Posted on 01/13/2013 5:18:13 AM PST by IbJensen
(CNSNews.com) – The Internal Revenue Service warned employers in a new regulatory proposal not to come up with clever schemes to avoid Obamacare’s 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.
The IRS said it would issue a so-called “anti-abuse rule” in an attempt to prevent employers from using temp agencies to circumvent the mandate, essentially writing into law that even though an employer hires temporary workers and therefore is not technically under the mandate’s jurisdiction, the IRS would fine them anyway for not providing health insurance.
“It is anticipated that the final regulations will contain an anti-abuse rule,” the agency said. “Under that anticipated rule, if an individual performs services as an employee of an employer, and also performs the same or similar services for that employer in the individual’s purported employment at a temporary staffing agency or other staffing agency of which the employer is a client, then all the hours of service are attributed to the employer for purposes of applying section 4980H.”
In other words, if an employer hires someone part-time, then uses an employment agency to bring the same person on for a second part-time shift, the IRS will still hold the employer liable under the ObamaCare mandate.
Similarly, IRS said that if an employer hires the same person for two part-time stints by using two different employment agencies, it will hold either the employer or one of the employment agencies liable for the mandate’s penalties.
The issue stems from the employer health insurance mandate in Obamacare, which requires employers with 50 or more full-time employees to provide government-approved, affordable health insurance to at least 95 percent of their employees (and dependents).
If any of those employees receives government health insurance subsidies, the IRS will fine the employer up to $2,000 per employee, according to a formula outlined by the IRS.
The warning is part of proposed regulations from the IRS outlining how employers must determine whether they meet the 50 full-time-employee threshold and whether the insurance they offer meets government standards.
The IRS said that a full-time employee is one who works an average of 30 hours per week or 130 hours per month, roughly 6 hours of paid service per weekday.
The IRS also said that in order for an employer’s health insurance plan to pass muster with the government, it must be available to 95 percent of employees and cost no more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s wages.
The agency specified that employers could still fall under the mandate if they employ enough part-time workers to equal 50 full-time workers. For example, if an employer has 40 full-time workers and 20 part-time workers, that employer would be considered by the government to have 50 full-time workers and would be subject to the mandate because the 20 part-time workers average to 10 full-time workers – meeting the 50 full-time-worker threshold.
I wonder what happened to the waivers that 1000+ companies got. I think they were just for a year.
Mandate backed by FORCE. Totalitarianism is on the march in the republic.
Yep.
What is really going on here is that the IRS is, on its own, rewriting this piece of unconstitutional sh1t as it sees fit in order to subjugate us even more. Which is as unconstitutional as the original law itself.
Re-read the last paragraph.:
The agency specified that employers could still fall under the mandate if they employ enough part-time workers to equal 50 full-time workers. For example, if an employer has 40 full-time workers and 20 part-time workers, that employer would be considered by the government to have 50 full-time workers and would be subject to the mandate because the 20 part-time workers average to 10 full-time workers – meeting the 50 full-time-worker threshold.
100 part-time = 50 full time so you're still caught.
Thanks for that quote from Dingell.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QqFIb0uVZrs
DEPOPULATE socialists/totalitarians from the body politic.
This thread is evidence of the misery/plunder THEY have created.
“—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
I would explore the route of subcontractors.
That is , if you are a burger joint, have a counter sales subcontractor. All those on the front line and at the window are employed by XYZ company. Those in production work for DEF company. The only people actually on the company payroll are managers.
Thank you for clarifying, Sirius. :-) So the Congress would be bureaucrat dictators with whom we are familiar? And of course, *everyone* knows HRH & his jester, Joe.
:-( What Constitution?
That is cheating. If you want the same person there for a complete-hour day, be prepared to pay the price.
The rest of the regulation is government interference, but this one part does require a low-moral decision by the employer.
Yes it was
One of my favorite episodes of Little House on The Prairie, had an episode where a tax assessor was roaming the countryside looking at people’s property, before sending them a tax bill.
I remember Charles Ingalls saying, “I work at a loss for years only to have them take my profits on a good year.”
While waiting in line to contest the assessment, someone in the line says, “Next thing you know they’ll be taxing our incomes.”
Someone else in line responds, “That will never happen.”
Had they but lifted their rifles back then!
Interpretation of the IRS rules: Gimmee, gimmee, gimmee.
But wait, Bshaw, that was only a television program.
Wrong. The IRS made up the rule about the number of temp employees being equal to a number of full time employees based on the total hours worked by all. Made it up out of whole cloth.
That's only one example.
I know someone who employs a woman to clean their house, once a week, for 3-4 hours, for $100 (cash, no taxes). This woman doesn't appear to stay always for the full time, has many customers, and cleans multiple houses each day. So, if she cleans an average of 3 houses/day, for 5 days/week, this will earn her ~$1,500/week, without taxes. If she works 47 weeks/year, taking 5wks vacation, she will earn ~$70,500/year with no taxes. To earn that equivalent income, with let's say only 20% taxes would require her to make ~$88,000/year if she were part of the visible economy. Most people making close to $90,000/year probably pay a significant amount more than 20% in taxes, so this woman can earn the purchasing power of someone in a job earning $90,000 or somewhat more per year, while working only 5 days/week and taking 5 weeks vacation.
Yes, I know she probably doesn't always have all of her time slots filled etc., but this type of scenario is not far-fetched. People who cut grass, nannies, house-painters, etc. etc., often have opportunities to get paid ‘under the table’.
Did you miss the other replies?
“That’s only one example.” No doubt.
” as long as they are not hiring the same person through a different agency or to perform two different jobs.”
Next up? If new citizen Jose works 28 hours at Wendy’s, and has another 28 hour job at Burger King, the IRS will classify Jose as a “full-time” worker, and will force Wendy’s and Booger King to split the cost of new citizen Jose’s insurance.
A Wendy's can limit an employee to three shifts per week, and if he's a good employee the manager will trade his name to the Dominoes next door, who will hire him for another three shifts, with the Dominoes manager doing the same for Wendy's.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.