We use cookies to give you the best online experience. By using our website you agree to our use of cookies in accordance with our cookie policy. Learn more here.Close Me
In a July 7 article entitled Brawling Over HealthCare Moves to Rules on
Exchanges, The New York Times reported on a brewing
challenge to tax credit provisions of the Affordable Care Act that
will affect both employers and individuals. According to the
Times,
"At issue is whether the
subsidies will be available in exchanges set up and run by the
federal government in states that fail or refuse to establish their
own exchanges. ... The most likely challenger ... is an employer
penalized because one or more of its employees receive subsidies
through a federal exchange. Employers may be subject to financial
penalties if they offer no coverage or inadequate coverage and at
least one of their full-time employees receives
subsidies."
Section 1401 of the Affordable Care Act provides that eligible
taxpayers may receive income tax credits for purchase of insurance
"through an Exchange established by the State under
[Act Section 1311]" (emphasis added). Section 1311 is
the provision of the Act that enables the states to establish
health insurance exchanges. That provision does not refer to
federally-facilitated exchanges. Act section 1321 provides
that if a state does not elect to create an exchange that meets
federal requirements, the federal government will "establish
and operate" an exchange. This invites the question
whether, in a state that fails to create an exchanges, there can be
any tax credits for insurance bought on a federally run
exchange?
If opponents of the law are correct, then individuals in states
that fail to establish an exchange will be ineligible for premium
tax credits to assist with the purchase of coverage. For
employers, however, there is good news: assessable payments under
the Act's employer shared responsibly are triggered only
where one or more employees qualify for a premium tax credit.
If no employee is eligible, then there can be no liability for any
assessable payments.
The law's proponents argue that Congress clearly did not
intend this result and that this is a hyper-technical reading of
the statute. At the same time, they rightly concede that
these provisions are not a model of good statutory
draftsmanship. Based on the experience with the Supreme
Court, it's hard to say what the courts will do if (when?)
presented with this challenge. But I'll venture a
guess: The Act's provisions are part of an integrated
whole. Exchanges serve as web-based point-of-sale portals or
marketplaces. Whether the portal is established by a state or
the federal government is irrelevant. Read in context, and as
a whole, this appears to be (in the author's view at least)
the marginally better legal result.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A female employee traveling for her employer met a "friend" and at her motel room with him became "injured whilst engaging in sexual intercourse when a glass light fitting above the bed was pulled from its mount and fell on her."
The "just cause" standard has long been a cornerstone of traditional labor law (under many collective bargaining agreements, employees generally cannot be discharged except with "just cause").
The Affordable Care Act provides employees who are not offered health coverage by their employers with the option of purchasing health coverage through new health insurance marketplaces (also known as health insurance exchanges) that will operate in every state.
Beginning in 2014, the Affordable Care Act will require "large" employers to offer their full-time employees healthcare coverage that meets certain standards or pay a penalty.
The Affordable Care Act’s employer shared responsibility rules will require large employers to make an offer of minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of their full-time employees or pay a non-deductible excise tax on all their full-time employees.
The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) defines marriage at the federal level as a legal union between one man and one woman and excuses states from any obligation to recognize same-sex marriages recognized in any other state.
Employers have until October 1, 2013, to provide notice to current employees of coverage options available through the Health Insurance Marketplace established under the Affordable Care Act.
Issues After The Election
