Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

>2% Shareholder, qualify for Subsidy

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #16
    I have a dumb question. As far as I understand, the above discussion only applies to employers who have more than 50 employees. For employers with less than 50 employees, the new rules just do not apply to them in any way and therefore they do not have to worry about the penalty at all. Please correct me if I am wrong.

    Comment


      #17
      I just posted this on one of the other threads about the penalty, and how I think it does and does not apply. However, it doesn't answer the question about the corporation reimbursing the insurance to a 100% shareholder, and if it is considered "employer" insurance or not (I THINK it is though).


      This is how I read the law:

      The $100/day penalty is for everyone that offers a “group health plan” that does not meet ACA standards. By dictionary definition, “group” means more than one person/employee.

      A small employer (from 2-50 employees, see §4980D(d)(2) and link below) is NOT required to have a "group health plan" (defined at §5000(b)(1), see link below).

      If the small employer has a group health plan through a "health insurance issuer" (defined at §9832(b)(2), see link below), the employer is NOT subject to the $100/day penalty (§4980D(d), see link below).







      It does NOT say the small employer is not subject to the penalty if the employer offers a "group health plan" that is NOT offered through a "health insurance issuer". To me, that means the employer IS subject to the penalty if it offers it's own "health plan" (such as reimbursing premiums).

      Again, the $100/day penalty is for offering a “group health plan” (at least 2 employees) that does not comply with ACA standards.

      Comment


        #18
        Originally posted by geekgirldany View Post
        I have a question, most of my payroll clients have less than 50 employees... really less than 10.

        Would it be considered discrimination that the shareholders are reimbursed for health insurance but none of the employees are offered a plan?
        What if only one employee gets health insurance but others do not?

        I really do not know how the IRS/DHS is going to track or even be able to find out who is liable for the various penalties.

        To me that seems like an extreme case of discrimination.

        As far as tracking for the penalties, I agree, it's a mess. It probably will be a few years until everything is sorted out.

        Comment

        Working...
        X