With the 2016 employer mandate tax assessment letters hitting employer desks this week, it seems like a good time to summarize our experience with the 2015 ESRP process.  We can’t identify clients or disclose specifics of any 2015 Employer Shared Responsibility Payment matter that we have handled; this is just our overall view.

  • The IRS occasionally got something wrong, but employers usually got 2015 Letter 226J because the employers or their AIR Transmitters reported something incorrectly or incompletely on 2015 Form 1094-C and/or 2015 Form 1095-C.  Lots of HR and payroll people did the best they could with few resources and little time to get it right.
  • Maybe because the IRS understands that, or because the IRS also is under-resourced and time-crunched, employers were granted reasonable extensions to submit their 2015 ESRP Responses.  We’re aware of only one instance in which IRS denied a request for an extension of the 30-day deadline.
  • Employers have been getting IRS replies to their ESRP responses about two months after submission.  Reasonable explanations of their reporting errors, submitted with corroborating evidence and appropriate corrections, have been accepted.

Here’s what we don’t know.

  • To what extent will IRS assess reporting penalties for Form 1095-C corrections first made in 2015 ESRP responses?
  • Will the 2016 process be automated (as previously announced) or will it be, like 2015, a manual, paper process?  The 2016 Letter 226J looks to us just like the 2015 Letter 226J.  So, for 2016, as for 2015, correcting Form 1095-C mistakes to avoid an improper ESRP assessment will be simple but correcting Form 1094-C mistakes probably won’t be.

 

If you were among those under-resourced, time-crunched HR and payroll people who made 2015 reporting errors, you should be troubleshooting 2016 filings now.

It sure seems like a long, long time since ACA foes were suing to block executive actions to “fix” problems that Congress couldn’t or wouldn’t.  Now, it’s the turn of ACA defenders, who are suing to block executive actions to “fix” ACA problems that Congress failed to solve by passing any of the “repeal” bills.

In New York Et Al. v. Acosta, D. D.C. No. 1:18-cv-1747, filed July 26, 2018, eleven states and the District of Columbia contend that the DOL Association Health Plan final rule impermissibly undercuts the ACA by unreasonably re-interpreting ERISA.  The case is assigned to Senior District Judge John D. Bates, an Army veteran who served as Deputy Independent Counsel for the Whitewater Investigation before being appointed to the Court in 2001 by President Bush.

Based on similarly accusatory comments received in opposition to the Final Rule on Short Term, Limited Duration Insurance, we expect its official publication on August 3, 2018 to provoke an attempt to block it before it takes effect in early October.

Of course, executive actions, and countering litigation, have unintended, unforeseen consequences.  One consequence of blocking the STLD Final Rule might be to boost the prospects for Association Health Plans, if that Rule isn’t also blocked.  If both Rules took effect, we would expect the STLD rule to reduce the demand for  Association Health Plans, since both types of coverage would target small business owners who aren’t eligible for ACA Exchange subsidies and whose existing options are limited and expensive.  If the STLD Rule is blocked but the AHP Rule isn’t, some undecided associations and issuers may decide to enter the AHP business.

There’s a comically profound scene in the second “Madagascar” movie.  Penguin (management) and monkey (union) committees are negotiating a labor contract.  After the monkeys seem to have secured what they want, they add a demand: maternity leave.  The chief penguin looks under the table, then shouts at his counterpart: “Maternity leave?  You’re all male!”

An employer reading IRS Letter 226J and accompanying Form 14765 (recently mailed to notify employers of proposed 2015 employer mandate tax assessments) may realize that a group health plan change is needed to reduce or eliminate an employer mandate tax exposure not previously recognized.  The change may be so obviously beneficial to union-represented employees that the employer can’t imagine collateral demands being made as a price of union agreement.  Imagine it.  Plan on it.

Before making any material change to a group health plan, or to plan administration affecting union-represented employees, an employer covered by the National Labor Relations Act must give the union notice and an opportunity to bargain about the proposed change.  That duty and opportunity is subject to some exceptions.  Two are frequent troublemakers.  An employer may think that a union has waived that right and given the employer liberty to make changes, but the National Labor Relations Board recognizes only waivers that are “clear and unmistakable,”  such as specific, express terms of a current, written labor contract.  And if the current contract lacks such a waiver, but includes a “zipper clause,” the union may have the right to postpone bargaining until the next contract opening, perhaps years in the future.  If you want immediate discussions, there may be a price for the union’s waiver of the zipper clause.

