<p><a href=“Health care compliance Form 8928 excise tax self-reporting requirements: Have you done your due diligence for 2011 and determined the due date for your return, if required? | Employee Benefits Law Report”>http://www.employeebenefitslawreport.com/2012/02/health-care-compliance-form-8928-excise-tax-self-reporting-requirements-have-you-done-your-due-diligence-for-2011-and-determined-the-due-date-for-your-return-if-required/</a></p>
<p>“For those who would like more explanation about these requirements, we will focus on 4980B and 4980D. These provisions contain penalty caps and exceptions for various situations. 4980B and 4980D provide that no excise tax will be imposed for any period for which the IRS is satisfied the person otherwise liable for the tax did not know about the failure, and exercising reasonable due diligence, would not have known about the failure. In addition, no excise tax will be imposed if the failure was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect; is corrected within 30 days of the date a person knew of a failure, or exercising due diligence would have known of a failure; and is corrected before notice of examination. The Form 8928 instructions provide that correction means retroactively undoing the failure to the extent possible, and placing any affected person in at least the same financial position he or she would have been in if the failure had not occurred. The IRS may waive part or all of the excise tax for a failure due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, to the extent that payment would be excessive relative to the failure.”</p>
<p>Here is another link explaining the 36K penalty.</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-insurance-better-unapproved-insurance-under-obamacare_786056.html”>http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs/no-insurance-better-unapproved-insurance-under-obamacare_786056.html</a></p>
<p>We need to use real links. </p>
<p><a href=“26 U.S. Code § 4980D - Failure to meet certain group health plan requirements | U.S. Code | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute”>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/4980D</a></p>
<p>“(c) Limitations on amount of tax
(1) Tax not to apply where failure not discovered exercising reasonable diligence
No tax shall be imposed by subsection (a) on any failure during any period for which it is established to the satisfaction of the Secretary that the person otherwise liable for such tax did not know, and exercising reasonable diligence would not have known, that such failure existed.
(2) Tax not to apply to failures corrected within certain periods
No tax shall be imposed by subsection (a) on any failure if—
(A) such failure was due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, and
(B)
(i) in the case of a plan other than a church plan (as defined in section 414 (e)), such failure is corrected during the 30-day period beginning on the first date the person otherwise liable for such tax knew, or exercising reasonable diligence would have known, that such failure existed, and
(ii) in the case of a church plan (as so defined), such failure is corrected before the close of the correction period (determined under the rules of section 414 (e)(4)(C)).
(3) Overall limitation for unintentional failures
In the case of failures which are due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect—
(A) Single employer plans
(i) In general In the case of failures with respect to plans other than specified multiple employer health plans, the tax imposed by subsection (a) for failures during the taxable year of the employer shall not exceed the amount equal to the lesser of—
(I) 10 percent of the aggregate amount paid or incurred by the employer (or predecessor employer) during the preceding taxable year for group health plans, or
(II) $500,000.
(ii) Taxable years in the case of certain controlled groups For purposes of this subparagraph, if not all persons who are treated as a single employer for purposes of this section have the same taxable year, the taxable years taken into account shall be determined under principles similar to the principles of section 1561.
(B) Specified multiple employer health plans
(i) In general In the case of failures with respect to a specified multiple employer health plan, the tax imposed by subsection (a) for failures during the taxable year of the trust forming part of such plan shall not exceed the amount equal to the lesser of—
(I) 10 percent of the amount paid or incurred by such trust during such taxable year to provide medical care (as defined in section 9832 (d)(3)) directly or through insurance, reimbursement, or otherwise, or
(II) $500,000.
For purposes of the preceding sentence, all plans of which the same trust forms a part shall be treated as one plan.
(ii) Special rule for employers required to pay tax If an employer is assessed a tax imposed by subsection (a) by reason of a failure with respect to a specified multiple employer health plan, the limit shall be determined under subparagraph (A) (and not under this subparagraph) and as if such plan were not a specified multiple employer health plan.
