Skip to comments.IRS Warns Employers: Do Not Try to Avoid ObamaCare Insurance Mandate
Posted on 01/10/2013 6:51:52 AM PST by Olog-hai
The Internal Revenue Service warned employers in a new regulatory proposal not to come up with clever schemes to avoid Obamacares employer health insurance mandate.
The IRS said it would soon issue anti-abuse rules to discourage employers from taking advantage of any regulatory loopholes.
The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware of various structures being considered under which employers might use temporary staffing agencies (or other staffing agencies)
to evade application of section 4980H [the employer insurance mandate], the IRS said in a proposed regulatory announcement issued December 28.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...
“Ve have vays of makink you talk”
Anyone question now why the idiot in our White House has recently armed all federal agents with an enormous amounts of weapons and ammo? Has anyone now any questions as to why they needed all those weapons and ammunition?
They know there’ll be some big problems pretty soon with the citizens of this country.
This is far beyond a conspiracy.
Huh! Thanks for the tip! Of course there might be a bunch of these agencies that have 49 employees apiece...
Another division of Obama's "Brown Shirts" Seig Heil!!
hey they told us in school this exact sentence “tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is legal”, so is the IRS putting the kabosh on tax planning?
You mean they left a ‘loophole’ in their obambacare law?
Answer: They are just blowing smoke and trying to scare companies into compliance. If a creative tax accountant uses a loophole, then the IRS has the option to challenge it on a case by case basis in court.
I guess they had to pass the law to see where the loopholes were in it.
Thus, you can forget the specific words of the statute, it says whatever the IRS says it says.
“IRS Warns Employers: Do Not Try to Avoid ObamaCare Insurance Mandate”
Addendum: “Do not even THINK about trying to avoid the ObamaCare Insurance Mandate”
Addendum: “We will tell you what ‘avoid’ and ‘try’ means
Right, so there is no choice, as Obama promised.
And the government beast continues to grow, and kill productive jobs.
War is coming. We will not survive. Some of our kids might.
Now this is a new rule I hadn't heard of. We have great insurance through my husband's company and it's always been the company pays 3/4, we pay 1/4. That costs is around $250-300 per month. We're okay with the no more than 9.5% of salary but my husband's one of the higher paid employees, but what about the employees at the bottom of the totem pole. The guy making $10 an hour, that policy is going to be more than 9.5% of his pay...so what will the company do, make employees pay for insurance based on their salary...or lower their policy costs by buying crummy insurance that won't be more than 9.5% of the $10 an hour worker?
If we do not obey this law, nor adhere to any of its rules, the country does not have enough IRS and other federal agents to round us up, nor courts to try us, nor juries to find us guilty.
A handful of states might try to use force to bring their residents into compliance, e.g. New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey or Maryland, but few others have politicians who would cross the line.
While the Administration talks about minting trillion dollar coins to get around the debt ceiling.
I don’t understand the purpose of that requirement, either. It seems like it really would have the effect of lowering the quality of health care insurance for lower income individuals. Also, aren’t there mandates in Obamacare speaking to what must be covered in an “acceptable policy?” If that’s the case, that would most likely increase the price of lower cost insurance policies.
The oth question I have is, what happens if your current policy cost exceeds 9.5 percent of your wages? Is the employer required to buy a cheaper policy for you? The language stated is “...must not exceed 9.5 percent...”
or lower their salaries so the ins will be 9.5%
People in business can only try to make a profit given the totality of the incentives and regulations they are forced to successfully navigate.
If you punish an employer where the margin on low skilled employees between their pay and their productivity is very low, when government mandates that full time employees must have an expensive fringe benefit, but allows part time employees to escape the mandate, guess what? Employees at the lower end of the skills and productivity matrix are going to be part timers.
So yet another Blue model breaks down: all the social justice activists who thought that ObamaCare was going to bring out the magic unicorns all traversing the golden rainbow while defecating Skittles and Arizona Tea are going to be shocked to find out that instead of workers getting a more easy life with free health care, the full time job is going to disappear.
Instead of one full time job and a 40 hour week, workers at every level up to valuable management and those with high skills (like programmers and doctors) are going to work two part time jobs and have a 50 hour week, and no benefits.
