Employers Should Review Benefits Plans And Other Policies Affecting Employees In Same-Sex Marriages As New IRS Guidance Implementing U.S. Supreme Court's Windsor Decision Becomes Effective Today, September 16, 2013

Here's something that should be at the top of your to do list on this Monday morning:  make sure your benefits and other employee policies are in compliance with new guidance from the IRS that becomes effective today relating to federal tax treatment of same-sex marriages under the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in U.S. v. Windsor.  In Windsor, the Supreme Court struck down provisions of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”), which had prohibited recognition of same-sex marriages under federal law. That decision has several implications for employers, including application of employee leave laws such as the Family Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”), which we blogged about recently.

Since the Windsor ruling, federal agencies have been busy carrying out President Obama’s directive to update regulations and guidance accordingly.  On August 29, the IRS issued Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and two sets of FAQs (here and here), advising how the IRS will treat same-sex marriages for federal tax purposes. (Windsor was, after all, a tax case, in which the issue was whether the IRS was allowed to disregard a same-sex marriage for federal estate tax purposes).  The guidance becomes effective today, September 16, 2013.

Under that new guidance, the IRS will apply the marriage laws of the state or country in which the marriage was celebrated (‘state of celebration”) to determine if the couple is validly married for federal tax purposes, including tax and other issues relating to employee benefits.  Under the new IRS guidance, any same-sex marriage validly entered into in any state or foreign country that allows same-sex marriage will be recognized by the IRS for income, estate, and other tax purposes, even if the couple does not live or work in a state that recognizes the marriage.  For example, if a same-sex couple is married in Washington (or Canada), which recognizes same-sex marriage, and then moves to Oregon, which currently does not, the couple will still be considered married for federal tax purposes.

According to the IRS guidance, applying the state of celebration rule will provide certainty and consistency for same-sex couples under federal tax law:  “Given our increasingly mobile society, it is important to have a uniform rule of recognition that can be applied with certainty by the Service and taxpayers alike for all Federal tax purposes.”  In declining to adopt the state of residence rule for determining married status, the IRS guidance follows most of the other guidance issued by other federal agencies, although the DOL has announced that it will follow the state of residence for FMLA purposes (which, post-Windsor and due to how that statute is drafted, allows an employee to take family leave to care for a same-sex spouse only if the employee actually resides in a state recognizing same-sex marriage).

Employers should immediately review the new IRS guidance and any benefits, family leave, or other policies that may be affected by the changes Windsor brings.  Our Howard Bye-Torre has published a detailed Q&A that walks you through the implications of Windsor for tax, employee benefits, and other issues potentially affecting employers.

New IRS Guidance Expected Over Delay of Affordable Care Act Employer Pay-or-Play Penalties

As described by my colleague Howard Bye-Torre in his client advisory published earlier today, Mark Mazur, Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy at the Treasury Department announced in a Tuesday blog post that the effective date for imposing employer pay-or-play penalties (also known “shared responsibility payments”) will be delayed by the IRS until 2015.

The IRS is expected to issue official guidance on this announcement next week. We will update readers on the guidance once it becomes available.

The IRS blog post is available here: http://www.treasury.gov/connect/blog/Pages/Continuing-to-Implement-the-ACA-in-a-Careful-Thoughtful-Manner-.aspx

December 31, 2012 Deadline Looms Under Tax Code for Fixing Severance Agreements with Releases

 

Employers have until the end of the year to take advantage of relief from penalties under section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code for agreements that require employees to sign releases before severance benefits are paid. Section 409A was enacted in 2004 to regulate deferred compensation.  Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") regulations made clear that it would affect not only traditional deferred compensation arrangements, but also arrangements previously not thought of as deferred compensation. Severance and change-in-control benefits are often subject to the section 409A requirements. Employees pay most of the price for mistakes that result in violations of section 409A, including a 20 percent tax penalty.

The IRS surprised many in early 2010 when it announced that agreements that require the employee to sign a release of claims (or non-competition or non-solicitation agreement) before severance or change-in-control payments start may run afoul of section 409A because they give the employee some control over when payments will start, sometimes allowing the employee to choose which year payments will be made. Industry push-back persuaded the IRS to provide transition relief, the last of which will end on December 31, 2012. This relief allows employers to modify agreements to deal with such release requirements to specify when payments will be made and what happens if a release is not signed on time. The transition relief allows correction of agreements with these problems – even if payments have already started – something not otherwise available. In addition, the employer is not forced to notify the employee of the documentary violation of section 409A and the employee does not have to attach a notice to the employee’s personal income tax return about the violation. After December 31, 2012, this relief will no longer be available.

If you are interested in a more detailed discussion of this relief and the required changes to employee releases, check out Stoel Rives' recent Client Alert on the subject.

