<p>That way the government can say “No employers cut jobs due to Obamacare”. They swore!</p>
<p>This may be a little simplistic but I prefer to keep things simple. If this is all so great why is most of it on hold? </p>
<p>The government has every right to impose financial incentives and disincentives on companies related to their hiring practices --they do it all the time. The offer credits and incentives for doing things the government wants it to do, and can use taxes, surcharges and penalties to discourage whatever they don’t want being done. Federal law now requires that large employers either provide health insurance to their employees or pay a specified tax amount per-employee to compensate the government for the burden that is passed to everyone else when the company fails to provide such insurance. </p>
<p>Keep in mind that a corporation is an entity that exists only with government regulation and approval. You can’t just set up business and call yourself a “corporation” – you have to create the corporation by adhering to a set of government regulatory procedures in some state or country. </p>
<p>Of course a business owner does not have to become a corporation – but when a company is large enough to have 100 employees, they are likely to have incorporated because of the business advantages of doing so, vs. the liability risks on owners if they don’t. And it doesn’t matter whether they are incorporated or not as far as the ACA is concerned – I’m just pointing this out because it is really dumb for someone to assert that big businesses somehow have the right to be free of government regulation. </p>
<p>In order to enforce that tax, the government needs information from each company as to how many employees they have. I don’t know whether that info is already reflected in other tax filings or not, but one way or another there has to be a statement that reports numbers of employees. The government is saying very simply that if Company A has 150 employees in 2014 and then reduces workforce to 99 in 2015, they will need to submit a piece of paper saying that they have downsized for some reason other than avoiding compliance with ACA.</p>
<p>Or to put it another way: any company that has 100 or more employees as of a given date (e.g., January 1, 2014) – is required to insure all of its employees or pay the tax. If the company downsizes and wants to be reclassified with IRS to avoid the tax, then there is a piece of paper that needs to be included with the next year’s tax returns.</p>
<p>Anytime you give the IRS more power to cause mischief, that’s a problem. If I own a company that is losing money and I decide I need to decrease my workforce to reduce my healthcare costs or avoid the costly mandate, I shouldn’t have to justify it to the IRS. Are they going to cover my losses? Don’t think so.</p>
<p>I certainly shouldn’t have to worry about being prosecuted because I need to lower my costs. It’s one thing to sign a form saying I owe x amount of taxes, quite another to affix my signature to a sworn affidavit swearing my motivation or intentions were in compliance with their rules. Orwellian</p>
<p>Edit: Will the IRS hire psychiatrists to explore my subconscious to make sure I don’t have nefarious motives.</p>
<p>If you have 110 employees, lose a contract you depend on, then downsize…there you have it. No one’s sent to Siberia. As is common where I am, if you are down’sizing for a move or because Old Joe is going to retire…there you have it. </p>
<p>If your company is losing money, there you have it. Cut the fat.<br>
You don’t have to worry about being “prosecuted,” if it is legit. With write-offs/write-downs and losses and uncollected debt and paper devaluations and all the rest…you may be asked to show it’s legit.</p>
<p>If you own a company that is not losing money (in reality, not some paper shenanigans, fudging the books,) and decides to arbitrarily cut employees to get around a law, not legit. Then you should lose sleep.</p>
<p>Alarmism is projecting the worst, out of proportion to the reality or the real threat.<br>
Paraphrasing Urban Dictionary, spin is a misrepresentation.which has somehow been legitimized by an uneducated public.</p>
<p>ps It’s one thing to sign a form saying I owe x amount of taxes, quite another to affix my signature to a sworn affidavit swearing my motivation or intentions were in compliance with their rules.
You know calmom is an attorney and can explain. But you could also think about this. We’ve all had paperwork that had to be notarized. Or co-authorized. Or where you simply attest to the accuracy by your own signature or, for a company, an authorized officer.</p>
<p>BD, it came from whack-a-mole. Same as headsmack.
And yes, I think the proviso was always there, but the clarifications were pending; that’s what;s now coming out.</p>
<p>"If you own a company that is not losing money (in reality, not some paper shenanigans, fudging the books,) and decides to arbitrarily cut employees to get around a law, not legit. Then you should lose sleep.</p>
<p>Alarmism is projecting the worst, out of proportion to the reality or the real threat.
Paraphrasing Urban Dictionary, spin is a misrepresentation.which has somehow been legitimized by an uneducated public."</p>
<p>Interesting that people are discussing what is a legitimate reason to downsize. That people should lose sleep for cutting employees for what is deemed the “wrong” reason. If I’m a business owner, how about just because I want to? Sure, I’m still making money, but I want to increase my profit further so I can eventually retire, and employees are getting too expensive to maintain, so I’m cutting back.</p>
<p>And then telling us about Alarmism, and misrepresentation? Lookingforward, can’t you see why people would be disgusted and concerned?
Whack.</p>
<p>What does legit mean LF? I am allowed to lay-off 20 people just because I think it’s a good idea? Maybe, I’m not losing money but I think we can make more. Is that okay? Maybe, I have a store and I want to open less hours and employ fewer people. Can I do that? Or does the government have to approve? Legit? This is getting really weird. </p>
<p>If you just want to, maybe ok, maybe not. There are many pre-existing worker protection laws. And BD, you know how unions work.
