match, an intentional disregard penalty is automatically assessed under Section 6721.  Although the notice does not specify as much, these penalties would presumably be abated if the employer demonstrated that the mismatch resulted from de minimis errors that were not required to be corrected under the safe harbor.

The notice states that the Treasury Department and IRS intend to issue regulations incorporating the rules contained in the notice.  The regulations are also expected to require payors to notify payees of the safe harbor and the option to make an election to have the safe harbor not apply.  The notice also indicates that the regulations may provide that the safe harbor does not apply to certain information returns and payee statements to prevent abuse as permitted by the statute, but does not indicate which, if any, information returns the IRS believes raise such concerns.  Comments are requested on the rules in the notice and are due by April 24, 2017.

D.C. Council Passes Mandatory Paid Leave Bill

Post by
December 22, 2016

The District of Columbia Council passed a generous paid family leave bill on Tuesday by a 9-4 margin.  The bill will provide eight weeks of paid leave to new mothers and fathers, six weeks for employees caring for sick family members, and two weeks for personal sick leave.  As we explained in a prior post, the District will fund the new benefit with a new 0.62 percent payroll tax on employers.  Large employers, some of whom already provide similar benefits to employees, have been increasingly outspoken against the bill, taking issue with what it views as a bill requiring them to fund paid leave for small employers who do not currently offer such benefits.  Despite large employers’ strong lobbying effort, which were joined by Mayor Muriel Bowser, the bill still passed by a comfortable margin.  Mayor Bowser has not indicated whether she will sign the bill, but the 9-4 vote is sufficient to override a veto.  Regardless of Mayor Bowser’s decision, the program will likely not get off the ground until 2019 due to the administrative hurdles required to implement the new system.

D.C. Council Moves Closer to Enacting Employer Payroll Tax to Create Nation’s Most Generous Family Leave Law

Post by
December 7, 2016

On December 6, the District of Columbia Council advanced a bill known as the Universal Paid Leave Act of 2016.  The bill would impose an estimated $250 million in employer payroll taxes on local businesses to fund a paid leave benefit created by the bill.  The bill would raise the funds by creating a new employer payroll tax of 0.62%.  Self-employed individuals may also opt-in to the program by paying the tax.  Federal government employees and District residents who work outside of the District would not be covered by the bill.  However, Maryland and Virginia residents who work within the district would be covered and entitled to benefits from the government fund created by the bill.

If ultimately passed, the bill would require businesses to provide eight weeks of paid time-off for both full and part-time workers to care for newborn or adopted children.  The bill, which advanced on an 11-2 vote, will also guarantee six weeks of paid leave for workers to care for sick relatives, as well as two weeks of annual personal sick leave.  (Many employees would already qualify for unpaid leave under the Federal and District family and medical leave laws.)

A government insurance fund funded with the new employer payroll taxes would pay workers during their leaves. The bill provides for progressive payment rates, such that lower-income individuals receive a greater percentage of their normal salary during periods of time off covered by the program.  The fund created with the tax revenue would pay a base amount equal to 90% of a worker’s average weekly wage up to 150% of the District’s minimum wage.  (Based on the District’s current minimum wage laws, the base amount is expected to be calculated on up to $900 in weekly salary by the time the program would take effect based on a $15 per hour minimum wage rate that is currently being phased in.)  An employee whose average weekly wage exceeds 150% of the District’s minimum wage would receive the base amount plus 50% of the worker’s weekly wage above the District’s minimum wage.  Payments would be capped at $1,000 a week, with the cap being subject to increases for inflation beginning in 2021.

The bill must pass a final D.C. Council vote on December 20 and approval by District Mayor Muriel E. Bowser. A Bowser spokesman reported that the mayor was still undecided on the bill.  If the bill ultimately passes, benefits would likely not be available before 2019, as the District would need time to prepare and fund the program.

