Leaderboard

With that much money, I do not see hardship at all.

i got a few of these too, about a month ago and then nothing since.

I try to get everyone to invest with Edward Jones because I like their year end statements and it makes my job a lot easier to prepare their tax returns. Tom Newark, CA

I think I am going to try and get tickets to Jersey Boys. I have not been to a good musical since we saw "Cats" in London on our honeymoon. That was a long time ago. Tom Newark, CA

​I don't think I see anywhere in the code or regs that the testing for affordability is wealth based. It all seems to be income based in my reading. So, I could have a million bucks in the bank, and still qualify for the subsidies because my job working seasonally at the ski resorts does not meet the 400% poverty level. That is the way I read it. Just my 2 cents. Tom Newark, CA

I think you all ought to come to Las Vegas instead....because the desert in the middle of summer is a much better experience. (s). But the pool at the Rio looks inviting. Patty and I will be going to LV. The flights and hotels and rental cars are so cheap I can't pass this one up. Anyone else going to Las Vegas? Never been to an NATP event. Looking forward to it. Tom Newark, CA

​Man, I love it when somebody volunteers to be the heavy for me. Just like back in the day when Sharon Large Forward tripped the gal that busted my lip in the regional basketball tournament on an obvious charge and the ref completely missed it.

MAMalody is absolutely correct about the excise tax on unauthorized HRAs. The Evangelical Council for Financial Accountability did a free webinar on this awhile back. Here's a link https://www.ecfa.org/WebinarRecordings.aspx?ProductID=61 Frankly, it was not the most inspiring webinar I've ever viewed, but it does cover the subject. Taxman--the decision making authority (usually the church board) needs to re-categorize the reimbursement as taxable income. That would likely require amending prior 941s and possibly W2s if it pre-dates this year. Henceforth, the re-categorized amount would be included in the amount subject to income tax withholding. However, as I stated in a previous post, churches should never withhold FICA tax on clergy income. Alas, many churches continue to do that (withhold FICA). I've written a white paper on how to fix clergy FICA withholding when it happens. PM me if you'd like a copy. Rita--I suggest you show them copy of Notice 20-13-54 http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.irs.gov%2Fpub%2Firs-drop%2Fn-13-54.pdf&ei=po1oVayVCpGbyQSzmoLoCw&usg=AFQjCNGPoEXU2frrtxhaQcLsxamwrlzD5A&sig2=ufVMeodfa_dl5YLTb5Yohw . $100 per day should get their attention. I'm also not sure who it is you're telling. Perhaps you should carefully/respectfully go up the chain of command with your concerns. Your advice should be good enough, but it can sometimes also be helpful to get an 'outside expert' to say the same thing you've been saying (the 'prophet without honor in his own hometown' syndrome). If you think it would help, I'm sure either Michael Malody or I would be happy lend a hand. PM either of us if you wish to go that route.

Per Notice 2013-54 they may be subject to a $100 per day excise tax per applicable employee under IRC 4980D so it is imperative that this change be made. Rita I don't know if you can arbitrarily change what you are given by the church. You would have to determine what they have hired you to do. If they are giving you line item budget figures to formalize for them, I don't know if you can change them. If they have hired you to to do their books, based on the information provided, then you would probably be okay listing the medical premium payments correctly as salary on the books. After all that is what they are paying you do do.

Church/clergy issues are my bread and butter. Perhaps I can help. Churches (and other employers) have historically done premium and other medical cost reimbursements in the form of a Medical Expense Reimbursement Plan (MERP) and more recently using a Section 105 Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA). One provision of the ACA made stand-alone HRAs illegal as of 1/1/2014; as of that date HRAs are permitted only if the employer offers it in conjunction with an ACA compliant group health insurance plan (such plans are known as integrated plans). Many employers (including scads of churches) didn't get the memo and continue offering obsolete MERPS and stand-alone HRAs. The bottom line is the reimbursement must be treated as additional income. That will likely require amended 941s and W2. It will also require a change in procedure for future activities. By the way, it is important to note that the employing church/ministry cannot designate any portion of the reimbursement-recategorized-as-salary as clergy housing allowance because the law prohibits making housing allowance designations retroactively (there is one exception to the general rule but it is so rare that I'll not bore you with the details). Rita is correct--clergy are not subject to FICA. Clergy have what is often called a 'dual tax status'. That is, they are (almost always) considered an employee of the church for income tax purposes but are always (100% of the time) considered self-employed for social security tax purposes. I.e., they must pay self-employment tax--unless they opted out of SECA by filing Form 4361--but that's a different conversation. Therefore, the employing church/ministry should never withhold FICA on clergy compensation. The clergy person should make quarterly estimated payments to cover their SECA liability. However, as an alternative strategy, the IRS permits (and even encourages) the clergy taxpayer to have his/her employing church/ministry withhold extra income tax in an amount equal to the SECA tax liability. Hope this helps.