Skip to main content

More on Health Insurance and Section 125 Plans

Question:

This is a follow-up on the posting of December 16 regarding health insurance:

Must a health insurance policy be held by the organization in order to qualify health insurance premium payroll deductions for tax-free treatment under a Section 125 cafeteria plan? or can the employee hold the policy?

Also, must the employer pay at least a portion of the premium, or can the full amount be withheld through payroll deduction?

Answer:

I'll give this question "my best shot" -- employee benefit plans are not my forte. Further, there may be some insurance industry regulations or requirements of individual insurance firms that can affect this issue (e.g., I believe that Golden Rule Insurance here in Wisconsin does not permit a church to own (or even reimburse premiums) the policy).

Having said this, I do not believe that the Code stipulates the owner of the insurance plan nor requires partial payment by the employer. However, before a church and its pastor jumps into such as arrangement, its leadership is well-advised to clearly understand and communicate the specific requirements of Section 125 -- especially its use-or-lose-it component.

Comments

  1. Premiums for either a group policy or an individual policy can be eligible under a cafeteria plan, however they are different accounts.

    The most basic would a premium only plan (also known as a POP) where the employee's portion of the premium is automatically payroll deducted and the organization pays the premium on the employee's behalf.

    In the case of the individual plan, the employee would have to submit documentation to show that they have paid their individual premium.

    Concerning the insurance companies - I do not believe they care whether a premium is deducted pre-tax or post tax as long as the premium is paid.

    The issue you really need to be concerned about is whether the pre-tax reimbursement is eligible or not. I hope that helps.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Qualified Small Employer HRAs

On December 13, 2016, President Obama signed the 21st Century Cures Act, allowing qualified small employers to offer Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRA) that follow certain terms.

After the Affordable Care Act was passed, the IRS originally determined that an HRA was not a qualified group health plan. The Cures Act overrules this decision. HRAs are again an option for qualifying small employers.

To be eligible, the small employer must have fewer than 50 employees and must not offer a group health plan to any of its employees.

The Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangement (QSEHRA) must be subject to the following terms.
No salary reduction contributions may be made (i.e., 100% employer-funded).Employer must receive proof of employee’s minimum essential coverage.Reimbursements must be for qualifying medical expenses.Reimbursements for any year cannot exceed $4,950 (or $10,000 for family coverage), which will be adjusted annually for inflation.Employer must offer the …

Revised Form I-9 Released

The U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services released a revised Form I-9. All new hires after January 21, 2017, must complete the revised Form I-9. All prior released versions of Form I-9 will be invalid for new hires.

Employers are required to have a completed hard copy of Form I-9 on file for each employee. Current employees do not need to re-complete the revised form.

More information on Form I-9 can be found on the USCIS website.

Housing Allowance when Bartering for Rent Payments

Question:

If a minister rents his principal residence, but he performs services (mowing the lawn, repairing the roof, etc.) in lieu of rent, can he still qualify the rent amount for a housing allowance tax benefit?

Answer:

Of course, bartering income is taxable. The Internal Revenue Code interprets that above situation as follows: tenant/minister receives taxable income for the fair market value of the services he provides, andtenant/minster pays landlord for renal of residence. The minister in this case reports taxable income for services provided in lieu of rent. It is also likely subject to self-employment tax. He may then claim as qualifying housing allowance expense equal to the amount he "pays" for rent of his personal residence. Essentially, there is no difference than if the minister and his landlord simply traded checks.

See a past MinistryCPA post regarding this topic: http://ministrycpa.blogspot.com/2016/09/services-to-church-in-lieu-of-rent-of.html