If A Tax Credit Falls In The Woods And No One Hears It ...

I am looking at a proposed rule for the Section 45R credit for small employers that offer health insurance.  The IRS says I have until November 25 to respond with comments.

Let’s talk about nonsense that tax practitioners have to work with.

This credit was added as an inducement for smaller employers to provide health insurance while waiting for the balance of the ObamaCare scaffolding to be erected.

As credits go, it was cumbersome to calculate and – by many reports – quite ineffective.  Many practitioners consider the credit to be such a joke they will not even bother to calculate it. Why? The professional fee to calculate the credit could be more than the credit itself.

The restrictions on the credit eviscerated almost any benefit it could provide.

(1) The credit applied to firms less than 25 employees. However, its sweet spot was ten employees, and the credit began to phase-out in excess of that number.  That eleventh employee would cost you when calculating the credit.

(2) The credit phased-out when average payroll exceeds $50,000. It sweet spot was $25,000 or less, and the credit began to phase-out in excess of that number.  Many of us were quizzical on the $25,000 strike, as average American household income is approximately twice that amount. Maybe Congress was dividing the average household income between two spouses. Who knows.

(3) Owners and their families were excluded from the credit. For many small businesses, the owner and family are a significant portion, if not the majority, of the work force. Congress had already imposed the 10/25 and $25,000/$50,000 rules, so was it necessary to also have an “off with the owners’ heads” rule? 

COMMENT: Someone please explain to Congress that excluding owners from a tax incentive is not incentivizing.

(4) There was a cumbersome calculation of “full-time equivalents” that may have tested the limited accounting resources of many small employers.

(5) The employer had to pay at least 50% of the premiums for all employees to qualify for the credit. This may be the least onerous requirement.

The credit – when finally calculated – was 35% of the health insurance premiums remaining after excluding the owners and running the two phase-outs.

… and the company had to reduce its tax deduction for health insurance by that 35%.

The credit will still be available in 2014, and it has been expanded from 35% to 50%. However the credit can only be used two more times, so if an employer uses the credit in 2014 and 2015, that employer has exhausted its maximum Section 45R mandated remaining number-of-years. Why? Who knows.

In addition, the employer has to obtain its insurance through the Small Business Health Options Program (SHOP).

NOTE: SHOP is the company-sponsored health insurance Exchange and is the counterpart to the individual health insurance Exchange.

The credit will not be available if the employer provides insurance through other means, such as through an insurance agent.

COMMENT: Think about that for a moment. Why is the credit unavailable if one purchases insurance for one’s employees through an insurance agent, a professional one may have used and relied upon for years? How does this requirement have the employees’ best interest at heart? I am at a loss to see any business reason for this. I immediately see a political-hack reason for excluding health insurance that is not sitting on a government website, however.

Let’s go though some recent headlines as we step through the looking glass:

• SHOP was to be accessible starting October 1, as were individual policies. 
• The SHOP website is accessible through HealthCare.gov, or it would be assuming the thing ever works.
• The Obama administration said in 2011 that SHOP would allow small employers to offer a choice of qualified health plans to their employees, akin to larger businesses. This “choice option” was to be available in January 2014. Administration officials have said they would delay the “choice option” until 2015 in the 33 states where the federal government runs the exchanges. This means employers would have only one plan to choose from for 2014.

COMMENT: Think about that “choice.” Yep, small businesses will be lining up to buy this thing.

• The Obama administration announced on September 26 that the opening of SHOP would be delayed a month, until November 1.
• On Tuesday, October 29, 2013, Marilyn Tavenner, the Head of the Center for Medicare & Medicaid Services, said the SHOPS would be functional “at the end of November.”

COMMENT: That is how Steve Jobs expanded Apple – by demanding “functional.” Shoot for the stars there, government bureaucrat.

• Businesses seeking coverage effective January 1, 2014 must enroll by December 15. Remember Ms. Tavenner’s comment about the “end of November.” This means that small could have as little as 15 days to enroll in SHOP.

In the Administration’s defense, the SHOP can admit employees throughout the year, so its January 1 start is not as critical as the individual Marketplace.

What is on the other side of the looking glass?

• A cumbersome credit calculation …
• That will expire after two more uses …
• For health insurance a small business may not be able to buy, resulting in  …
• A tax credit that approaches a work of fiction.

The bottom line is that the credit was almost useless before, and it is more useless now.

I guess that is my comment.