The instant this new reality dawns on the low-information voters, they are going still blame greedy insurance companies! And as sure as the sun rises, you know that community activists and the social justice crowd are going to find a way to explain (er, lie) this reality to their advantage. And so the social struggle for the soul of the “worker” continues. Sadly, economic reality is the first thing to be cast aside.
Well, that should take care of the small businesses. NEXT - the peoples’ freedom.
An old but ever so topical FR thread.
This is one case where it is possible for IRS to go to the guy with the brown shirt, arrest him, put him on trial, then flense him, 'cause all the way at the top there's one employer ~ Ol'Bama hissef!!!
I am sure the rule writer for this one will disappear shortly.
this is getting entertaining. Does the dear leader really think that he can now tell employers how many hours he can relegate to his employees??
haah!!!!! about to pop some popcorn if anyone wants some.
For my part, my startup will never have 50 employees as long as ObamaCare is in effect. I’ll offshore and outsource and set up related businesses somewhere else to avoid the limit.
ObamaCare is an affront the Constitution. The very idea that a person can be forced by government to buy something is anathema to the Declaration of Independence and especially to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, which the last time I checked is still the law of the land, if not in legal reality then at least as a timeless principle from the Creator.
Angry backlash is coming.
A company can always avoid the mandates by going out of business.
Right, they just don’t seem to get that they can not force compliance with their scheme if the people are against it. Are they going to force me to keep my business open and not fire everyone?
Dem is fightin’ words.
Cutting your employee to 28 hrs. is now a “clever scheme” apparently.
So in order to keep the Gestapo from being suspicious, instead of having 49 employees, businesses can keep it down to 46 or 47. Now that’s going to really help the unemployment rate.
Going out of business would ultimately be cheaper still. Liberal rhetoric doesn’t work too well on empty stomachs.
Tears....America used to be so wonderful. Can't we get that back somehow?
This needs to be renamed the Lawyers Full Empl;oyment regulation. Just about every business out there is going to be at the pointy end of this thing.
LOL -- That Is Awesome.
‘tis true - the next thought I had was that two side-by-side fast food joints would be wise to collaborate: use the same employees between them and coordinate schedules to give them all 20 hours a week at each separate business location... everybody wins.
And about that Boehner, do you recall "one" single Dem who didn't want Boehner as Speaker?
Reid has been silent also. Silence from the left speaks volumes about Boehner.
I hadn’t thought of that one :)
But it’s a real problem waiting to happen. I imagine they could buy a couple different types of policies, crummy ones, not so crummy ones, and good ones...then the more you make the better insurance you could afford.
Do I really believe the ACLU will sit quietly by and watch the $10 an hour employee get bad insurance when working at the same company of the higher paid employee who has a decent plan...that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.
Like I said, we’ve always paid around $300 per month the company picks up the $900, the plan costs $1200 per month total. I think they do offer other options, but they all look to be around the same cost. The reason our cost has stayed pretty stable for the last few years, is each year deductibles edge up, certain benefits, physical therapy, for instance, is cut back, and out of pockets are more.
But an employee making $10 a hour makes approx. $21,000. 9.5% of that is $1995 per year, or around $166 per month, which would make the total cost of the policy $646 per month (if we’re working on the assumption that employee pays 1/4, company pays 3/4.) Wonder what kind of group insurance you get for $646 per month? I’m sure you can get a policy for that, I just imagine they’d have large deductibles and out of pocket expense.
It truly is, and I see this announcement by the IRS as the beginning of the unraveling.
The fact is that nobody likes this bill, especially now that "low information" voters are finding out what it means to them.
The Supreme Court invalidated the portion of the law that would have served to coerce the states into creating exchanges. Some thirty states have opted out, and the law did not provide funding for a federal exchange.
Oh, and we have the House.
I don't think a federal exchange is even going to happen, and then there will be no mechanism by which the poor will be subsidized to buy a policy.
The Democrats in the Senate then, are placed between a rock and hard place. I think as 2014 approaches we can get them to vote to rescind. It will be suicide if they don't, the way this thing is going.
LOL!! thanks for the chuckle