ACA - Ask and Answer

We’ve had many organizations ask questions about the ACA. We thought it would be helpful if we created this Q&A based on questions we have received from HR specialists, insurance brokers, and CPAs, among others.

What information does the ACA require to be filed with the IRS?

The ACA requires Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) to report on the 1094-C/1095-C forms information about the health care coverage if any, they offered to full-time employees. (For covered individuals other than employees, 1095-B forms can be used in lieu of 1095-C forms).

Are reporting forms 1094-C and 1095-C required to be filed with the IRS by non-ALE employers?

The 1094-C/1095-C schedules are not required for a non-ALE.  However, for a non-ALE that offers a self-insured health plan, the non-ALE will report on the individuals enrolled on the self-insured health plan on the 1094-B/1095-B Schedules. 

Who files the 1095-C schedules and for what types of employees?

The Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) are required to file and furnish 1095-Cs for each of their full-time employees. 

In addition, if an employer has self-insured coverage, the employer must report on all individuals who were enrolled on the self-insured health plan, including individuals who were not full-time employees, and non-employee individuals (e.g. spouses/dependents). The employer has the option to complete information about non-employee individuals using either Part III of the 1095-C or by using form 1095-B. 

What is an Applicable Large Employer?

If an employer has at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, on average during the prior year, the employer is an Applicable Large Employer (ALE) for the current calendar year, and is therefore subject to the Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions (also referred to as the ACA Employer Mandate) and the Employer Information Reporting Provisions, which requires ALEs to report annually to the IRS information about the health care coverage, if any, they offered to full-time employees. The IRS will use this information to administer ACA penalties for non-compliance.

A full-time employee for any calendar month is an employee who has on average at least 30 hours of service per week during the calendar month or at least 130 hours of service during the calendar month.

A full-time equivalent employee is a combination of employees, each of whom individually is not a full-time employee, but who, in combination, are equivalent to a full-time employee. An employer determines its number of full-time-equivalent employees for a month by combining the number of hours of service of all non-full-time employees for the month, but do not include more than 120 hours of service per employee, and divide the total by 120.
To determine its workforce size for a year, an employer adds its total number of full-time employees for each month of the prior calendar year to the total number of full-time equivalent employees for each calendar month of the prior calendar year and divides that total number by 12.

What does MEC stand for?

MEC stands for Minimum Essential Coverage.  In the employment context, an example of MEC would be an employer-sponsored health plan.

What is Minimum Value?

Under the ACA, an Applicable Large Employer (ALE) member may either offer affordable Minimum Essential Coverage that provides Minimum Value to its full-time employees (and their dependents) or potentially owe an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment to the IRS.  An employer-sponsored plan provides Minimum Value if it covers at least 60 percent of the total allowed cost of benefits that are expected to be incurred under the health care plan offered to full-time employees. 

Are only full-time employees required to file 1095-Cs?

The full-time employees do not in and of themselves file the 1095-Cs (or 1095-Bs). Rather, it is the ALE that is required to file and furnish 1095-Cs for each of their full-time employees.  In addition, if the employer has self-insured coverage, the employer must report on all individuals who were enrolled on the self-insured health plan, including individuals who were not full-time employees, and non-employee individuals (e.g. spouses/dependents). The employer has the option to complete information about non-employee individuals using either Part III of the 1095-C or by using form 1095-B.

Are there other ACA reporting methods available to employers?

There are two alternative methods that are available to some employers.

The Qualifying Offer Method may be used as an alternative to completing the 1095-C forms if a fully insured employer can certify the following:

That one or more of its full-time employees for all calendar months during the calendar year in which the employee was a full-time employee for whom an Employer Shared Responsibility Payment could apply, that such employee(s) received a “Qualifying Offer.”

 A “Qualifying Offer” must:

  • meet Minimum Value for each such employee
  • meet affordability based on the mainland federal poverty level for each such employee
  • the offer of coverage must be made to the employee’s spouse and dependents.

(Note: such an employer fills in code 1A for line 14 for every such month even if not all months apply.  However, the alternative to furnishing the 1095-C form is not available if not all months apply.)  The alternative to furnishing the 1095-C form is a simplified statement that the employee received a Qualifying Offer for all 12 months of the year. (Also note, self-insured employers cannot use the alternative statement.)   See https://www.irs.gov/affordable-care-act/employers/questions-and-answers-on-reporting-of-offers-of-health-insurance-coverage-by-employers-section-6056 .