If an employer makes material group health plan changes without respecting these and other applicable NLRB rules, the Board’s regional office may commence administrative litigation leading to a range of costly remedies.  For example, the NLRB might require the employer to restore the prior plan terms and/or bear uninsured costs that were covered before the employer made the unlawful changes. You may have insurance for other employment claims, but unless you know that it covers NLRB matters, assume that it doesn’t, and add 100% of your defense expenses to the price you might pay for this mistake.  Such litigation can take years and run up huge expenses even if no employee suffered any actual harm from the NLRA violation.

What the penguin said.

Entering a football stadium many years ago, your nimble correspondent encountered unarmed security contractors wearing uniforms featuring the company logo – a big, red bull’s-eye – on the front of the baseball cap and on the left breast pocket of the shirt.  Similarly, IRS Form 14765 may invite some employers to target themselves for IRS information reporting penalties.  Here’s how.

Starting in November 2017, IRS mailed Form 14765, “Employee Premium Tax Credit Listing,” along with Letter 226J and Form 14764 to notify employers of proposed employer mandate tax assessments for 2015.  Letter 226J notifies an Applicable Large Employer (or Member) that the IRS intends to assess 2015 employer mandate taxes in stated amount, unless the employer responds by submitting with Form 14764 (hyperlink currently disabled) its valid objections.  The employer typically must deliver this within thirty days of the mailing date shown on Letter 226J.  Such taxes may be assessed under Code § 4980H only for months in which at least one ALE Member full-time employee received an ACA subsidy for insurance coverage purchased through an ACA exchange – Healthcare.gov, for example.  Form 14765 lists those tax-triggering employees, along with relevant information that the employer reported about them when it filed its 2015 Forms 1095-C.    The employer might conclude that Letter 226J was provoked by its erroneous reporting.  For example, a “smaller large employer” of 50 to 100 FTEs may have failed to claim available 2015 transition relief.  Form 14765 invites the recipient of Letter 226J to claim that relief by entering the correct codes in rows underneath the reported information shown.

However, Letter 226J also instructs such a recipient: “Do not file corrected Forms 1095-C with the IRS to report requested changes to the Employee PTC Listing ….”  Standing alone, that can be understood in at least two materially different ways: (1) the information reporting penalty and ESRP assessment processes are independent, so filing corrected Forms 1095-C might help you avoid information reporting penalties but it won’t help you in the ESRP process; or (2) the IRS wants to have to analyze only one set of proposed corrections, so please don’t file a duplicate set; say what you want solely on Form 14765.

In many, perhaps most situations, confessing material reporting errors on Form 14765 may be an excellent idea, but there is some ciphering to be done first.  Did the erroneous reporting expose the employer to penalties under Code § § 6721 and 6722?  Those penalties may reach $500 per errant Form 1095-C and, though IRS announced a broad range of planned lenience for good faith mistakes in 2015 information reporting, it warned that known errors left uncorrected could lead to penalty assessments.  So, what did you know about these errors and when did you know it?  More to the point, how much § 4980H tax might you avoid by admitting to how much penalty exposure? And will the IRS recognize the 2015 reporting errors and impose penalties even if you don’t confess?

This is just one collateral exposure that could be created depending on what actions an employer takes based on receipt of Letter 226J. If you goofed 2015 information reporting because you failed to get well-informed advice, don’t repeat that error and put a target on your forehead.

On November 17, the IRS published the Form that Applicable Large Employers must use to respond to IRS letters regarding proposed assessment of 2015 employer mandate taxes.  Form 14764 is a paper, mail-in “ESRP Response” that shows the receipt deadline at the top of the Form, along with a number to call to request an extension of that deadline.  On page 1, the ALE’s authorized official either accepts IRS collection of the proposed assessment or disagrees (either partly or totally).  On page 2, the ALE’s authorized representative may designate another person to provide further information to the IRS regarding the proposed assessment, but may not authorize full representation.  That must be done separately.  See Form 2848 and its Instructions.  There is no space for the ALE to indicate the grounds for its disagreement, nor is there any instruction about the format of or due date for such a submission.  Indeed, whether it may be submitted separately is not stated.