 

New IRS Guidance for Health Care Reform: More News You Can Use

Editor's Note: Today we are pleased to post the following health care reform update on new IRS guidance that came out last week.  Many thanks to our Seattle employee benefits colleagues, authors Howard Bye, Melanie Curtice and Erin Lennon, for sharing this timely content with World of Employment.

Health care reform requires employers to report the cost of health coverage on employees’ W-2 forms.  Last week, the IRS released additional information on this requirement, Notice 2011-28.  Below is a summary of the additional information, including the effective date, how to calculate the cost of coverage, which benefits (e.g., vision, dental, FSA, HSA, HRA)  to include in the calculation, and certain exceptions.  The cost of health coverage is reported in Box 12 of the W-2 form, under code DD.

  • Please note: The requirement to report the cost of the health coverage on an employee’s W-2 does not mean the value of the health coverage is included in the employee’s taxable income.  The reporting requirement is for informational purposes only and the cost of the health coverage is not included in the employee’s taxable income.

Effective Date

As previously announced, the W-2 requirement was waived for 2011.  The new guidance confirms that large employers (250+ employees) are not required to report the cost of health coverage on W-2 forms issued for 2011 (typically issued in January 2012).  Large employers will need to report the cost of coverage on W-2 forms issued for 2012 (those issued in January 2013).  Notably, the new guidance indicates that employers will not have to report the cost of coverage on interim W-2 forms requested by employees before the end of the calendar year.  Therefore, the first time that employers are required to report the cost of health coverage is on the W-2 forms issued in January 2013 (for 2012 wages).

Calculating the Cost of Coverage

Employee Contributions Included: The reported cost of coverage includes both the amount paid by the employer and the amount paid by the employee.  So, if an employer contributes $900/month for the employee’s coverage and the employee contributes $100/month for each month in a calendar year, the amount reported on the W-2 for the year is $12,000.

Cost of Dependent Coverage Included: The reported cost of coverage includes the cost of coverage for any other persons covered under the plan as a result of the relationship with the employee (e.g., spouse, children, domestic partner, etc.).  So, if an employee elects family health coverage that costs a total of $2,000/month, the annual cost reported on the employee’s W-2 will be $24,000.  If an employee changes coverage during the year (for example, adding a new dependent), the reported cost of coverage should reflect those changes.  So, if an employee had self-only coverage for January through March, and then had a baby and switched to family coverage for April through December, the reported cost of coverage is the cost of the self-only coverage for three months plus the cost of family coverage for nine months.

Three Methods for Calculating Cost of Coverage: The guidance offers employers three options for calculating the cost of coverage.  First, employers can simply use the same method used to calculate the COBRA premium (without including the additional two percent allowed under COBRA).  Second, employers with insured plans can choose to use the premium charged by the insurer.  The third option clarifies that employers who subsidize COBRA coverage must use the full, unsubsidized COBRA premium amount to calculate the cost.

  • Note for self-funded plans:  the guidance does not provide any additional guidance on how to properly compute COBRA premiums for self-funded plans.  The Notice merely states that employers must continue to calculate the COBRA premiums “in good faith compliance with a reasonable interpretation” of COBRA.

Mid-Year COBRA Election

For employees that terminate mid-year and elect COBRA (or other continuation) coverage, the new guidance allows the employer to use “any reasonable method” of reporting the cost of coverage while the employee is on COBRA, as long as the method is used consistently for all employees on COBRA.   The guidance gives two examples of reasonable methods: the employer can choose to report the cost of health coverage only when the employee was an active employee, or the employer can choose to also report the cost of health coverage when the employee was on COBRA. 

Which Benefits to Include

  • Vision/Dental: Vision and dental benefits should be included in the reported cost of coverage if they are “integrated” into the group health plan.  Vision and dental benefits should not be included in the reported cost of coverage if they are provided under a separate policy, certificate or contract of insurance.
  •  Health Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs): The amount contributed by an employee to a health FSA should not be included in the reported cost of coverage reported on the W-2.  However, if an employer contributes money to the employee’s health FSA, the amount of the employer’s contributionshould be included.  For employers offering flex credit or flex dollar programs, the reported cost of coverage is amount of employer flex dollars which the employee allocates to the health FSA (the total amount in the employee’s health FSA for the calendar year, minus the amount contributed by the employee through the employee’s payroll deduction). 
  • Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) and Archer MSAs: Amounts contributed to an HSA should not be included in the reported cost of coverage reported on the W-2.
  •  Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs): Amounts contributed to an HRA should not be included in the reported cost of coverage reported on the W-2.
  • Specific Disease Policies/Hospital or Other Fixed Indemnity Policies:  These benefits (such as a cancer policy) are not included in the reported cost of coverage in most instances. 

