The ACA Times


  Show menu
  • Home
  • Articles
  • Get to Know the ACA
  • ACA – Frequently Asked Questions
  • Resources
  • Meet the Editors
  • Trusaic
  • Contact Us
  • Legal
  
  • Home
  • 2016 Presidential Election
  • With Trump Election Employers Still on Hook for 2016 ACA Reporting

Articles

With Trump Election Employers Still on Hook for 2016 ACA Reporting

November 11, 2016 Robert Sheen 2016 Presidential Election, ACA Compliance, Reporting
With Trump Election Employers Still on Hook for 2016 ACA Reporting

With the stunning election of Donald Trump as President comes a serious question of what happens to the Employer Mandate under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), also known as “Obamacare.” Just two weeks before Election Day, facing headlines of premiums spikes on the healthcare exchanges, Trump hammered on his announcement that he will “repeal and replace Obamacare.” With a majority in both houses of Congress, Trump looks poised to do so.

But with six years since its enactment, the ACA is a complex set of rules with a massive and now firmly entrenched regulatory framework. So, what does a Trump administration mean for the enforcement of the Employer Mandate, just one provision in the ACA of which Trump has never spoken?

While there remains a lot of speculation as to the extent of “repeal and replace Obamacare,” and presumably, its Employer Mandate provision, what is clear is that it is not going to be a quick process. An important corollary of repeal is the need to replace. The interplaying provisions of the ACA cannot be repealed without causing a catastrophic loss of coverage to 22 million insured.

Among the interplaying provisions are the provisions on the Employer Mandate, Individual Mandate, premium tax credits and healthcare exchanges. Even Speaker Paul Ryan’s “Better Way” proposal – while not fleshed out – calls for a tax credit for insurance coverage, critical for lower income individuals to get health coverage. HR 3762, a bill using the “reconciliation process” of the federal budget (and hence avoiding filibuster but vetoed in December 2015) offers only a framework of what provisions could be repealed but with no replacement let alone any details of that replacement.

Replacement legislation and its enforcement regulations are unlikely to be ready to be effective before 2019. Consider that the ACA was enacted in 2010 but the Employer Mandate did not get enforced until 2015.

What this should signal to employers is that there is likely at least another two years during which the Internal Revenue Service will enforce the Employer Mandate. The IRS does so by means of imposing two separate sets of penalties on employers:one set for failing to offer adequate healthcare coverage to its employees under Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 4980H and another set for failing to furnish employee disclosure statements and for failing to file information returns regarding the employees’ healthcare coverage status under IRC Sections 6721 and 6722.

These information returns are then reconciled with the individual’s tax returns to assess whether tax subsidies already paid out to such individuals were properly given. In addition to determining whether the penalties under Section 4980H and/or Sections 6721 and 6722 should be imposed on the employers, these information returns allows the IRS to reconcile whether penalties should be assessed on individuals who failed to obtain healthcare coverage under the Individual Mandate.

The penalties to employers can be huge. The penalties for Section 4980H violations consists of more than $2,000 per employee or more than $3,000 per employee penalty depending on the nature of the failure. For example, if the employer did not offer coverage to 95% of its full time employees and it had 1000 employees, that means the penalty could be in excess of $1.9 million.

Additionally, the penalties for Sections 6721 and 6722 violations can reach $260 per return (which is on an employee basis), adding up to more than $6 million for combined filing and employee statement distribution failures. Indeed, the employer penalties are double for a willful failure, which the employer bears the burden to show that any failure to comply was despite reasonable diligence.

penalties 4980H

These employer penalties are the source of funding of the premium tax credits (PTCs), which the government has already paid out. The funds are desperately needed in view of an existing, enormous federal deficit, which Republicans have consistently vowed to reduce. Accordingly, there is little incentive to change the status quo and eliminate the IRS enforcement of the Employer Mandate until and unless the Employer Mandate itself is repealed.

In view of the hefty penalties and with only two months before 2016 ACA reporting is due, it’s a no brainer for employers. The cost of compliance is miniscule compared to the staggering cost of penalties for non-compliance.


For any questions or a consultation on the ACA or IRS Letter 226J, contact Gregg Kasubuchi of Trusaic at (213) 355-5108 or at gkasubuchi@trusaic.com.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Linkedin
Short URL of this page: https://acatimes.com/nge
Robert Sheen

Robert Sheen

Robert Sheen, Esq., is editor-in-chief of The ACA Times. He also is founder, president and CEO of Trusaic.

Robert Sheen is Founder and President of Trusaic, Inc. Robert is a graduate of the University of Southern California, in Business Administration with an emphasis in International Finance. He earned his Juris Doctor from Loyola Law School, Los Angeles, concentrating in Tax Law.

View more by Robert Sheen

Related tags to article

2016 Presidential ElectionACA ComplianceAffordable Care ActDonald TrumpEmployer MandateHealth Care CoverageHealthcare ExchangesHR 3762Individual MandateIRC Sections 6721 and 6722IRSObamacarePaul RyanPenaltiesPremium Tax CreditRegulationsReportingRepublicans
Related Articles Seattle Washington Implements Gig Economy Worker Protections Seattle Washington Implements Gig Economy Worker Protections
Related Articles New York City Human Rights Law Could Impact Pay Equity Efforts New York City Human Rights Law Could Impact Pay Equity Efforts
Related Articles U.S. Baristas Share Salaries in Hopes for Higher Pay U.S. Baristas Share Salaries in Hopes for Higher Pay
Related Articles Administration Predicts Lower ACA Enrollment by Robert Sheen  •  
Related Articles IRS Eases Rules on Hardship Exemptions by Robert Sheen  •  
Related Articles HHS Awards $36 Million To Health Centers by Robert Sheen  •  

Popular Posts

  • Mark These 2020 Dates for ACA Reporting for 2019
  • IRS Issues Draft 2019 ACA Forms 1094-C and 1095-C and Reporting Instructions
  • The Look-Back Measurement Method Can Help Prevent ACA Penalties
  • IRS Issues Deadline Extension for Furnishing Forms 1095-C
  • ACA Affordability to Decrease for the 2020 Tax Year
  • What to Expect from California’s Individual Mandate
  • Letter 972CG Late Penalty Assessments are Becoming More Difficult to Repeal
  • ACA Filing Takeaways for The New Year

Trending Topics

  • Regulations
    (91)
  • Legislation
    (47)
  • Editorials
    (19)
  • ACA Compliance
    (110)
  • Tax Filings
    (19)
  • Applicable Large Employer (ALE)
    (13)
  • Penalties
    (18)
  • IRS
    (79)
  • Health Insurance Marketplace
    (28)
  • Polls/Surveys
    (18)
  • Health Care Reform
    (22)
  • Reporting
    (22)
  • IRS 226J/226-J
    (28)

Categories

Click me

Follow Us

Twitter Facebook

© 2019 Copyright Trusaic - All Rights reserved.

Close Window

Loading, Please Wait!

This may take a second or two. Loading, Please Wait!