Article by Ed Lenz and Alden J. Bianchi
Several ASA members have reported being approached by platform providers offering benefit plans loosely described as “wellness” programs. Employee premiums under these arrangements are paid on a pretax basis through a Section 125 cafeteria plan. The claim is that, properly structured, these programs reduce employees’ taxable income, with corresponding employer payroll tax savings. The key words are “properly structured.”
The Treasury Department and the IRS have scrutinized wellness programs similar to what are currently being marketed and have disagreed that those programs resulted in the claimed tax savings. The critical shortcoming in the arrangements was that they were self-funded. The government’s view is that self-funded arrangements lack the required risk shifting to qualify as insurance. In the absence of risk shifting, the programs cannot, in the government’s view, qualify for the favorable tax treatment accorded health insurance.
Some suppliers of these wellness programs purport to have addressed the government’s concerns regarding the lack of risk shifting by representing that the benefits are furnished under a policy of insurance issued by a licensed health insurance carrier. But it does not appear that those concerns have actually been addressed.
To qualify as insurance, there must be some risk of loss based on the fortuitous occurrence of a stated contingency. The IRS has held that merely receiving payments for engaging in certain wellness activities, for example, does not involve such a risk—and thus all amounts received through the plan that exceed actual premiums must be included in income and wages. Merely dropping a benefit plan, program, or arrangement into an insurance “wrapper” does not result in the shifting of risk. That a supplier asserts that state insurance regulators have approved such a product is not necessarily determinative without knowing what representations were made to the regulators or the extent to which the regulators verified those representations.
These products require (through some combination of incentives and negative elections) an employee to reduce his or her compensation each pay period by some substantial amount based on the assurance that the employee will be made whole each month in the form of a (cash) benefit, which may or may not be taxable. It is not apparent how this results in the actual shifting of risk. Accordingly, arrangements structured in this way do not appear to support the claimed tax benefits and therefore cannot be recommended.
Given the complexity of the legal issues and the potential tax consequences to both the employer and its employees, staffing firms considering adopting such plans should ask the providers to provide a formal IRS taxpayer opinion letter based on the facts of the specific arrangement. At a minimum, they should consult with their own legal or tax advisers.
Bianchi is a member of the law firm Mintz, Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky & Popeo P.C. and chairman of the firm’s employee benefits and executive compensation practice; Lenz is senior counsel of the American Staffing Association and senior adviser in the Mintz Levin Washington, DC, office.
The Form I-9 is a complicated two-page document that is accompanied by a 65-page handbook explaining how to complete it. There are many facets of I-9 completion that are unique to staffing firms. E-Verify is an Internet-based system maintained by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services that allows businesses to verify the work eligibility of employees. The American Staffing Association offers this document to address the Form I-9 and E-Verify issues that staffing firms face most frequently. More ›
Staffing firm clients have increasingly adopted policies limiting the length of assignment of staffing firm workers as way to protect against the kind of “retro-benefits” claims faced by Microsoft. Some client policies appear to be based on the erroneous belief that, after working for a certain period of time, staffing firm employees are automatically eligible for coverage under the client’s benefits plans. To help dispel some of the common misperceptions, ASA has developed an issue paper that discusses the basic principles of law that apply to employee benefit plans and the steps clients can take to avoid retro-benefits exposure. More ›
This agreement is to be used when a staffing firm supplies assigned workers to the client on a temporary basis to supplement the client’s work force. The assigned workers will work under the direction, control, and supervision of the client. In addition to dealing with liability and indemnification issues, it contains a comprehensive set of basic operational terms and conditions. More ›
This form is used when a client desires technical services to be performed on the staffing firm’s premises by employees of the staffing firm. It states that the assigned workers are employees of the staffing firm, paid by the staffing firm, and all matters concerning wages, expenses, hours worked and paid, working conditions, and other similar administrative matters shall be resolved between the assigned worker and the staffing firm. More ›
Sorry, the content you’ve selected is for members only. Maybe it’s time to join! Or if you’re already a member, please log in. Join today to get access to all of ASA’s legal information and resources for members. The ASA legal team works hard to keep members informed about the laws and regulations that impact their… More ›