(4) Waiver by Secretary
In the case of a failure which is due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the Secretary may waive part or all of the tax imposed by subsection (a) to the extent that the payment of such tax would be excessive relative to the failure involved.”</p>
<p>“not sure whether it is apples and oranges”</p>
<p>Maybe more like tangerines and oranges </p>
<p>dstark: I know this thread is 826 pages long and I probably missed a few details…but where exactly were you declared the designator of ‘real links’? Since post numbers are no longer available…just a page number will do. 8-| </p>
<p>I think dstark threw in the towel and just admitted the $36,500 penalty actually exists.</p>
<p>The point being made is not whether it is intentional or not but that an employer who provides coverage without giving every preventative service for free as mandated by Obamacare is fined 18 times as much as an employer who doesn’t provide any coverage.</p>
<p>dstark obviously doesn’t appreciate the irony of this penalty.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Well, I thought that blogs weren’t allowed and that is a blog. </p>
<p>Can’t find the TOS anymore though so couldn’t tell you for sure 
</p>
<p>One… There may not even be an excise tax. </p>
<p>Two…the excise tax is capped.</p>
<p>Three… I do agree. This kind of sucks. </p>
<p>“EXAMPLE: In a much-publicized recent case, Hobby Lobby agreed to provide its employees with 16 of the 20 forms of contraceptives required by the government, but objected to four forms of contraceptives for religious reasons. This is enough to trigger the excise tax of $100 per day. Multiplied by the 13,000 individuals insured under the Hobby Lobby plan, the excise tax would amount to $1.3 million per day, or nearly $475 million per year. To put this into perspective, if Hobby Lobby were simply to drop its health insurance coverage altogether, it would be subject to “only” a $26 million annual penalty under the “pay or play” rules beginning in 2015.”</p>
<p>"(A) Single employer plans
(i) In general In the case of failures with respect to plans other than specified multiple employer health plans, the tax imposed by subsection (a) for failures during the taxable year of the employer shall not exceed the amount equal to the lesser of—
(I) 10 percent of the aggregate amount paid or incurred by the employer (or predecessor employer) during the preceding taxable year for group health plans, or
(II) $500,000.
(ii) Taxable years in the case of certain controlled groups For purposes of this subparagraph, if not all persons who are treated as a single employer for purposes of this section have the same taxable year, the taxable years taken into account shall be determined under principles similar to the principles of section 1561."</p>
<p>Looks like the tax is $500,000. $500,000/$13,000=$38.46 a person.</p>
<p>You guys have anything that disputes the above?</p>
<p>I did a quick google and came up with this:</p>
<p><a href=“Fully Insured Group Health Plans May No Longer Provide Discriminatory Benefits | Insights | Jones Day”>http://www.jonesday.com/fully_insured_group_health_plans/</a></p>
<p>See Section Excise Tax. </p>
<p>I think this penalty (100 x # of employees per day) is only applicable if the benefit is offered to some employees but not others (for instance management verses hourly workers.) I don’t think it’s applicable if no one in the company gets the benefit. </p>
<p>But I am not a lawyer so might be missing something. </p>
<p>I am curious how the number of residencies go up if the medicare funding for them is fixed. Are hospitals or other agencies funding to create them?</p>
<p><a href=“Match Day Sees All-Time Highs For New Doctors – Physicians News”>Match Day Sees All-Time Highs For New Doctors – Physicians News;
<p>“Two…the excise tax is capped.”</p>
<p>Not for employers who intentionally provide insurance not 100% in accordance with Obamacare.</p>
<p>dstark, reread your own links.</p>
<p>Emily, you are mixing apples and oranges. See the post on that subject by Texas.</p>
<p>Highlight it GP. Show me. Copy and paste.</p>
<p>Section 4980D imposes a nondeductible excise tax of $100 per day per affected individual for failure to comply with Code Chapter 100, group health plan requirements. For failures due to REASONABLE CAUSE and NOT TO WILLFUL NEGLECT, this tax is capped at the lesser of ten percent of amounts paid to provide health care, or $500,0000.</p>
<p>I believe this is your link.</p>
<p><a href=“Health care compliance Form 8928 excise tax self-reporting requirements: Have you done your due diligence for 2011 and determined the due date for your return, if required? | Employee Benefits Law Report”>http://www.employeebenefitslawreport.com/2012/02/health-care-compliance-form-8928-excise-tax-self-reporting-requirements-have-you-done-your-due-diligence-for-2011-and-determined-the-due-date-for-your-return-if-required/</a></p>
<p>GP, I noted that I might not be interrupting the code correctly. And I couldn’t care less if Hobby Lobby or any other company that refuses to offer any essential benefit has to pay that big a fine. I am fine with that being the fine. </p>
<p>Ok. I appreciate that. Who is going to do this? Who is going to willfully neglect to offer health plans with minimums required and pay a 36,500 fine per person per year?</p>
<p>“I might not be interrupting the code correctly.”</p>
<p>Is that a Freudian slip?</p>
<p>Texaspg, love the Dilbert Strip.</p>