Leaderboard

You can't take SMR with a big rig.

Yes! Look at that list of items that have finally been made permanent. Now if only we could have one across-the-board definition of MAGI. If deductions and credits need to be tweaked in other ways, so be it, but standardizing MAGI would lessen the potential for errors.

They hire a bunch of highly paid execs to sit around dreaming up acronyms that ultimately make fun of us taxpayers.

COPIED FROM THE BASE NEWSLETTER: On December 16th, the Treasury Department and IRS released Notice 2015-87 regarding the treatment of employer health care arrangements and the market reforms of the Affordable Care Act. Below are a few highlights from the most recent Notice 2015-87: The notice reaffirms that an HRA or employer payment plan with one participant can still reimburse individual market premiums without violating the market reforms. The notice solidifies that an HRA or employer payment plan with two or more participants cannot pay or reimburse individual market premiums. These types of arrangements are subject to the $100 per-employee per-day penalty. The notice amended previous guidance regarding Integrated HRAs. Prior to this notice, the benefit amount of the Integrated HRA could be extended to a spouse and dependent who were not insured by the employer's group insured plan, but insured by another employer's group insurance plan. From this point moving forward the Integrated HRA benefit amount can only be extended to individuals who are insured by the employer's group insurance plan. The notice reiterates that an employer who utilizes an Excepted Benefits HRA or 125 Plan for two or more participants does not violate the market reforms. The notice further confirms that an employer cannot utilize a Section 125 plan to pretax individual market premiums, even if it is funded solely by the employee. These types of arrangements are subject to the $100 per-employee per-day penalty. Many of the questions addressed elaborate on IRS Notice 2013-54, FAQs about the Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXII), Notice 2015-17, and final regulations implementing the market reform provisions of the ACA

What nerds we are!

And, make the universal definition of a child actually universal.

Mix to a modern tune; less than five minutes. Superbly well done and it must have taken *weeks* of research and cutting. Uptown Dance

I would just add that while your user name is your choice, please consider that we are a friendly COMMUNITY so while you have a perfect right to any name you like [we all love Janitor Bob, for example] if you use a name or nickname, it makes it easier for others to remember you. Ditto for your avatar, whether it's your loved pet, a funny icon or picture.

That was really neat Catherine, Thanks....Sad part of it though.......I probably saw a lot of those when they were originally performed. Still, really neat....

What is probably happening is that the employer is taking a distribution from the company of money on which he (the employer) has already paid the tax. Then he is giving it to his employee. Hence, he is telling the employee that the tax on the money has already been paid (it was taxed as corporate or partnership profit to the shareholders or partners). In the employer's mind, the tax has been paid and he is treating the check to his employee almost as a gift, which it could be if it were not given in return for any services rendered. As to why employers would do this, consider that the employer is not paying his share of FICA and Medicare, nor is he paying Fed and State unemployment tax. Depending on the employer's tax bracket (which could be zero if there is a large amount of deductions or a NOL on his return) he, the employer, could actually be saving money. I do not agree with the employer nor would I take the client unless he reported all of the checks as income.