However, your IRS notice letter (Letter 226J) should include this set of instructions:

If you disagree with the proposed ESRP

• Complete, sign, and date the enclosed Form 14764, ESRP Response, and send it to us so we receive it by the Response date on the first page of this letter.

• Include a signed statement explaining why you disagree with part or all of the proposed ESRP. You may include documentation supporting your statement.

• Make sure your statement describes changes, if any, you want to make to the information reported on your Form(s) 1094-C or Forms 1095-C. Do not file a corrected Form 1094-C with the IRS to report any changes you want to make to your Form 1094-C filed for the tax year shown on the first page of this letter.

• Make changes, if any, on the Employee PTC Listing using the indicator codes in the Instructions for Forms 1094-C and 1095-C for the tax year shown on the first page of this letter. Do not file corrected Forms 1095-C with the IRS to report requested changes to the Employee PTC Listing; and

• Include your revised Employee PTC Listing, if necessary, and any additional documentation supporting your changes with your Form 14764, ESRP Response, and signed statement.

About the Form 14765, Employee PTC Listing

The Employee PTC Listing shows the name and truncated social security number of each full-time employee for whom you filed a Form 1095-C if:

• The employee was allowed a PTC on his or her individual income tax return for one or more months of the tax year shown on the first page of this letter; and

• You did not report an affordability safe harbor or other relief from the ESRP on the employee’s Form 1095-C for one or more of the months the employee was allowed a PTC.

These employees are referred to as assessable full-time employees.

Each monthly box on the Employee PTC Listing has two rows. The first row reflects the codes, if any, that were entered on line 14 and line 16 of the employee’s Form 1095-C for each month. For each employee, if the month is not highlighted, the employee is an assessable full-time employee for that month.

If the month is highlighted, the employee is not an assessable full-time employee for that month.

Employees who are not considered assessable full-time employees for all twelve months of the year (either because the employee was not allowed a PTC for any month in the calendar year or a safe harbor or other provision providing relief was reported on Form 1095-C for each month the employee was allowed a PTC) are not included on the Employee PTC Listing.

Specific instructions for making changes to the Employee PTC Listing

• If the information reported on an assessable full-time employee’s Form 1095-C was inaccurate or incomplete, you may make changes to the Employee PTC Listing using the applicable indicator codes for lines 14 and 16 that are described in the Instructions for Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. Make any changes, for each employee, as necessary, by entering new codes on the 2nd row of each monthly box.

• When making changes, first enter the indicator code for line 14 and then enter the indicator code for line 16. Separate the two codes with a slash (e.g., 1H/2A).

• If the same indicator code applies for all 12 months of the calendar year, enter that code in the “All 12 Months” column, and do not make entries for any of the months.

• If you are providing additional information about the changes for an employee, enter a check in the column titled “Additional Information Attached.” Otherwise, leave this column blank. NOTE: If more than one indicator code could apply for a month, enter only one code for that month on the Employee PTC Listing. Note any additional indicator codes that could apply for the affected employee in your signed statement. Include the employee’s name, the applicable months and the additional indicator codes for each month. We will review what you submit and will contact you.

Please ensure the signed statement and all documents submitted include the tax year and your employer ID number in the top right corner.

If we don’t hear from you

If you don’t respond by the Response date on the first page of this letter, we will send you a Notice and Demand for the ESRP that we proposed and assessed. The ESRP will be subject to IRS lien and levy enforcement actions. Interest will accrue from the date of the Notice and Demand and continue until you pay the total ESRP balance due.

To this this, you and your representative may need prompt access to your 2015 Forms 1095-C and your enrollment information for that plan year. If that data is hosted by a vendor, verify that access soon, because, just maybe, you’ve got mail.

Just days ago, “Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act,” No. 57 read as follows:

Does the IRS expect to publish more information about the employer shared responsibility payment procedures?

Yes. The IRS expects to publish guidance of general applicability describing the employer shared responsibility payment procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin before sending any letters to ALEs regarding the 2015 calendar year.

