IRS Releases Revised Health Care Reporting Guidance

JD Supra ^ | 1/13/2012 | Reed Smith

[mdittmar]

The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 requires employers to report the cost of employer-sponsored group health plan coverage on Forms W-2. The Internal Revenue Service (the "IRS") issued interim guidance regarding this informational reporting requirement in Notice 2011-28. In response to comments on Notice 2011-28, the IRS, on January 3, 2012, released an advance copy of Notice 2012-9, which supersedes Notice 2011-28.

In general, Notice 2012-9 retains much of the original guidance set forth in Notice 2011-28, but with certain notable changes and additions, including the following:

• Clarifies that the requirement to report the cost of coverage will not apply to an employer that files fewer than 250 Forms W-2 for the preceding calendar year.

• Clarifies that the reporting requirement does not apply to coverage under a health care flexible spending arrangement funded solely through employee salary reductions.

• Provides that the standard for determining whether the cost of dental or vision coverage is reportable, is the same standard that is used for determining whether coverage is subject to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 portability rules.

Please see full Alert below for further information.

[mdittmar]

Well,I have no idea what this means.

but it can't be good;)

[Doogle]

figures, they still can’t figure out what the hell they’re doing.

[smokingfrog]

Don’t get sick.

Otherwise you may need to find out.

[Doogle]

figures, they still can’t figure out what the hell they’re doing.

[Doogle]

whoa...a 2 min time warp

[mdittmar]

They know exactly what they are trying to do.

[Track9]

Making it up as you go along is a big part of being Lawless.

[G Larry]

This means:

We’re going to make employer and employee paid healthcare so damn expensive that everyone will beg the government to provide “universal healthcare”.

SOCIALISM!!!!!!

[Track9]

It take years to craft legislation to control people.

[jagusafr]

Whew - glad I didn’t hire those other 245 employees. This might have applied to my company!

[Dubya-M-DeesWent2SyriaStupid!]

Is this the part that if you don’t have health care because YOU DON’T HAVE A JOB that you get fined and put in jail?

[drypowder]

Get ready to start paying income taxes on your employer provided health care. I suspect that the government is also going to eliminate employer provided health care cost deduction thus forcing upon us the single payer Obozo government managed care. Maybe the fix is already in on the Supreme’s decision.

[So Cal Rocket]

Whew - glad I didn’t hire those other 245 employees. This might have applied to my company!

I only have 17 more to go... I was over 250 in 2008... down to 233. I have 3 on the payroll just to handle Govt paperwork.

[longtermmemmory]

Obama re-election excuses report.

[tcrlaf]

Is this the revised, revised, revised rules?

Or the revised, revised, revised, revised edition of the new rules?

[tcrlaf]

“Making it up as you go along is a big part of being Lawless.”

Enabling Act of 1933:

Article 1
In addition to the procedure prescribed by the constitution, laws of the Reich may also be enacted by the government of the Reich. This includes the laws referred to by Articles 85 Paragraph 2 and Article 87 of the constitution.

Article 2
Laws enacted by the government of the Reich may deviate from the constitution as long as they do not affect the institutions of the Reichstag and the Reichsrat. The rights of the President remain undisturbed.

Article 3
Laws enacted by the Reich government shall be issued by the Chancellor and announced in the Reich Gazette. They shall take effect on the day following the announcement, unless they prescribe a different date. Articles 68 to 77 of the Constitution do not apply to laws enacted by the Reich government.

[Syntyr]

This means they are starting to require your employer to tell the febs how much your insurance costs.

Next step... Taxing you for those insurance premiums!!!

and No its NOT GOOD

[Bob]

Whew - glad I didn’t hire those other 245 employees. This might have applied to my company!

And good luck trying to get a job with a company that already has 249 employees.

[John S Mosby]

Here's the deal. The recordkeeping to "make sure" the "mandated" insurance is done per taxpayer, the burden of reporting will generally be on the employer as a "benefit", unless they decide not to, which they will because the tripling of the rates or more.

So each social security/person will be linked, covered or not. Without a doubt, then the personal income tax filing will have a section addressing "are you or aren't you", or "do you have a waiver not to?" As the companies drop people's coverage (thanks Mitt) they walk away from their presumed cost (which WAS tax deductible by the way, but not for self employed people without a whole lot of paperwork) and it is borne by the individual mandate (probably all at some point gotten from the govt. exchange-- no choice at all), and if you have not, you will be fined, and or garnished from your bank accounts-- this is the intent of the "mandate" that is completely illegal.

Mandate coverage personally paid as a tax, top down controlled medical costs/services/choices and net result= piss poor nationalized healthcare from largely Dr. Bombay and pals gowallawallah. Real healthcare black market, a criminal offense. Doctors know this is coming and are QUITTING. So, thanks Obamalamadingdong- moving to Singapore where they DONT have this.

[ExTexasRedhead]

In my opinion, the upcoming ObamaCare/DeathCare is the next Holocaust brought to you by Zero and his Regime and the US Congress. Those deemed unfit to receive medical care by Big Bro and Big Sis, IMO, they will be shipped off to a hospice center or given a Big Bro pill. Think not?