As we gather to gawk at the impending King v. Burwell piñata whacking, here’s a reminder to curb your enthusiasm. Even if your employer mandate dies this month, even if it is not resurrected by legislation or executive action, and even if you provide compliant coverage, most of you will have to report your 2015

This is a compliance blog; we don’t do politics. But we can’t explain compliance consequences of the Supreme Court’s King v. Burwell opinion without acknowledging the political context.

Here’s the June calendar of the Supreme Court of the United States.


Opinions are posted online on Monday or Tuesday,

Because the IRS needs data to verify subsidy eligibility and to enforce the individual and employer mandates, the ACA added § § 6055 and 6056 to the Internal Revenue Code, requiring insurers and large employers to report that data to the IRS and to beneficiaries. The IRS published final rules in March 2014 and released

Beginning in 2016, Code § 6056 requires large employers to complete, file with IRS and deliver to employees a Form 1095-C for each full-time employee offered minimum essential coverage for each 2015 coverage month.  So, who are your Form 1095-C employees?  Might they include people not on your payroll?

Here’s the relevant IRS rule defining

Our clients include employee leasing firms and their employer customers. Sometimes, both ask us to explain their ACA exposures related to proposed lease revisions, which we cannot do. Professional ethics rules generally forbid lawyers to work both sides of the same deal. Maybe that explains why so many lawyers enter politics. But we can explain

“Applicable Large Employers” are exposed, beginning January 1, 2015, to significant new taxes if they fail to offer “minimum essential coverage” to at least 70% of their full-time employees and their dependents.  Employers also must permit full-time employee coverage to become effective within a “90-day” maximum waiting period.  Unlawfully delaying coverage exposes the employer both

We applauded the IRS decision to credit customer employers, for employer mandate purposes, with leasing company offers of affordable, qualifying coverage to leased employees, as long as the customer employer is surcharged for each employee who takes the coverage offered.  But since then, we have seen no evidence that parties to employee leasing arrangements are

Recently, we have received requests to re-post prior articles on the 90-day waiting period, the employer mandate final rules (supplemented here, here, here and here), and our pop quiz for ACA consultants.  As we approach our 100th article, some readers apparently find the scroll-down browsing process tedious.  So do we.  Here