The 98% Offer Method may be used if the employer can certify that at least 98% of all employees for whom the 1095-C applies (i.e., full-time) was offered to the employee, spouse and dependents and that such coverage was affordable and met Minimum Value.  Note that the employer must still furnish and file the 1095-C form to all of its full-time employees (who were full time for at one or more months of the year) so the “reporting method” is still the same, i.e., furnish and file the 1095-C.  However, if the 98% offer method is used, the employer need not complete the full-time count portion of the 1094-C form.

It should be noted that the previously available transition relief which only applied for 2015 for reporting to the IRS is no longer available, i.e., Transitional Relief under the Qualifying Offer Method no longer applies.  This means that any mistakes in accuracy will no longer be an excuse for employers providing inaccurate information when filing their ACA information with the IRS.

Have you heard anything additional about the IRS' suggestion that when determining who is required to file electronically that the count of Forms 1095-C are combined with the Forms W-2?

Yes.  See proposed IRS rule seeking to expand the mandatory filing requirement by adding in language to cover the 250-return threshold to combine returns, including W-2s and 1095-Cs. 

See https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2018-05-31/pdf/2018-11749.pdf.  

If you offer full-time employees initial offers and they decline, do they need a Qualifying Life Event for any following month?

If an ALE offers a full-time employee coverage for the plan year and that employee declines, the employer is covered as having made the offer for the plan year.  Of course, the employer should document the offer, including the timeframe for which the offer covers, e.g., the start and end date of the coverage.  Depending on the employer’s health plan’s related summary plan documents, if there is a Qualifying Life Event after an employee declines an offer of coverage, such as getting married, having a baby, or losing health coverage, typically the employee can accept the offer within a certain amount of time (e.g., 30 days) from the Qualifying Life Event. 

What if an employee is covered on their spouse’s plan? Is the employer supposed to track where they get their insurance from? Is the employer still responsible for offering coverage?

Under the ACA’s Employer Mandate, the employer is obligated to offer full-time employee coverage.  Presumably, if the employee already has coverage through a spousal plan, the employee would decline an offer from his or her employer.  The Employer Mandate obligation is to make the offer to the employee, and not necessarily to enroll the employee.  Of course, if the employee is in fact enrolled, you will need to track that as well.  The Employer Mandate does not require the employer to track where the employees have obtained coverage if outside of the employer. 

We have full-time summer students classified as "interns.” Are we required to offer them coverage within 90 days?

In general, if the “interns” were reasonably expected to be “full-time” at the time of their hire, they would be required to be offered coverage no later than 90 days from their start date.  However, the “interns” may qualify as “seasonal employees,” which are employees in positions for which “the customary annual employment is six months or less,” whereby “customary” means that “by the nature of the position an employee in this position typically works for a period of six months or less, and that period should begin each calendar year in approximately the same part of the year, such as summer or winter.”  If the interns are such seasonal employees, and the employer properly applies the Look-Back Measurement Method using, say, a six-month measurement period, these “interns,” who presumably work only through the summer, should remain in their “initial measurement period,” and hence are not required to be offered coverage within 90 days.  In short, you may not be required to offer coverage depending on the application of the Look-Back Measurement Method.  

What is the rule for Seasonal employees that may work 40 hours a week for 10 to 12 weeks per year?

A “seasonal employee” is an employee in a position for which “the customary annual employment is six months or less,” whereby “customary” means that “by the nature of the position an employee in this position typically works for a period of six months or less, and that period should begin each calendar year in approximately the same part of the year, such as summer or winter.”  If the employer properly applies the Look-Back Measurement Method using, for example, a 12-month measurement period, these “seasonal employees” would remain in their “initial measurement period” throughout their 10 to 12 weeks, and hence are not required to be offered coverage within 90 days. 

Will the ACA be simplified? Complying with law is daunting as there are so many ins and outs.

