Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Internal Revenue Service has ruled for the first time that properly substantiated employer-provided medical expense reimbursements made through debit or credit cards under a health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) or health care flexible spending account (HCFSA) are excludable from gross income under Section 105(b) (Rev. Rul. 2003-43). The use of debit or credit cards by HRAs and HCFSAs will greatly streamline the reimbursement process and will eliminate employees' out of pocket expenses at the point of service — making these programs much more appealing to employees. For example, if an employee has $1,000 in his HCFSA for a year, he can use his debit card to cover a copayment at his doctor's office, purchase prescription drugs at a pharmacy, and pay other medical expenses throughout the year up to $1,000 and he will not be required to substantiate the charges with a receipt. This program is also favorable for employers because increased use of HCFSAs and HRAs will result in employer FICA tax savings. However, it is important for law firms to note in selecting the debit or credit card features for their plans that medical care expense reimbursements under an HRA or HCFSA are not excludable from the gross income of self-employed individuals, including partners.
The revenue ruling examines three scenarios. In the first, the employer sponsors one or more major medical plans for employees that provide coverage under accident and health insurance. The employer also sponsors an HRA and HCFSA that reimburse participants' uninsured medical care expenses up to a maximum reimbursement amount that is fixed at the beginning of each year. In conjunction with the HRA and HCFSA, the employer allows electronic reimbursement of medical expenses through the use of a debit card up to the maximum dollar amount in the cardholder's HCFSA or HRA. Use of the card is limited to health care merchants and service providers authorized by the employer; and the employee must certify that the card will only be used for eligible medical care expenses, that any expense paid with the card has not been reimbursed, and that the employee will not seek reimbursement under any other plan covering health benefits. When the card is used at the point-of-sale, the provider is paid the full amount of the charge provided there is sufficient money available in the HCFSA or HRA, and the cardholder's maximum available coverage remaining is reduced by such amount.
All charges to the card, other than copayments, recurring expenses and real-time substantiation (described below), are treated as conditional pending confirmation of the charge. To substantiate the charges, the employer requires participants to submit additional third-party information, such as merchant or service provider receipts, describing 1) the service or product; 2) the date of the service or sale; and 3) the amount. The employer permits automatic reimbursement, without further review, for amounts that equal dollar amounts of copayments under the major medical plan, and for recurring amounts that have been previously substantiated. Also, if a third-party merchant provides real-time verification for the expense, it is considered substantiated.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?
Making partner isn't cheap, and the cost is more than just the years of hard work and stress that associates put in as they reach for the brass ring.