Current Exceptions

  • Retirees:  Employers do not have to report the cost of health care coverage for any individual for whom the employer does not have to issue a W-2.  Therefore, employers do not have report health care coverage costs for retirees.
  • Small Employers: Employers that are required to file fewer than 250 2011 Forms W-2 are exempt from the reporting requirement for 2011 and 2012 wages.  Thus, the soonest a small employer could be subject to the reporting requirement is January 2014 (for 2013 wages).
  • Multiemployer Plans: Employers that provide coverage to their employees through a multiemployer plan are not subject to the W-2 reporting requirement.

The IRS indicates that future guidance may change these requirements and exceptions, but no future guidance will take effect until the calendar year beginning at least six months after the new guidance is issued.

 

IRS Issues HIRE Act Affidavit

The Internal Revenue Service released yesterday Form W-11, the Hiring Incentives to Restore Employment (HIRE) Act Employee Affidavit.  Employers can use the form to claim the special payroll tax exemption that applies to many newly hired workers during 2010.  Click here to download a copy of Form W-11.

The HIRE Act, which President Obama signed into law on March 18, 2010, allows employers to claim an additional income tax credit equal to 6.2 percent of paid wages for every new qualified employee retained for 52 weeks, up to $1,000 per employee.  Under the Act, a "qualified employee" is one who:

  • Begins employment after February 3, 2010 and before January 1, 2011;
  • certifies by signed affidavit (such as Form W-11) that he or she has not been employed for more than 40 hours during the 60-day period ending on the date the employee begins employment;
  • is not hired to replace another employee unless the other employee separated from employment voluntarily or for cause (including downsizing); and
  • is not related to the employer. 

For more , click here to read the Stoel Rives World of Employment's previous coverage of the Hire Act.

Federal Government to Crack Down on Misclassified "Independent Contractors?"

It's always risky to misclassify someone who should be an employee as an "independent contractor," but President Obama's 2011 budget proposal will increase the risks for employers.  According to this budget summary from the U.S. Department of Labor, the misclassification of employees as contractors is estimated to cost the Treasury Department over $7 billion in lost payroll tax revenue over the next ten years.  To help make up for this shortfall, the proposed budget includes funds earmarked for a "joint proposal" between the DOL and the Treasury Department to eliminate legal incentives for such misclassification, and an additional $25 million to target misclassification with 100 additional enforcement personnel and competitive grants to boost states’ incentives and capacity to address this issue. 

If this budget provision goes into effect, employers will need to be particularly careful not to misclassify employees as contractors.  Of course, it's already a risky proposition to misclassify employees as contractors.  For example, as we reported back in 2008, FedEx was on the wrong end of a $14 million award after a California court concluded that the shipping giant misclassified hundreds of drivers as contractors.  Lawsuits in this area are common, ranging from individuals seeking unpaid wages and overtime to multi-million dollar class actions.  Federal and state governments are also known to go after employers for unpaid payroll taxes and associated penalties. 

Are you concerned that your independent contractor might actually be a misclassified employee?  The IRS has published this handy information on how to determine whether the employee is correctly classified.  There is even an IRS form (Form SS-8) that you can file to seek the Service's help in determining if your employee is correctly classified.  Of course, if you believe that you have misclassified employees working as contractors, it might be a good time to contact your labor and employment attorney. 

9th Circuit: Independent Contractor Can Assert Disability Claim Under Rehabilitation Act

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled recently that an independent contractor may assert a disability claim against an employer under the Rehabilitation Act.  Click the link to read the opinion on Fleming v. Yuma Regional Medical Center

The Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination on the basis of disability in programs conducted by Federal agencies, in programs receiving Federal financial assistance, in Federal employment, and in the employment practices of Federal contractors. The standards for determining employment discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act are the same as those used in Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA).

In Fleming, an anesthesiologist who worked as an independent contractor sued the medical center at which he worked, alleging a discriminatory constructive discharge.  The trial court dismissed the case on the basis that Fleming was an independent contractor and that the  Rehabilitation Act applied only to employee-employer relationships.  The Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that the Rehabilitation Act provides a cause of action to any individual subjected to disability discrimination by any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance.  While the Rehabilitation Act adopts the standards that are applied under the  ADA, it does not adopt the ADA's limitation to the employee-employer relationship. 

Independent contractors are not considered "employees" for purposes of most employment discrimination laws, and many employers hire independent contractors to avoid potential liability under such laws.  Fleming shows that, at least for employers covered by the Rehabilitation Act, independent contractors may still find ways to seek the protections of those laws despite their "non-employee" status.  In addition, many employers incur significant tax and other liabilities by misclassifying people as "independent contractors" when they really should be treated as employees.   For more information, the Internal Revenue Service offers this guidance for determining whether someone is or is not correctly classified as an independent contractor

Exotic Dancers Are Employees, Not Independent Contractors

Every now and then we need a reminder to illustrate  the dangers of misclassifying employees as "independent contractors."  Last week, the Montana Supreme Court provided such a reminder, ruling that exotic dancers were employees, not independent contractors.  Click here to read the opinion in Smith v. TYAD Inc. d/b/a Playground Lounge & Casino

In Playground, the employer required each dancer to sign a contract acknowledging that she would be considered an “independent contractor" who would pay a "stage fee" to “rent” the stage and a dressing room for every night she worked. In return, each dancer would retain all tips and dance fees.  According to the Montana Supreme Court, not only were the dancers actually employees entitled to payment of minimum wage for all hours worked, but the "stage fees" were illegal kickbacks.  It held the dancers were entitled to payment of hourly wages, overtime, repayment of the "stage fees" and penalties. 

