James F. McDonough
Of Counsel
732-568-8360 jmcdonough@sh-law.comKey Contacts
Back
Introducing the Cadillac tax
On July 31, the IRS and the Treasury issued Notice 2015-52 that explained all the potential issues and approaches of the proposed Cadillac tax regulations, according to the National Law Review. The Cadillac tax requires compliance from employers and thus, Notice 2015-52 calls for business owners to begin planning for the health care tax implications.
The statute is referred to as the Cadillac tax because it is designed to impact employer-sponsored rich or premium health plans for executives and senior managers in addition to super-rich health benefits for employees.
The new Cadillac tax
The Cadillac tax, Sec. 4980I, will impose a 40 percent nondeductible excise tax on the aggregate cost of employer-sponsored health coverage that exceeds a statutory dollar limit. Effective 2018, the Cadillac tax will raise the dollar limits for self-only coverage to $10,200 and $27,500 for family coverage as part of the Affordable Care Act.
The taxes can be assumed by employer
The employer is the coverage provider for health savings accounts and Archer medical savings accounts. Following the end of each calendar year, excise taxes will be imposed on the employer if the cost of applicable coverage for an employee exceeds the dollar limit in any month. It is then the responsibility of the employer to calculate the excise tax that applies to each employee, and contact the coverage provider as well as the IRS. Further, the employer will calculate the amount of tax reimbursement they will owe to the coverage provider.
The significance of the tax
One the main issues related to the monthly calculations of the tax is that myriad arrangements can significantly raise the benefits limits as these costs may not be known till the end of the coverage year. According to a 2014 Towers Watson & Co. study, the tax will hit half of all employers in 2018 and more than 82 percent by 2023.
However, another main issue for insurers and employers is that the Cadillac tax may result in double taxation. Under the statute, insurers are required to pay the excise tax, but employers then reimburse insurers for the tax amount. This income is then treated as income for the insurer, which means it is subject to taxation for a second time.
According to Notice 2015-52, the IRS has not decided how the tax will be collected.
- Practices: Corporate Transactions & Business, Tax and Trusts & Estates
- Locations: Red Bank, NJ, New York City, Little Falls, NJ
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Related Posts
See all
Crypto Enforcement: A Former Prosecutor’s Warning to Criminals and the Public
Cryptocurrency intimidates most people. The reason is straightforward. People fear what they do not understand. When confusion sets in, the common reaction is either to ignore the subject entirely or to mistrust it. For years, that is exactly how most of the public and even many in law enforcement treated cryptocurrency. However, such apprehension changed […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Understanding Chattel Paper: A Key Component in Secured Transactions
Using chattel paper to obtain a security interest in personal property is a powerful tool. It can ensure lenders have a legal claim on collateral ranging from inventory to intellectual property. To reduce risk and protect your legal rights, businesses and lenders should understand the legal framework. This framework governs the creation, sale, and enforcement […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Crypto Compliance: A Comprehensive Guide
For years, digital assets operated in a legal gray area, a frontier where innovation outpaced the reach of regulators and law enforcement. In this early “Wild West” phase of finance, crypto startups thrived under minimal oversight. That era, however, is coming to an end. The importance of crypto compliance has become paramount as cryptocurrency has […]
Author: Bryce S. Robins
Supreme Court and Title VII: Implications for Reverse Discrimination
Earlier this month, the U.S. Supreme Court issued a decision in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services vitiating the so-called “background circumstances” test required by half of federal circuit courts.1 The background circumstances test required majority group plaintiffs pleading discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act to meet a heightened pleading standard […]
Author: Matthew F. Mimnaugh
SPACs Are Back, What You Need to Know
Special purpose acquisition companies (better known as SPACs) appear to be making a comeback. SPAC offerings for 2025 have already nearly surpassed last year’s totals, with additional transactions in the pipeline. SPACs last experienced a boom between 2020–2021, with approximately 600 U.S. companies raising a record $163 billion in 2021. Notable companies that went public […]
Author: Dan Brecher
Short Form Merger: Streamlining the Process for Businesses
Merging two companies is a complex legal and business transaction. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process that involves important corporate governance considerations. A short form merger, in which an acquiring company merges with a subsidiary corporation, offers a more streamlined process. However, […]
Author: Dan Brecher
No Aspect of the advertisement has been approved by the Supreme Court. Results may vary depending on your particular facts and legal circumstances.
Sign up to get the latest from our attorneys!
Explore What Matters Most to You.
Consider subscribing to our Firm Insights mailing list by clicking the button below so you can keep up to date with the firm`s latest articles covering various legal topics.
Stay informed and inspired with the latest updates, insights, and events from Scarinci Hollenbeck. Our resource library provides valuable content across a range of categories to keep you connected and ahead of the curve.