It’s not there anymore.  On November 2, 2017 the IRS re-wrote the entire section of this FAQ set, as follows:

  1. How does an employer know that it owes an employer shared responsibility payment?

The general procedures the IRS will use to propose and assess the employer shared responsibility payment are described in Letter 226J.  The IRS plans to issue Letter 226J to an ALE if it determines that, for at least one month in the year, one or more of the ALE’s full-time employees was enrolled in a qualified health plan for which a premium tax credit was allowed (and the ALE did not qualify for an affordability safe harbor or other relief for the employee).

Letter 226J will include:

  • a brief explanation of section 4980H,
  • an employer shared responsibility payment summary table itemizing the proposed payment by month and indicating for each month if the liability is under section 4980H(a) or section 4980H(b) or neither,
  • an explanation of the employer shared responsibility payment summary table,
  • an employer shared responsibility response form, Form 14764, “ESRP Response”,
  • an employee PTC list, Form 14765, “Employee Premium Tax Credit (PTC) List” which lists, by month, the ALE’s assessable full-time employees (individuals who for at least one month in the year were full-time employees allowed a premium tax credit and for whom the ALE did not qualify for an affordability safe harbor or other relief (see instructions for Forms 1094-C and 1095-C, Line 16), and the indicator codes, if any, the ALE reported on lines 14 and 16 of each assessable full-time employee’s Form 1095-C,
  • a description of the actions the ALE should take if it agrees or disagrees with the proposed employer shared responsibility payment in Letter 226J, and
  • a description of the actions the IRS will take if the ALE does not respond timely to Letter 226J.

The response to Letter 226J will be due by the response date shown on Letter 226J, which generally will be 30 days from the date of Letter 226J.

Letter 226J will contain the name and contact information of a specific IRS employee that the ALE should contact if the ALE has questions about the letter.

  1. Does an employer that receives a Letter 226J proposing an employer shared responsibility payment have an opportunity to respond to the IRS about the proposed payment, including requesting a pre-assessment conference with the IRS Office of Appeals?

Yes.  ALEs will have an opportunity to respond to Letter 226J before any employer shared responsibility liability is assessed and notice and demand for payment is made.  Letter 226J will provide instructions for how the ALE should respond in writing, either agreeing with the proposed employer shared responsibility payment or disagreeing with part or all or the proposed amount.

If the ALE responds to Letter 226J, the IRS will acknowledge the ALE’s response to Letter 226J with an appropriate version of Letter 227 (a series of five different letters that, in general, acknowledge the ALE’s response to Letter 226J and describe further actions the ALE may need to take).  If, after receipt of Letter 227, the ALE disagrees with the proposed or revised employer shared responsibility payment, the ALE may request a pre-assessment conference with the IRS Office of Appeals.  The ALE should follow the instructions provided in Letter 227 and Publication 5, Your Appeal Rights and How To Prepare a Protest if You Don’t Agree, for requesting a conference with the IRS Office of Appeals.  A conference should be requested in writing by the response date shown on Letter 227, which generally will be 30 days from the date of Letter 227.

If the ALE does not respond to either Letter 226J or Letter 227, the IRS will assess the amount of the proposed employer shared responsibility payment and issue a notice and demand for payment, Notice CP 220J.

  1. How does an employer make an employer shared responsibility payment?

If, after correspondence between the ALE and the IRS or a conference with the IRS Office of Appeals, the IRS or IRS Office of Appeals determines that an ALE is liable for an employer shared responsibility payment, the IRS will assess the employer shared responsibility payment and issue a notice and demand for payment, Notice CP 220J. Notice CP 220J will include a summary of the employer shared responsibility payment and will reflect payments made, credits applied, and the balance due, if any.  That notice will instruct the ALE how to make payment, if any.  ALEs will not be required to include the employer shared responsibility payment on any tax return that they file or to make payment before notice and demand for payment.  For payment options, such as entering into an installment agreement, refer to Publication 594, The IRS Collection Process.

  1. When does the IRS plan to begin notifying employers of potential employer shared responsibility payments?

For the 2015 calendar year, the IRS plans to issue Letter 226J informing ALEs of their potential liability for an employer shared responsibility payment, if any, in late 2017.