New Jersey and Pennsylvania Will Maintain Tax Reciprocal Agreement

Post by
November 23, 2016

New Jersey Governor Chris Christie, who promised in September to revoke New Jersey’s 40-year-old tax reciprocal agreement with Pennsylvania, announced through a November 22 statement that he would continue the agreement.  Governor Christie had said he would eliminate the State of New Jersey and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Reciprocal Personal Income Tax Agreement unless the New Jersey legislature took steps to reduce public employee health insurance costs.

The stated impetus for scrapping the agreement was to make up for a budget deficit: cancelling the agreement was estimated to produce $180 million in revenue for New Jersey. Under the agreement, New Jersey and Pennsylvania residents who work in the other state are only required to file a tax return in their state of residence.  Pennsylvania residents working in New Jersey must file Form NJ-165, Employee’s Certificate of Nonresidence in New Jersey, and New Jersey residents working in Pennsylvania must file Form REV-419EX, Employee’s Nonwithholding Application Certificate, with their employers to avoid having New Jersey taxes withheld from compensation.

Without the agreement, residents of Pennsylvania and New Jersey who work in the other state would need to file two tax returns and claim a credit against taxes owed in their state of residence for taxes paid in their state of employment. Because Pennsylvania imposes a 3.07% flat tax and New Jersey imposes a graduated tax that is capped at 8.97%, New Jersey would greatly benefit from taxing the income of Pennsylvania residents working in New Jersey.  However, cancelling the agreement would have hurt many lower-income New Jersey residents who work in Pennsylvania (Philadelphia, in particular), as they would be forced to pay Pennsylvania’s 3.07% flat tax, instead of the lower New Jersey graduated rate.

However, Governor Christie stated that the agreement could continue due to the $200 million in savings caused by a public worker union-backed health care bill that was signed into law on November 21 (S2749).  The new legislation saves money by adjusting the process through which public workers receive their prescriptions.  Several major corporations that operate in New Jersey, including Subaru of America and Campbell Soup Co., have already praised the decision to maintain the agreement.

Another Attempt to Repeal FATCA Is Introduced to Congress

Post by
September 12, 2016

New legislation, H.R. 5935, has been introduced in Congress to repeal the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), on the basis that FATCA violates Americans’ Fourth Amendment privacy rights.  Rep. Mark Meadows (R-NC) introduced the bill to the House on September 7, along with two original cosponsors.  The alleged privacy violations stem from requirements in FATCA that force foreign financial institutions to report all account holdings and assets of U.S. taxpayers to the IRS, or else face potential penalties in the form of 30% withholding on all U.S. source income.  According to Rep. Meadows’s press release, FATCA “requires a level” of disclosure that violates the Fourth Amendment, though Rep. Meadows offers no specific support for this claim.

If history is any indication, this latest repeal effort will fall flat. Prior attempts have been made to repeal FATCA, such as Senate Amendment 621 and Senate Bill 663, but none have succeeded.  Though S. 663 has not yet been officially defeated, its sponsor, Sen. Rand Paul, has pursued a lawsuit making similar claims without success, as we discussed in a prior post.

Israeli Court Threatens to Undermine FATCA Agreement

Post by
September 8, 2016

Israel was nearing completion of the steps required to comply with the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA), but its attempt to comply may be in sudden jeopardy thanks to a recent Israeli court decision.  FATCA exchanges were to begin on September 1, but Justice Hanan Meltzer issued a temporary injunction that day that prevents FATCA-related regulations that would have permitted the exchange of information with the United States from going into effect.  The injunction was issued in response to a request filed August 8 by a group named Republicans Overseas Israel.  An emergency hearing is scheduled for September 12.

In July 2014, Israel signed an intergovernmental agreement with the United States to implement FATCA, under which it agreed to pass regulations to bring Israel into compliance with the agreement.  The Israeli parliament (Knesset) approved such regulations on August 2, which would have required Israeli financial institutions to report on certain accounts held by U.S. citizens to the Israel tax authority by September 20.  Financial institutions that failed to comply would face monetary penalties, in addition to the penalties that are required under FATCA, including 30% withholding on payments from the United States.