Any talk about simplifying the ACA you may have heard was probably in the context of various repeal proposals in Congress, all of which are no longer being considered.  With the ACA here to stay, having a trusted and knowledgeable outside vendor to prepare your ACA reporting is key to navigating the complicated ACA process.  A good vendor should have a deep knowledge of the ACA. The vendor also should be able to provide you with a description of how your information will be processed to develop a filing that will meet all ACA rules. You want to know if the vendor just provides software or if there are experts involved, experts who will be there to answer your questions and walk you through the process when necessary.  Finally, you should work with a vendor that will stand behind their work. You want a company that will be there by your side if you have to respond to an ACA exchange notice or IRS ACA audit. First Capitol can do all of that for you.

Can an employer correct previous years filings if they know they aren’t correct?

Yes. If you are aware of errors, you should correct promptly.  Error correction within a reasonable period of time from discovery is part of showing your good faith effort to the IRS in complying with the ACA. This is important to be eligible for good faith effort transition relief from penalties.

Can you cover the TIN error reconciliation process?

The Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) error reconciliation process is a process to address TIN errors.  For example, if the IRS Affordable Care Act Information Returns (AIRS) system indicates that an employer’s filing is “accepted with errors,” a list is provided containing all of the employees with respect to whom a TIN error was noted.  This typically occurs due to mismatches in the legal names and social security numbers (i.e., TIN) of those employees.  This list should be cross-referenced with the employer’s HR/payroll records, which may be out of date.  The employer should be engaging in the TIN solicitation process to ensure names or Social Security numbers (SSNs) are up to date.  Employers filing 1095-C Schedules that contain incorrect TINs will not be subject to penalties if they comply with the TIN solicitation requirements.  See IRS Pub. 1586, p. 10 (identifying the TIN solicitation process for 1095-C Schedules modifying the process in Treasury Reg. 301.6724-1(f)).  Once the names and SSNs are corrected, the employer will want to use the corrected information for future 1095-C filings.  (The IRS does not require the filing of corrections to SSN or name errors alone without any corrections to the amounts identified in the 1095-C).

If there is a TIN error - how much time does the IRS provide the employer to correct?

If there is a Taxpayer Identification Number (TIN) error contained in a 1095-C Schedule, in general, the IRS indicates that corrections to the 1095-C Schedules (where the TIN errors would reside) should be filed as soon as possible.  However, if the correction on the 1095-C Schedule is only for an incorrect TIN and not correcting a money amount, the correction is not required.  See IRS Pub. 1586, p. 10.  Additionally, employers filing 1095-C Schedules that contain incorrect TINs will not be subject to penalties if they comply with the TIN solicitation requirements.  See IRS Pub. 1586, p. 10 (identifying the TIN solicitation process for 1095-C Schedules modifying the process in Treasury Reg. 301.6724-1(f)).

What happens when employees have changed their names with the Social Security Admin, but they are still filing with their original name? I often encounter "accepted with error" and make correction with the original/maiden name verified by TIN solicitation.

For purposes of the employer, if there is a mismatch in the name identified in the Social Security Administration (SSA) and the IRS in a 1095-C filing, the employer could receive an “Accepted with Error” notice from the IRS.   The employer should be engaging in the TIN solicitation process to ensure names or Social Security numbers are current. 

What happens if you overlooked some employees 1095s when sending to the IRS? Do you send a "corrected" 1094 with the 1095s?

Assuming “overlooked” means failed to submit 1095-C Schedules for some employees, the employer should submit “corrected” 1095-Cs (and furnish to the applicable employees) as soon as possible along with a 1094-C. (However, do not mark as corrected unless the 1094-C form itself is being corrected).

What kind of documentation is necessary for substantiating ACA reporting?

Supporting documentation may be found in Summaries of Benefits of Coverage and Enrollment Guides, Employee Handbook, Summary Plan Documents, Employee Premium Rate Sheets and/or Acknowledgement of Offer of Coverage.

If the question is specifically focused on payroll, supporting documentation could be a spreadsheet on which relevant payroll data was downloaded for use in determined full-time employee status.

How do employers determine who are full-time employees for ACA purposes?

In order to determine “full time” under the ACA for reporting purposes, the IRS has sanctioned two methods: Monthly Measurement Method and Look-Back Measurement Method

Under the Monthly Measurement Method, the employer determines if an employee is a full-time employee on a month-by-month basis by looking at whether the employee has at least 130 hours of service for each month.

