- About PS&F
- Industry Focus
- Client Tools
- Education & Events
September 17, 2015
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released two separate notices this year requesting comments on how to administer the excise tax on high-cost health coverage (also known as the “Cadillac tax”) set to go into effect for the 2018 tax year. The notices described potential approaches to various aspects of the excise tax and requested public comment on a number of issues. These notices provide some indication of which way the IRS is leaning regarding the administration of the tax, but we will know more once proposed regulations are released later this year or early next year.
The so-called “Cadillac tax,” which goes into effect starting with the 2018 tax year, is a 40% non-deductible excise tax on a portion of the cost of high-cost health coverage. The tax applies to the amount by which the monthly cost of certain employer-sponsored coverage exceeds an annual threshold amount defined in the law. The threshold amounts, prior to potential upward adjustments (see more below), are $10,200 for self-only coverage and $27,500 for coverage other than self-only. The cost of applicable coverage refers to coverage in which the employee is actually enrolled (rather than only offered or eligible for).
The employer will be responsible for calculating the excess amount, if any, and reporting such amounts to the IRS and to applicable coverage providers. The coverage provider is then responsible for actually paying the tax. If the coverage is insured, the “coverage provider” responsible for paying the tax is the insurer. For other coverage, the “coverage provider” may be the employer or “the person that administers the plan benefits.” However, either way, the tax will generally be passed back to employers. It is expected at this time that the taxes will be paid using Form 720, like the PCORI fees.
Applicable Employer-Sponsored Coverage
The excise tax on high-cost health coverage applies to “applicable employer-sponsored coverage,” which generally includes:
The following are generally not included:
As indicated in the notices, future guidance is expected to provide that:
Cost of Applicable Coverage
Generally, the cost of applicable coverage is “determined under rules similar to the rules” under COBRA for determining the COBRA applicable premium. COBRA rules currently require a self-funded plan to use either an actuarial basis or the past-cost method to determine the applicable premium. The IRS addressed the following cost issues in the two notices:
The regulations provide specific guidance for determining the cost of a health FSA. In determining the portion of the cost of applicable coverage attributable to non-elective flex credits contributed to an FSA by an employer (either in combination with employee salary reduction contributions or without), the cost of the non-elective flex credit would be the amount that is actually reimbursed in excess of the employee’s salary reduction election for that plan year.
Threshold Amount Adjustments
In accordance with the statute, no downward adjustments can be made. Therefore, the threshold amounts can be increased only from $10,200 for self-only coverage and $27,500 for other than self-only coverage. Obviously any increase in the threshold amount will result in a reduction in the plan’s tax liability since the tax would apply to a smaller excess cost.
The adjustments that apply to the threshold amounts are as follows:
It is important to note that there has been no indication from the IRS that a type of geographic or area adjustment to the threshold amounts will be available. This is of particular concern for employers who have employees in areas of the country with higher than average health plan costs.
If the tax is miscalculated, it is the employer who will be penalized, not the coverage provider (although the coverage provider will have to pay any adjustments). The penalty amount is 100% of the additional excise tax that must be paid by coverage providers due to the miscalculation. In addition to the 100% penalty, the employer or plan sponsor must also pay interest on the underpayment for the period beginning on the due date for the unpaid amount and ending on the date of payment of the penalty.
The IRS may provide forgiveness for some or all of the penalty if the employer (or plan sponsor) can prove reasonable diligence or that there is reasonable cause and not willful neglect.
Employers preparing for this tax may choose to adjust benefit plan offerings by implementing plans with higher deductibles and/or increasing cost-sharing, as well as reconsidering the offering of various account-based plans such as health FSAs, HRAs and HSAs to ultimately reduce the aggregate cost of applicable coverage provided to employees.
It is clear that the calculation and reporting of the cost of applicable coverage will be the responsibility of the employer, although the time frames and exact methods for calculation and reporting are still being clarified. The IRS guidance provides some insight into how the administration of the “Cadillac tax” will be handled, but nothing is definite at this point. While many employers may be evaluating current plan benefits and considering potential future options, further clarification and guidance provided by the IRS in the proposed rules will provide more certainty as to which group health plans must be included, how to calculate the applicable coverage cost, and how the threshold amounts will be adjusted.
As always, should you have any questions, please contact your Parker, Smith & Feek Benefits Team.
We strive for the most accurate and up-to-date information. Neither the publisher nor the author can accept liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the Understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.
The views and opinions expressed within are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Parker, Smith & Feek. While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it.