IRS Releases New Form on Which Small Businesses Should Claim Payroll Tax Credit for R&D Expenditures

The IRS released draft Form 8974, Qualified Small Business Payroll Tax Credit for Increasing Research Activities, which qualified small business (i.e., start-up businesses) will use to claim the new payroll tax credit available to start-up businesses for qualified research and development (R&D) expenses up to $250,000.  As we explained in a prior post, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) allowed start-up businesses to take advantage of the R&D tax credit by allowing them to offset the employer portion of the Social Security tax—the credit was previously only available to companies that could offset such expenditures against taxable income.  Also covered in that post were modifications to two existing forms to accommodate the reporting of the expanded R&D tax credit: Form 6765, Credit for Increasing Research Activities, and Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return.

The new form allows qualified small businesses to calculate the amount of the qualified small business payroll tax credit for the current quarter. Taxpayers will file Form 8974 quarterly by attaching it to Form 941.  Form 8974 calculates the amount of payroll tax credit available to the taxpayer based on Line 44 of the prior tax year’s Form 6765, and the amount of social security taxes reported for the quarter, which is pulled from Column 2 of Lines 5a and 5b of the Form 941 on which the credit is applied.  The amount reported on Line 12 of Form 8974 is the payroll tax credit that qualified small businesses should report on Line 11 of the Form 941 (generally, the amount of the total credit allowable based on the prior year’s Form 6765 or 50% of the reported Social Security tax reported on the Form 941 for the current quarter).

Notice 2016-48 Implements PATH Act’s ITIN Changes, Clarifies Application of New Rules to Information Returns

The IRS recently issued Notice 2016-48 to implement changes to the individual tax identification number (ITIN) program that had been adopted by Congress.  The notice explains the changes made to the ITIN program, as well as how the IRS plans to implement those changes, and the consequences to taxpayers who do not comply with the new rules.

ITINs are issued to taxpayers who are required to have a U.S. taxpayer identification number but who are not eligible to obtain a social security number.  As discussed in an earlier post, the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act), signed into law in December 2015, made it more difficult for nonresident aliens to maintain valid ITINs by amending Section 6109 of the Internal Revenue Code, the provision that permits the IRS to issue taxpayer identification numbers and request information to issue such numbers.  Specifically, under the PATH Act, Treasury must move toward an in-person ITIN application process, ITINs must be renewed to avoid expiration, and ITINs must be used to file a U.S. tax return to avoid expiration.

Application Procedures.  Under the current application procedures, taxpayers may apply for an ITIN by submitting Form W-7, Application for IRS Individual Taxpayer Identification Number by mail or in-person.  Notice 2016-48 does not execute Congress’s directive to establish an exclusively in-person application program, instead continuing the current application procedures, while the IRS takes additional time to determine how to implement the PATH Act’s mandate.  The IRS announced that further guidance will be issued.

ITIN Expiration.  The PATH Act made ITINs no longer indefinitely valid.  Any ITIN that is not used on a federal tax return for three consecutive years will expire on December 31 of the third year.  Taxpayers with an ITIN that has expired because they have not used it in three consecutive years may renew the ITIN any time after October 1, 2016 by submitting Form W-7 and the required accompanying documentation.

The PATH Act sets forth a schedule by which ITINs issued before 2013 will expire.  That schedule, which is based upon the issue date of the ITIN, was modified by Notice 2016-48 because many individuals do not know when their ITINs were issued, making the PATH Act’s schedule impractical.  Under Notice 2016-48, ITINs will expire under a multi-year schedule based upon the fourth and fifth digits of the ITIN.  Under this renewal system, ITINs with the middle digits 78 or 79 will expire on January 1, 2017, and future guidance will set forth the expiration schedule for other middle digit combinations.  The IRS will send Letter 5821 to individuals who used an ITIN with the middle digits 78 or 79 on a U.S. income tax return in any of the previous three years, notifying them of the upcoming expiration.