The Look-Back Measurement Method can be particularly useful for variable-hour, part-time and seasonal employees who have hours that are not reliably predictable.  The Look-Back Measurement Method also allows for longer “limited non-assessment periods,” whereby an offer of coverage is not required, up to 13 and change months.  However, the Look-Back Measurement Method requires close monitoring and tracking, and clean, reliable data. It requires substantial attention and expertise to navigate the rules surrounding the Look-Back Measurement Method. 

Look-Back Measurement Period (MP) and Stability Period (SP), does that also apply if an employee was determined to be part-time during the MP?"

The application of the Look-Back Measurement Method (LBMM) does not depend on whether the employee is determined to be full-time or part-time.  As a general rule, if an employee was determined to be part-time during the measurement period, that non-full-time status applies throughout the stabilization period (associated with the measurement period).

If we have a variable workforce with employees that float in and out of full-time and part-time, how do we offer healthcare coverage?

For a workforce that an employer cannot reasonably determine the full-time or non-full-time status of an employee at the time of hire, the Look-Back Measurement Method (LBMM) makes a lot of sense to use.  Under the LBMM, each employee is measured during a measurement period, and the full-time (or non-full-time, e.g., part-time) status determined during that measurement period (MP) is applied prospectively during the associated stability period (SP).  So, for example, if you use a 12-month MP, say 1/1/17-12/31/17 and a 12-month SP, 1/1/18-12/31/18, and an employee is determined to be full-time during the MP, that employee should be offered coverage for the duration of the SP.  This is true even if the employee does not work full-time hours during the 1/1/18-12/31/18 time period. 

Can an employer change back and forth between measurements methods?

An employer may change the measurement method applicable to a category of employees, provided that the transition rules for employees who change between the Monthly and Look-Back Measurement methods, due to such a change by the employer, are applied to all employees impacted by the change. This is done for a transition period after the effective date of the change in method. 

For a change from the Look-Back Measurement Method to the Monthly Measurement Method (or vice versa), the status of each affected employee as of the date of the change is determined as if each of those employees had transferred from a position to which the original measurement method applied to a position to which the revised measurement method applied on the date of the change.

How can an employer prove that they offered coverage to an employee who declined to enroll?

One relatively simple way to show that an offer of coverage was made to an employee who declined coverage would be through a copy of a signed Acknowledgement of Offer.  The form should reflect the offer of coverage employee and a signature line for declining the offer. 

Can we utilize emails to document offering benefits?

Proper notice through email may require the employee’s consent.  Assuming that there is no consent issue, if an employer uses emails to make the offer and the offer properly describes the offer, it may be sufficient to show documentation of an offer.  The answer is not clear because the IRS did not specify what documentation would qualify as sufficient documentation of an offer of coverage, leaving us only with “reasonableness” as a guideline.   

What does it mean to continuously extend offers of coverage?

Continuous offer of coverage means an offer of coverage for every consecutive month of each reporting year. 

Is an employee eligible for a subsidy if we offer MV, and MEC?

For every month of a reporting year that an employee receives an offer of Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) (for the employee and dependents) as well as coverage that meets Minimum Value (MV) and Affordability to the employee, that employee would not eligible for a subsidy.

If you have an employee that falls below the 30 hours worked a week on average due to FMLA leave do they have to offered coverage for the next upcoming year?

Assuming you are using the Look-Back Measurement Method (LBMM), you could exclude from the measurement period (MP) any unpaid FMLA (and any other special unpaid leaves, including unpaid leaves due to under Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994 (USERRA), or on account of jury duty).  Here is a simple example:  Suppose you have a MP of 12 months (1/1/17-12/31/17) and a stability period (SP) of 12 months (1/1/18-12/31/18).  If an employee is on unpaid FMLA for 2 months during the MP, the calculation of that employee’s hours of service per month (which determines full-time status) would be averaged over 10 months instead 12 months.  If the employee is determined to be full time during the MP, the employee would be entitled to an offer of coverage during the SP, i.e., the next upcoming year. 

 

If after accounting for special unpaid leaves of absence, an employee is still determined to have averaged less than 30 hours of service per week over the applicable measurement period, such an employee would not be treated as full time for the corresponding stability period.

What is a PTC?