Talking About 2014 ObamaCare Employer Taxes

I have been reviewing two ObamaCare employer taxes that are scheduled to kick-in in 2014. It’s more than a year away, but let’s say you call me and we meet for coffee. It’s a business meeting. With cheesecake.

I’ll start the conversation off:

Me:                  If an employer has enough employees, then the employer is expected to provide health benefits.

You:                 What constitutes “enough employees?”

Me:                  More than 50 full-time employees. Full-time is defined as 30 hours per week, by the way.

You:                 So if I have less than 51 full-time employees, I escape the tax?

Me:                  Yes.

You:                 What if I have more than 50?

Me:                  Depends.

You:                 On what?

Me:                  On whether any employee receives a government subsidy.

You:                 And I am supposed to know this how?

Me:                  Trust me, you’ll find out.

You:                 What if I have more than 50 employees but no one gets a subsidy?

Me:                  How did you accomplish that, Houdini?

You:                 All my employees have their insurance covered by their spouse.

Me:                  Congratulations, Harry.

You:                 What if one divorces and gets a subsidy?

Me:                  You have a problem.

You:                 What problem?

Me:                  Your penalty will be either $2,000 or $3,000, depending.

You:                 Depending on what?

Me:                  Depending on whether you offer no insurance or offer unaffordable insurance.

You:                 So if I offer no insurance it will cost me $3,000 multiplied by some number?

Me:                  No.

You:                 You are getting on my nerves.

Me:                  The penalty for not offering health insurance is $2,000.

You:                 Per employee?

Me:                  No. You get to exclude the first 30 employees.

You:                 Huh?

Me:                  I didn’t write this stuff.

You:                 Say I have 55 full-time employees. What is it going to cost me?

Me:                  (55 minus 30) times $2,000 = $50,000.    

You:                 What if I fire 5 employees?

Me:                  Then you meet the 50-employee limit and have no tax.

You:                 Seriously?

Me:                  Yep.

You:                 Even if an employee gets government subsidy?

Me:                  Did you ever work at Bain Capital?

You:                 What is this “unaffordable” insurance thing?

Me:                  If the insurance exceeds a certain percentage of the employee’s family income, then the insurance is deemed “unaffordable.”

You:                 What is that percentage, oh beacon of despair?

Me:                  9.5% of household income.

You:                 Household income, what is that?

Me:                  An easy answer would be to add the husband and wife’s income.

You:                 How am I to know the spouse’s income?

Me:                  Trust me, you’ll find out.

You:                 How?

Me:                  When the government notifies you about the subsidy.

You:                 I am really starting to dislike you.

Me:                  Hey, I’ve got feelings here.

You:                 So if I see to it that all my employee’s spouses are doctors and engineers, then I can avoid the penalty?

Me:                  You have escaped yet again, Harry.

You:                 Say that I don’t escape. What is my tax?

Me:                  Well, you get to do two calculations. You pay the lower number.

You:                 Are you charging me for this aggravation?

Me:                  Yes.

Me:                  The first calculation is to multiply every employee receiving a subsidy for your unaffordable insurance by $3,000.

You:                 Then what?

Me:                  You do the same calculation as if you offered no insurance at all.  You know, the $2,000 calculation.

You:                 Huh, what’s the difference?

Me:                  The $2,000 calculation excludes the first 30 employees. Then it is just multiplication.

Me (cont’d):    The $3,000 calculation counts only those employees receiving a subsidy.

You:                 So if I offer unaffordable insurance, but no one gets the subsidy, my tax is zero?

Me:                  I am in awe, Harry.

You:                 What if I set up two companies, with neither having more than 50 employees?

Me:                  They already thought of that angle. No go if the companies are related. You owning both makes them related.

You:                 What if I increase my portion of the insurance to, you know, keep it “affordable?”

Me:                  That would work.

You:                 I would have to reduce the actual salaries or eliminate bonuses and raises to make the numbers work.

Me:                  Were you grades too high for community organizing?

You:                 What are other companies doing?

Me:                  Depends on the company. Some companies are too large for the 50 employees to mean anything. Still… Did you hear about Darden Restaurants?

You:                 Darden is who?

Me:                  Think Red Lobster and Olive Garden.

You:                 Are you charging me by the word?

Me:                  I’ll ignore that. Anyway, according to the Orlando Sentinel the company intends to reduce its maximum schedule to 28 hours per week per employee in “selected” restaurants. They told the newspaper that this is "just one of the many things we are evaluating to help us address the cost implications healthcare reform will have on our business."

