The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created new reporting requirements under Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 6055 and 6056. These new reporting rules require certain employers to report information to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on the health coverage offered during the year. Quick Facts: Signed into law on June 29, 2015, the Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 increases the penalties for reporting entities that fail to comply with Section 6055 or 6056 reporting. The increased penalties take effect for returns and statements filed in 2016. Short-term relief from penalties is available in certain limited circumstances. Read the full article  for more information on Section 6055 and Section 6056 reporting violations. Should you have questions, please contact HANYS Benefit Services by calling (800) 388-1963 or email us at hbs@hanys.org.

The new ACA Information Center for Applicable Large Employers page on IRS.gov features information and resources for employers of all sizes on how the health care law may affect them if they fit the definition of an applicable large employer. The web page includes the following sections: What’s Trending for ALEs,  How to Determine if You are an ALE,  Resources for Applicable Large Employers, and  Outreach Materials.  Visitors to the new page will find links to: Detailed information about tax provisions including information reporting requirements for employers,  Questions and answers, and  Forms, instructions, publications, health care tax tips, flyers and videos.  Although the vast majority of employers will not be affected, you should determine if you are an applicable large employer. If you averaged at least 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalent employees, during 2014, you are most likely an ALE for 2015. If you have fewer than ...

For taxable years beginning in 2018, the Affordable Care Act (ACA) imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost group health coverage. This tax, also known as the “Cadillac tax,” is intended to encourage companies to choose lower-cost health plans for their employees. On July 30, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued  Notice 2015-52  to continue the process of developing guidance to implement the Cadillac tax. This notice supplements  Notice 2015-16 , issued on Feb. 23, 2015. Notice 2015-52 addresses additional issues under the Cadillac tax, including: Identification of the taxpayers who may be liable for the excise tax; Employer aggregation; Allocation of the tax among the applicable taxpayers; and Payment of the applicable tax. The IRS invites comments on these issues and any other issues under the Cadillac tax. Currently,  proposed or final regulations have not been issued on the ACA’s Cadillac tax provision . After considering the comments on ...

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has made a number of significant changes to group health plans since the law was enacted over four years ago. Many of these key reforms became effective in 2014 and 2015, including health plan design changes, increased wellness program incentives and the employer shared responsibility penalties. Additional reforms take effect in 2016 for employers sponsoring group health plans. To prepare for 2016, employers should review upcoming requirements and develop a compliance strategy. This Legislative Brief provides a health care reform compliance checklist for 2016. If you have questions about this document or changes that were required in previous years, please contact HANYS Benefit Services by calling (800) 388-1963 or email us at  hbs@hanys.org  for assistance.

The 1972 Stealers Wheel song, “Stuck in the Middle with You” comes to mind when you look at the U.S. economy and stock market in the second quarter of 2015. Read the Q2 Retirement Market Recap to review the key market drivers for the second quarter financial performance. The HBS Retirement Market Recap provides a summary of market and economic events which have influenced the financial markets in the past quarter. HBS Retirement Market Recap also includes a feature segment called “What’s Happening in the Retirement Market?” which selects a notable industry event to highlight for the quarter. For questions about this Market Recap, or for information on how HANYS Benefit Services can enhance your organization's retirement offering, please get in touch by calling (800) 388-1963 or email us at hbs@hanys.org .

To meet the growing need in the New York City area, HANYS Benefit Services (HBS), an industry leader with more than 45 years of providing trusted advisory services, retirement plan offerings, and best-in-class employee benefits products, recently expanded operations to a new location in Melville, New York. HBS hired a new team of executives, led by Peter Margiotta, Vice President, Client Relationship Development, to deepen access to senior executives for New York City area clients. “We are very excited to have Peter on board, leading the charge to strengthen our downstate presence,” said James Kelley, HBS President. “HBS strives to build real relationships with our clients, creating a shared fiduciary responsibility with the companies we advise. Having a full team based in Melville will allow us to better serve our New York City clients in this capacity.” Peter Margiotta has more than 25 years of experience in the retirement benefit planning industry, specializing in retirement plans ...

The recent U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Tibble vs. Edison has been described as “historic,” “ground-breaking,” and even “revolutionary.” The significant attention this case has generated is due in large part to the fact that a case about retirement plans reached the Supreme Court and that the Supreme Court unanimously overturned the lower courts’ decisions. Yet, the underlying premise behind the decision in this case is not particularly glamorous. It is very familiar to us all: the fiduciary responsibilities of a plan sponsor. The key points of the case are as follows: Mr. Tibble argued that his employer, Edison International, acted imprudently by including higher-cost retail mutual funds in the retirement plan when lower-cost institutional-class funds were available. Both the District Court and the Ninth Circuit Court ruled that the six-year statute of limitations precluded the claims from being brought. The Supreme Court overturned the lower courts’ rulings and declared that “a fi...