For purposes of Letter 226J, the IRS determination of whether an employer may be liable for an employer shared responsibility payment and the amount of the potential payment are based on information reported to the IRS on Forms 1094-C and 1095-C and information about full-time employees of the ALE that were allowed the premium tax credit.

You didn’t notice a link to Letter 226J because there wasn’t one.  We went to “Understanding Your IRS Notice or Letter,” and used the search function for the link that we found several weeks ago.  It wasn’t there.  Letter 227 was sequestered, too. Our Google search “hit” the formerly available Notice CP220J but, alas, “Page Not Found.”  We searched the IRS Forms and Instructions page and the IRS Draft Forms and Publications page and found neither Form 14764 nor Form 14765.

Hopefully, these are transitional glitches and we will be able to tell you more when we are able to see more.  However, the big, immediate takeaway is this: the ALE Member’s response to Letter 226J will be “due” on the due date stated on Letter 226J, which probably will be only 30 days from the issuance date appearing on Letter 226J.  Subtract mailing time and internal routing time and you may have just two or three weeks to deliver to IRS your well-considered, written, well-documented, objection to a substantial employer mandate tax assessment.  If you lack ready access to well-organized data about your 2015 group health plan enrollment,  employee affordability, eligibility and IRS reporting of your coverage offers (including 2015 Forms 1094-C and 1095-C), you may find this a daunting task.  If that data is hosted by a vendor, you should contact that vendor and verify access promptly.

The October 12, 2017 “Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” gets things rolling, but this ball will have to roll up hill for months before it can roll downhill.  Here’s why.

The meat of this matter is in § 2 of the Order:

Sec. 2. Expanded Access to Association Health Plans. Within 60 days of the date of this order, the Secretary of Labor shall consider proposing regulations or revising guidance, consistent with law, to expand access to health coverage by allowing more employers to form AHPs. To the extent permitted by law and supported by sound policy, the Secretary should consider expanding the conditions that satisfy the commonality‑of-interest requirements under current Department of Labor advisory opinions interpreting the definition of an “employer” under section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974. The Secretary of Labor should also consider ways to promote AHP formation on the basis of common geography or industry.

The referenced ERISA provision (29 U.S.C. § 1002(5)) says that “’employer’ means any person acting directly as an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an employer, in relation to an employee benefit plan; and includes a group or association of employers acting for an employer in such capacity.”

Historically, DOL has taken the view that a controlled group of corporations may have a group health plan that’s regulated in the same way as a plan sponsored by a single business entity, but that plans sponsored by multiple employers (and self-employed individuals) not commonly controlled must comply with relatively stringent and punitive rules for “multiple employer welfare arrangements.”  So-called “MEWA’s” are subject to both ERISA and to state health care insurance regulations, even if they are self-insured by the sponsoring employer group, unless the participating employers are contributing to the plan under contracts with a labor union.  Union-created multi-employer plans are favored in ERISA and in DOL rules.  See 29 CFR § 2510.3-40 and § 2570.151.

Here is an unofficial DOL summary of the dilemma.

[…]  [T]he Department has taken the position that a bona fide group or association of employers would constitute an “employer” within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(5) for purposes of having established or maintained an employee benefit plan. (See: page 8).

However, unlike the specified treatment of a control group of employers as a single employer, there is no indication in Section 3(40), or the legislative history accompanying the MEWA provisions, that Congress intended that such groups or associations be treated as “single employers” for purposes of determining the status of such arrangements as a MEWA. Moreover, while a bona fide group or association of employers may constitute an “employer” within the meaning of ERISA Section 3(5), the individuals typically covered by the group or association sponsored plan are not “employed” by the group or association and, therefore, are not “employees” of the group or association. Rather, the covered individuals are “employees” of the employer-members of the group or association. Accordingly, to the extent that a plan sponsored by a group or association of employers provides benefits to the employees of two or more employer-members (and such employer-members are not part of a control group of employers), the plan would constitute a MEWA within the meaning of Section 3(40).

Multiple Employer Welfare Arrangements under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (EISA): A Guide to Federal and State Regulation,” p. 22 (U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Rev. August 2013).