You:                 Wow, that seems harsh.

Me:                  Where do you have that money tree planted, exactly?

You:                 How does an employee get a subsidy, exactly? Is that what sets this whole thing off?

Me:                  By “whole thing” you mean “unaffordable?”                      

You:                 I am going to hit you.

Me:                  There are two conditions. We already talked about the first one: the 9.5% of household income.

You:                 You mean 9.5% of a number that I have no hope of knowing or finding out?

Me:                  Yep, that one.

You:                 Do I want to know the second one?

Me:                  If you want your head to blow off.

You:                 What…? You have to tell me now.

Me:                  The second condition is that your employee’s household income ….

You:                 Which I do not know, right?

Me:                  Right. Now continuing where I was …. Your employee’s household income must be less than 400% of the federal poverty level.

You:                 You said 400%. I thought accountants were supposed to be good with numbers.

Me:                  I am. And it’s 400%.

You:                 Seriously?

Me:                  You are way too sharp to ever be hired by CNN.

You:                 So… what is 400% for a husband and wife?

Me:                  Close to $90 grand.

You:                 $90 grand! I didn’t make that last year! Or the year before!

Me:                  Maybe you can qualify for the subsidy.

You:                 I think I am going to fire you as my CPA.



Reviewing Two ObamaCare Taxes Springing Up in 2013

We are beginning over here to re-review the tax aspects of ObamaCare after the Supreme Court’s decision last week. There are several tax changes, but today we will revisit the new investment income tax and the new earned income tax. These will happen in 2013, so let’s go over them.

Investment Income

If you are single, you will owe a new investment tax if your adjusted gross income (AGI) is over $200,000. If you are married, you will owe the new tax if your AGI is over $250,000. (I know, twice $200,000 is considerably more than $250,000. I did not write the law). If this is you, will owe a brand-new 3.8% tax on your investment income.

Let’s be clear: it is not necessarily ALL your investment income. Rather it will be on investment income over $200,000 or $250,000, as the case may be. If you are married and retired and your entire adjusted gross income of $250,000 is interest and dividends, you will owe no NEW tax. You will owe plenty of OLD tax, though.

What is investment income? Let’s go with the easy examples: dividends, interest, capital gains (short-term and long-term), royalties and annuities outside retirement plans

NOTE:  Net investment income is also defined to include income from a passive activity. This concerns me, as the rental of a duplex is a passive activity, as is passthrough income to a “passive” member in an LLC. Under Section 469, these activities were considered “trades or businesses,” although the activity could be further tagged as “passive” or “nonpassive.” They were not however tagged as “investment.” This new tax appears to use the language differently from Section 469 and equates “passive” with “investment.” The IRS unfortunately has yet to issue formal guidance in this area.

How can this tax surprise you? Here are a few ways:

(1)   You sell your business.

(2)   You get married.

(3)   You sell your principal residence, and the gain exceeds the $250,000/$500,000 exclusion.

(4)   You inherit and sell stock from a parent’s estate.

Earned Income

If you are single, you will pay an extra 0.9% Medicare tax on your earned income over $200,000. If married, that threshold changes to $250,000.

What is earned income? The easiest way is to ask whether you paid or will pay social security or self-employment tax on the income. If the answer is “yes”, you have earned income. Note that this definition excludes your pension, 401(k) and IRA distributions.

Let’s go over a few examples.

EXAMPLE 1: A married couple filing jointly has $360,000 of adjusted gross income—$240,000 of wages plus $120,000 of interest, dividends and capital gains. They have $110,000 of investment income` over the $250,000 threshold. They will owe an extra 3.8% of that $110,000, or $4,180, in tax.

EXAMPLE 2: In the following year, the same couple has $400,000 of income, the difference being a $40,000 bonus. All their investment income is now above the threshold amount. Their new investment income tax will be $4,560. In addition, since their earned income is now above $250,000 they will owe the new earned income tax of $270 ((280,000- 250,000) times 0.9%).

EXAMPLE 3:  After many years, you move from Purchase, New York. You sell your house for $920,000 and are single.  Your exclusion amount on the sale is $250,000 so the taxable gain is 670,000. Assuming that you earned income is over $200,000, the new investment income tax will be $25,460 ((920,000 – 250,000) times 3.8%).

We will discuss other tax changes in a future blog. Some are delayed (such as the employer penalty) and others are already in place but are somewhat esoteric (the prescription drug fee).