Does Playground have any lessons for the 99.99% of employers that don't employ exotic dancers?  Absolutely: all employers should be careful when classifying anyone as an "independent contractor."  Whether an individual is properly classified as an employee or an independent contractor is a complex question of both state and federal law.  Besides being held liable for back pay and overtime, employers who misclassify employees can be charged with unpaid wage withholdings and unemployment insurance premiums.  Worse yet, employers who don't pay workers' compensation insurance on misclassified employees can find themselves in a world of hurt if one of those employees sustains an on-the-job injury.  (The Playground Lounge should be thankful none of its dancers fell off the stage.)  For more information on the criteria courts and agencies use, check out this page on the IRS' Independent Contractor Status Test

IRS, DOL Publish New Info on COBRA Subsidy

Today the Department of Labor expanded its FAQs on the COBRA subsidies included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA).  Click here to read the DOL's new COBRA FAQs

Wondering what the tax implications of the subsidy are, or whether the person asking for the subisidy is truly eligible?  Click here to read the IRS's Premium Assistance for COBRA Benefits.  If that doesn't answer your tax questions, click here to visit the IRS's ARRA page

As a reminder, employers can click here to download the new model COBRA notices

Sick to death of COBRA and need to relieve the stress it's caused?  Click here to visit Orisinal - a site full of calming, zen-like computer games. 

And finally, click here to visit the Stoel Rives World of Employment's complete COBRA coverage

Revised IRS Form 941 Provides for COBRA Premium Assistance Credit

Employers:  The Internal Revenue Service has issued a new Form 941 (Employer's Quarterly Federal Tax Return) that provides for any credits due because of the new COBRA Premium Assistance Credit.  You can download the new form by clicking on the links below:

The IRS also has put up this web page to provide tax assistance to employers taking advantage of the COBRA credits.  To read more on the COBRA Premium Assistance Credit, check out our coverage at the Stoel Rives World of Employment.

New W-4 Forms Available; No New Form I-9 Yet...

New year, new forms:  The Internal Revenue Service has released new W-4 Forms for 2009, and we have them for you right here!  Just click below to download:

A 2009 Spanish version is pending approval, and we'll post it when it is available. 

As previously reported here at the Stoel Rives World of Employment, employers will be required to adopt the new Form I-9 (Verification of Employment Eligibility) by February 2, 2009.  We'd love to give you a link to download it, but guess what:  it's not available yet.  We'll keep watching and post it here as soon as it's released.

IRS Sets 2009 Standard Mileage Rates

Do you reimburse your employees for mileage for business driving?  If so, get ready to pay a little less:  effective January 1, 2009, the standard mileage reimbursement will drop to 55 cents per mile, down from the 58.5 cents per mile it has been in the last half of 2008.  Why the drop?  Well, prices at the pump are down sharply from where they were six months ago.  For more information, click here to read the IRS Press Release on the new mileage rates.  Or for a lot more information, click here to read Revenue Procedure 2008-72, which explains the new mileage rates in detail. 

Fourteen Million Reasons Not to Misclassify Employees as Independent Contractors

A class of current and former FedEx Ground drivers misclassified as "independent contractors" will receive an additional $9 million in reimbursements for employment-related expenses, an appointed referee ruled October 20.  This award will be combined with a previous award of $5.3 million the drivers received in 2006.  The award will reimburse the drivers for such expenses as truck maintenance and registration, uniforms, fuel, and liability insurance.  For more information on the drivers' lawsuit, click here

As this case shows, employers run a substantial risk by misclassifying its employees as "independent contractors."  Not only can the misclassified employees bring lawsuits (for any number of reasons, such as unpaid overtime, minimum wage violations, family and medical leave issues, and more), but state and federal tax agencies can bring collection actions seeking unpaid payroll taxes, unemployment taxes and penalties.

Concerned that your independent contractor might be a misclassified employee?  The IRS has this handy information on how to determine whether the employee is correctly classified.  There is even an IRS form (Form SS-8) that you can file to seek the Service's help in determining if your employee is correctly classified.  Of course, if you believe that you have misclassified employees working as contractors, it might be a good time to contact your labor and employment attorney.