The IRS will accept returns with expired ITINs, but it warns taxpayers that processing delays may result and certain credits may not be allowed.  The processing delays and unavailability of certain credits could result in additional penalties and interest and a reduced refund.

Information Returns.  Expired ITINs are permitted to be used on information returns, meaning that holders of expired ITINs that are only used on returns filed by third parties, such as the Form 1099 or Form 1042 series, are not required to renew their ITINs.  Filers of information returns are not subject to penalties under Section 6721 or 6722 for the use of an expired ITIN on information returns. (However, many individuals who receive such information returns are required to file U.S. income tax returns necessitating that they renew their ITINs.)

IRS Releases Drafts of Forms 941 and 6765 to Enable R&D Payroll Tax Credit Under Section 3111(f)

The IRS released drafts of Form 941 and Form 6765 to facilitate a new payroll tax credit intended to allow start-up businesses to take advantage of the research and development (R&D) credit in Section 41 of the Internal Revenue Code.  In the past, start-up businesses took issue with the R&D tax credit because the credit was an income tax credit.  Because start-up businesses may not have taxable income for several years, they were not able to take advantage of the credit.

The Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act) expanded the R&D credit by adding new Sections 41(h) and 3111(f) to the Code.  Those sections allow “qualified small businesses” to elect to claim the credit (up to a maximum of $250,000) as a payroll tax credit. Those employers may elect to use the credit to offset the employer portion of Social Security tax.  It may not be used to reduce the amount of Social Security tax withheld from employees’ wages, nor may it be used to offset the employer or employee share of Medicare tax.  For purposes of the credit, a “qualified small business” is an employer with gross receipts of less than $5 million in the current taxable year and no more than five taxable years with gross receipts.  Qualified small businesses may claim the R&D payroll tax credit in tax years beginning after December 31, 2015.

The IRS added two lines to Form 941 (Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return). Qualified small businesses will report the amount of the credit on Line 11 and report the total applicable taxes after adjustments and credits on Line 12.  In addition, qualified small businesses will elect to take a portion of the R&D credit as a payroll tax credit by completing new Section D on Form 6765 (Credit for Increasing Research Activities).  Comments on the forms can be submitted on the IRS web site.

The IRS subsequently released a draft Form 8974 that is used to calculate the payroll tax credit.

Bipartisan Support for Legislation Codifying Tax-Free Student Loan Repayment Benefits, But Does the Code Already Allow for It?

Post by
July 25, 2016

As college graduates struggle under the weight of larger student loan burdens, some employers have begun to offer student loan repayment benefits intended to help employees repay their loans.  In May, House Ways and Means Committee member Robert Dold (R-IL) introduced legislation that would, among other changes, amend Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code to explicitly allow employers to make payments on their employees’ student loans on a tax-free basis.  That provision excludes from gross income up to $5,250 paid by an employer per year for expenses incurred by or on behalf of an employee for education of the employee (including, but not limited to, tuition, fees, and similar payments, books, supplies, and equipment).   Other proposed bills have also been introduced to provide the same benefit.  Although the legislation has bipartisan support, it is unclear whether Congress has the appetite for passing legislation that would appear to reduce revenues, or the fortitude to pass anything nonessential in an election year.

For employers interested in providing tax-free student loan repayment benefits, existing law may already allow for such a result.  The Internal Revenue Service issued a private letter ruling in 2003 that suggests that such payments may already be excludable under Section 127.  In the ruling, a law firm established an educational assistance plan for its non-lawyer employees.  The firm’s employees borrowed funds to pay for law school.  The firm then provided the employees with additional salary to pay the principal and interest due on the loans during each year of employment, essentially forgiving the debt.  The IRS ruled that the first $5,250 of loan payments each year were excludable from the employee’s income under Section 127.  Although the private letter ruling applies only to the taxpayer and does not fully describe the terms of the law firm’s program, it offers a strategy for employers to consider when evaluating how to help their employees with student loan payments.