State-by-state MEWA regulation makes operation across state lines quite difficult.  That’s the main problem that we think the President has told DOL to fix.  Our guess is based partly on statements made by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), the prime mover in this situation.  His October 12, 2017 article published by Breitbart began: “President Trump will today legalize and allow individuals to form Health Associations and purchase insurance across state lines.”  But “today,” “legalize” and “allow” may be premature.

This disruptive executive action will draw heavy, sustained fire.  Opponents may argue that current DOL opinion is the only reasonable reading of ERISA’s relevant provisions, and that any change requires ERISA amendment by Congress.  They may say that enough of the current policy is found in formal rules so that the problem can be fixed only through formal rule-making, subject to judicial review after completion (in 2019, maybe). They will search for and play-up adverse collateral consequences of the policy change contemplated by the Executive Order.  A wise DOL Secretary won’t rush into this dark alley and it’s not clear who would bear the expense and take the risk of Association Health Plan roll-out before all such legal disputes are resolved.  Penalties for flagrant violations of MEWA rules can include jail time.

We’ll be watching this, but we won’t be holding our breath.

 

Readers will recall our surprise that so much of the rule-making under ACA § 1557 addressed transgender issues.  We now have decisions from two federal district courts taking polar opposite positions on whether § 1557 prohibits such discrimination.  Franciscan Alliance, Inc. v. Burwell, 227 F.Supp.3d 660 (N.D. Tex. 2016) said that it does not; Prescott v. Rady Children’s Hospital – San Diego, S.D. Cal. No. 16-cv-02408 (Doc. 22, Sept. 27, 2017) affirmed that it does.  Both can’t be correct.

The California decision reasoned from the premise that Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act prohibits transgender discrimination, citing decisions to that effect from the Sixth, Seventh, Ninth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeal.  Because other Circuits take the opposing view, the dispute may be resolved by the U.S. Supreme Court soon.  Notably, the Department of Justice on October 4, 2017 switched sides in this fight, taking the view expressed by the Texas court.

That’s the title of a web page that employers may find helpful upon receipt of an IRS communication asserting liability for employer mandate taxes under Code § 4980H.  It should have an official notice (“CP”) or letter (“LTR”) number on either the top or the bottom right-hand corner.  Entering that number in the search bar on the web page should display more information about the reason for the communication and what IRS expects in response.  There should also be a telephone number in the top right hand corner of the document that employers receive.

On the same web page, you’ll find a link to “Form 2848 Power of Attorney and Declaration of Representative.”  If you want another person to represent you in connection with the notice or letter, both the taxpayer and the designated representative must complete and sign the Form.  Page 1 of the Instructions for Form 2848 tells you where to mail or fax the Form.

Your designated representative need not be an attorney, if he or she is in another approved category and need not have an IRS CAF number, since a number will be issued upon receipt of the Form.  If the representative already has a nine-digit CAF number, it should be on the Form submitted.

We suspect that the initial letter will be a semi-formal precursor to Notice CP220J, which tells an employer that the IRS has “charged you an employer responsibility payment (ESRP).”   The return address on this Form is “Group 2219, 7300 Turfway Road Suite 410, Florence, KY 41042,” but no contact phone or fax number is listed. The explanatory CP220J web page is bare bones today.  We hope the IRS soon will hang some meat on it.

The Notice image posted under “Publications and Notices” (bottom of this article) is a mess; just count the contradictions.  And, we still don’t have the promised Internal Revenue Bulletin guidance about what, if anything, may precede issuance of Form CP220J.

 

Does the IRS expect to publish more information about the employer shared responsibility payment procedures?

Yes. The IRS expects to publish guidance of general applicability describing the employer shared responsibility payment procedures in the Internal Revenue Bulletin before sending any letters to ALEs regarding the 2015 calendar year.

“Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the Affordable Care Act,” No. 57, updated August 26, 2017.

If the IRS intends to keep that promise, it has just eight weekly editions of the Internal Revenue Bulletin to do so, and still provide employer notices at least 60 days in advance of January 1, 2018, when the three-year limit for such tax assessments begins to be relevant.

For budgeting purposes, note that the $166.67 monthly tax under Code § 4980H(a) that accrued during 2015 has risen to $183.33 for 2017 and the $250 monthly tax under § 4980H(b) for 2015 is $282.50 for 2017.

Update:  There was no related news in the September 11, 2017 Internal Revenue Bulletin.