PTC stands for Premium Tax Credits.  PTCs are what an individual may receive from a healthcare exchange if he or she meets certain requirements, including income, and if he or she was not offered coverage that met Minimum Essential Coverage and Minimum Value and affordability requirements.

Will an employer be penalized for termed employees who received a PTC? What if the employer has high turnover and doesn’t offer coverage?

If the terminated employee is deemed full-time for that one month, which is defined as 30 hours of service per week (or 130 hours of service per month), and he or she is not in a limited non-assessment period, that employee could trigger a penalty.  In a high-turnover environment, the Look-Back Measurement Method, using 12-month measurement and stability periods, makes a lot of sense to apply in determining full-time status.  Among its benefits is the lengthy limited non-assessment period, which allows the employer to wait to offer coverage until over a year from the date of hire. 

What reporting years will the IRS issue Letter 226J penalty notices for?

Currently the IRS is sending Letter 226J to employers it believes did not comply with the ACA in 2015. We anticipate that the IRS will eventually send notices for the 2016 and 2017 tax years, perhaps by the end of 2018.

How long does an organization have to respond to IRS Letter 226J?

The response to Letter 226J is due 30 days from the date on the IRS notice.  The first page of the 226J letter identifies the response due date.

Will employers receive IRS Letter 226J if they offered to 95% of their full-time workforce? What if a full-time received a PTC?

It is hard to predict the likelihood of receiving an IRS Letter 226J.  We have seen employers of all sizes receive these notices and a wide range of proposed penalty assessments.  If you’ve offered Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) to at least 95% of full-time employees and their dependents in 2015, presumably, you’d only potentially be tagged for “B” penalties (aka Section 4980H(b)), which are only triggered on a per Premium Tax Credit (PTC) employee basis.  Presumably, if you did not offer to 100% of all employees, there may be full-time employees who received a PTC and, thereby, potentially triggered a “B” penalty. 

Some employers did not receive notice prior to the IRS 226J letter, which identifies employees who received PTCs.  Without that advanced notice, the first the employer would hear about it would be receiving a Letter 226J. 

For informational purposes, there is statutory and regulatory language indicating that the 1411 certification notices must be issued by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for a penalty to be assessed.  You can take a look at IRC 4980H, 42 USC 18081, 26 CFR 54.4980H-1(40); 45 CFR Section 155.410; Shared Responsibility for Employers Regarding Health Coverage (Fed. Reg. Vol. 77, No. 59 (March 27, 2012), p. 18357. 

Nevertheless, the IRS appears to have issued Letter 226J notices proposing penalties without the HHS (or an Exchange) previously having issued 1411 certification notices with respect to the employees who obtained PTCs (and thereby identified in Letter 226J).  If the IRS is challenged on this issue, as a practical matter, the IRS could potentially attempt to “cure” the potential defect by directing the HHS (or the applicable Exchange under the HHS) to issue the notice. 

As a practical matter, at the 226J response stage, it’s hard to see the IRS being receptive to such a challenge.  If an employer wants to challenge this issue, it may take a court challenge to resolve.

How does the IRS know what percentage of an employer’s full-time workforce received offers of coverage?

There are several ways the IRS can determine whether an employer did not meet the 95% offer of coverage to all full-time employees (and their dependents) threshold. 

First, and the most obvious, the IRS can rely on the employer’s representation, under penalty of perjury, that the percentage has been met. 

Second, the IRS can test an employer’s representation of percentage compliance by cross-referencing the employer’s 1094-C/1095-C schedules with the reports the agency receives from the healthcare exchanges that track the representations made by employees in their applications for Premium Tax Credits (PTCs).  For example, if an employer claims that it met the percentage compliance, but 10 of the 100 employees who were identified as full-time represented to the healthcare exchange that they did not receive such an offer, that would tell the IRS that the employer may not have met the 95%. 

Third, the IRS has announced that it is continuing to develop more sophisticated systems to determine non-compliance, and thus, the IRS may have other methods as well.   

Since we offer MV and MEC according to the ACA, and were at 98% should we put out a notice saying you don't qualify for a subsidy based on the coverage being offered?