(comment was back to BD)</p>
<p>What’s weird about it? Already there are certain actions a business can’t do for certain reasons, though they can do the same action for other reasons. I can fire someone because they are incompetent, or because I don’t have enough business to support all the employees I presently have, but I can’t fire them because they’re female, or old, or pregnant, or black. And now I can’t fire them to get under the employer mandate threshold either. Yawn.</p>
<p>FWIW, GP’s allegation about the “certifying to IRS” comes from a WaPo BLOG post that is sourced to a Fox News op ed. Until there is a published regulation and form, this whole kerfuffle falls under the category of rumor, courtesy of the same people who pumped up the ideas of death panels. </p>
<p>Actually, calmom, I wasn’t sure if it was legitimate, so I’d referred to it as “if this is true.” But it seemed pretty legitimate when you spent paragraphs defending why this is just fine. So perhaps that was just an automatic response on your part, as opposed to knowledge of that law.</p>
<p>And cf, just because the government regulates the legality of some of employers actions doesn’t mean they are allowed to regulate every single thing a business owner does, at their discretion.</p>
<p>Yes, lookingforward, I know how unions work. And our furlough policies are negotiated. They have to cut everyone’s hours first, they have to lay off in seniority order, they can’t rehire anyone else until all furloughees are called back. But the union can’t control what reasons the company is allowed to furlough.</p>
<p>There are lots of things the govt does regulate- and some of all the laws and regulations and conditions is easy to access. (Cumbersome to wade through, however.) Not just federal but also state imposed. </p>
<p>At one point, an employer wanted to set my team up as independent contractors- anyone here besides calmom ever really dig through those regs and penalties for false actions (false actions for the primary benefit of the employer.) The lawyers had them pull back on that idea pronto (but not fast enough- there are also process regulations that required a declaration to the labor folks here. and that was done.) A mess. Different states clamp down harder- YES, operating a biz can be quite cumbersome.</p>
<p>Flossy, you can drive more profit if you ignore EPA or OSHA expectations, just slide a little more spilloff into the river when no one is looking. </p>
<p>BD, I do know what people should be concerned about. But we barely touch on those items here. We keep rebutting “sky is falling” stuff that’s linked because some WP blogger said it or Fox is spinning it. I’d bet you wine that, with all the numbers research, dstark has come across far more than shared here. Because I have. Some of it is right in front of our noses. But we get all emotional and waylaid because someone wants to use an anecdote as proof the sky really is coming down. Not you.</p>
<p>Busdriver11 is an alarmist. She has been an alarmist for years. I am amazed the country hasnt been overtaken by treehugging, socialist, poor people. The income tax rates should be 100 percent right now for the wealthy. Nobody works. That is what busdriver11 told me is going to happen for years. </p>
<p>This employer laying off issue is a joke. Everybody is going to quit their job one day. That is what we read .</p>
<p>A week later. There are going to be massive layoffs. </p>
<p>This is awful. Everybody is going to quit their jobs AND there are going to be massive layoffs. I dont know who is going to get laid off when nobody is working, but I am sure we will find out about this soon as the whole population of the US is sipping Mai Tais while 85 people do all the work. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Uhh, how about the Federal Register (p.124)?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Where does that say anything about “certifying to the IRS”?</p>
<p>:D dstark, you are an exaggerating piece of work!</p>
<p>I live in the middle of treehugger central, and as a city, we’re still pretty prosperous in spite of it.</p>
<p>GP: It is getting increasingly Orwellian what our govt is doing. Companies now must justify their workforce decisions to the IRS. If a company reduces its workforce from 104 to 97 employees to qualify for the delay in the mandate, they have to swear to the IRS they didn’t do it to avoid the Obamacare mandate. The certification is made under the threat of perjury. So the IRS is now the thought police, attempting to divine the motives of corporations for their workforce decisions. My bold.</p>
<p>Then me, 632am: companies have been following IRS and other govt procedures all along, certifying that their submissions are accurate.</p>
<p>This thread goes nuts over parsing a word. Synonyms include: attest, profess, state. Not a congressional hearing.
And, I can’t tell what point BB makes- all that looks clear to me, same as my examples. </p>
<p>page 125</p>
<p><a href=“4”>quote</a> Certification of Eligibility for Transition Relief. The applicable large employer
certifies on a prescribed form that it meets the eligibility requirements set forth in
paragraphs (1) through (3). The forthcoming final regulations under section 6056 are
expected to provide that an applicable large employer, or an applicable large employer
member, that otherwise qualifies for the transition relief described in this section XV.D.6
will provide this certification as part of the transmittal form it is required to file with the
IRS under…
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And why does this forum no longer allow me to enter emoticons? I have been told that they are my friend, yet apparently I am disallowed the usage of them. Probably a government conspiracy. I’ll bet lookingforward a bottle of good red wine that it is. :"> </p>
<p>Once again, no emoticon.</p>