If an employer is offering Minimum Essential Coverage (MEC) to 98% of its full-time employees and their dependents, as well as coverage that meets Minimum Value (MV) and is Affordable to the employee, then that employer would not be subject to any Section 4980H penalties.  However, that does not necessarily mean that all employees would not be eligible for subsidies.  Presumably, the employee to whom an MEC, MV and Affordable offer were made would not be eligible.  We are assuming that the notice would be limited to those individuals and whereby the notice covers a period that matches the period of the MEC, MV, and Affordable offer.  Obviously, the other 2% could still be eligible for a subsidy.  Additionally, depending on your waiting periods and the existence of non-full-time employees, there may be others who may be eligible for a subsidy. 

The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a model notice, which explains to employees that they may not be eligible for subsidies through a healthcare exchange if the employer offers coverage that meets certain standards.  See DOL’s sample “Health Insurance Marketplace Coverage Options and Your Health Coverage”.

https://www.dol.gov/sites/default/files/ebsa/laws-and-regulations/laws/affordable-care-act/for-employers-and-advisers/model-notice-for-employers-who-offer-a-health-plan-to-some-or-all-employees.pdf

How does the IRS know if you are 87%, 97%, or 95%?

There are several ways the IRS can determine whether an employer did not meet the 95% offer of coverage to all full-time employees (and their dependents) threshold. 

First, and the most obvious, the IRS can rely on the employer’s representation under penalty of perjury that the percentage has been met. 

Second, the IRS can cross-reference the report it receives from the exchanges that track the representations made by employees in their applications for Premium Tax Credits (PTCs) through the healthcare exchange with the employer’s 1094/1095 Schedules to test an employer’s representation of percentage compliance.  For example, if an employer claims that it met the percentage compliance, but 10 out of the 100 employees who were identified as full-time represented to the exchange that they did not receive such an offer, that would tell the IRS that the employer may not have met the 95%. 

Third, the IRS has announced that it is continuing to develop more sophisticated systems to determine non-compliance, and thus, the IRS may have other methods as well.   

What information is available for employers that DO NOT OFFER any insurance and how that employer completes all the required filing? And how they monitor the workforce for full-time and FTE when you don't offer insurance.

If you are an employer that does not meet the definition of “Applicable Large Employer” (ALE), then the Employer Mandate does not apply to you, and you do not need to offer coverage to avoid IRC Section 4980H penalties.  However, if you are an ALE, then you do need to offer coverage.  If you are an ALE, but do not offer coverage, you still need to file the 1094-C and 1095-C Schedules and distribute the 1095-C Schedules to your employees.  If you are not offering coverage, there are specific codes that you will be inputting to reflect that.

The IRS may be aware of ALEs who failed to file.  We have seen notices that the IRS sent to employers who did not file any 1094/1095 Schedules inquiring as to whether they are ALEs.  The IRS appears to have the means to know whether an employer might be an ALE.  For example, the IRS has the W-2 count, and may be using that as a proxy for potential ALE status.  Moreover, the IRS receives information from the exchanges that tracks the representations made by employees in their applications for PTCs.  This information may be used as a proxy for potential ALE status.  If the IRS inquires of the employer, the employer will have to substantiate that it is not an ALE. 

Will the company receive a penalty for an employee not providing accurate information with regards to a spouse and/or child?

Potentially.  An employer filing 1095-C Schedules that contain incorrect TINs will not be subject to penalties if they comply with the TIN solicitation requirements.  See IRS Pub. 1586, p. 10 (identifying the TIN solicitation process for 1095-C Schedules modifying the process in Treasury Reg. 301.6724-1(f)).  The employer should be engaging in the TIN solicitation process to ensure names and SSNs are up to date.

Have you heard whether the IRS has notified any employers concerning incorrect codes being used in Part II of Form 1095-C yet?

Yes. The Letter 226J notice proposes penalty assessments based on the coding reported by the employer.  Inconsistency in the coding may result in penalty assessments. 

Have you seen an example of an ALE receiving a Letter 226J for the same employee they previously received (and responded to) a Marketplace Notice for?

We have not heard of an Applicable Large Employer (ALE) receiving a Letter 226J based, at least in part, on an employee for whom the ALE previously responded to a Marketplace Notice.  Indeed, the Letter 226J notice appears to be sent largely without any prior Marketplace Notice.  Presumably, if the ALE was able to defend against a Marketplace Notice to show that the employee(s) at issue should not have received any Premium Tax Credits, no ensuing Letter 226J should follow.  Our experience has been such that where our clients defended against a Marketplace Notice, no ensuing Letter 226J followed. 

Is it best to outsource for ACA compliance?

Yes, because most companies do not have the human resources needed to devote to ACA reporting let alone the technological and compliance expertise to properly conduct ACA reporting. 

Failure to do so properly can result in significant financial exposure.  These include steep penalties for:

  • Failure to offer coverage to at least 95% of the full-time workforce and their dependents, which requires the accurate determination of who is “full time” under the ACA definition. This can be very challenging for those companies who have related companies or have a variable/part-time workforce and/or high turnover, just to name a few complications.
  • If you do offer coverage to at least 95% of the full-time workforce, but failure to provide coverage that meets affordability and Minimum Value requirements.
  • Failure to report accurately and timely information on the 1094-C/1095-C forms, the latter of which must be furnished to full-time employees and other applicable individuals (e.g., dependents for self-insured employers), as well as be filed with the IRS.

Why should I have an outsourced ACA solution when my payroll vendor will provide an ACA full service at a fraction of the cost?

Be careful not to be misled by the phrase “full service.” It can mean different things to different people. 

ACA vendors provide services that lie along a continuum. There are companies with “full service” DIY software products on one end of the spectrum, and companies like First Capitol that offer full-service technology empowered by consulting expertise on the other end of the spectrum. The FCCI approach acts like an internal department of your company focused on addressing ACA compliance.

Vendors on the “full service” DIY software end of the spectrum will generally not perform or provide these 12 services. First Capitol does.

  1. Annual Aggregated Employer Analysis
  2. Annual Applicable Large Employer Analysis at the Aggregated Employer Group Level
  3. Annual Workforce Composition Examination, for purposes of determining optimal ACA FT determination methodology
  4. Annual Health Benefits “Plan Level” examination:
    1. Verification and documentation of Minimum Essential Coverage and Minimum Value
    2. Verification and documentation of Household Eligibles
    3. Verification and documentation of Waiting Periods
    4. Verification and documentation of Employee Health Insurance Premium Contribution Schedules
    5. Determination and documentation of “Line 15 Contributions Groups”, inclusive of adjustments that may be required to account for HRA’s, Flex Credits/Cafeteria Amounts, Wellness Plans, Fringe Benefits, Opt-Out Payments.
    6. Determination and documentation of Affordability
    7. Determination of line 15 for employers with individually structured employee contributions schedules
  5. Assistance in selecting the optimal measurement periods dependent on (a) data availability, (b) health plan details, (c) and workforce composition
  6. Employment Period reconciliation. (Reconciling accrued Hours of Service and Wages against raw Hire/Term dates to arrive at an accurate “ACA Employment Period” determination”).
  7. Supporting Documents Compliance Percentage %. (Visibility not just into the 4980H compliance percentage, but just as importantly, the percentage of the claimed offers of health coverage that can be substantiated in the event of a regulatory inquiry).
  8. Payroll Data vs Health Benefits data validation and reconciliation. (Average discrepancies between these data domains hover around 5-10%. Failing to reconcile data can lead to expensive IRC 6721/6722 penalties).
  9. Health insurance invoice auditing
  10. Pre-populated “Acknowledgement of Offer of Health Coverage” forms
  11. A dedicated Workforce Analyst that serves as a permanent ACA Project Manager, Data Expert, and Consultant, not just through the onboarding process, but also throughout the entirety of the ACA reporting cycle. For instance, FCCI offers:
    1. Proactive personal follow-up if anything looks out of order or if critical action items have not been resolved.
    2. Exceptionally quick responsiveness to technical/methodological ACA questions.
    3. A World-Class Net Promoter Score and an average score of 9.3 out of 10 on customer satisfaction.

     12. Exchange Notice and Appeals coordination and Audit Defense in the event of an IRS audit or other regulatory inquiry   

How Can We Help You?

acapenalties-1

Worried about the risk of ACA penalties?

We’ll review your ACA Filings to the IRS
Free of Charge to Calculate Your Potential Penalty Risk

wooden gavel on us dollar banknote

Received a Letter 226J from the IRS?

 Our ACA Penalty Reduction Service can reduce or eliminate your penalty.