Questions and Answers to Help Your Organization Understand ACA Reporting Requirements

The IRS has a series of Questions and Answers that helps employers understand the Affordable Care Act reporting requirements that apply to them.

The health care law requires applicable large employers to file information returns with the IRS and provide statements to their full-time employees about the health insurance coverage the employer offered. An applicable large employer is an employer that employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the preceding calendar year.

Here are three questions and answers that address specific situations that might apply to your organization.

Is an ALE member that sponsors a self-insured health plan required to file Form 1094-C and Form 1095-C if the ALE member has no full-time employees?

Generally, yes. An ALE member that sponsors a self-insured health plan in which any employee or employee’s spouse or dependent has enrolled is required to file Form 1094-C and Form 1095-C, whether or not that employer has any full-time employees and whether or not that individual is a current employee or a full-time employee. For an individual who enrolled in coverage who was not an employee in any month of the year, the employer may file Forms 1094-B and 1095-B for that individual.

Is an employer that is not an ALE member required to file under the Affordable Care Act if the employer sponsors a self-insured health plan that provides minimum essential coverage?

No; however, such an employer is subject to the reporting obligations under the Affordable Care Act. An employer that is not an ALE member that sponsors a self-insured health plan in which any individual has enrolled is not subject to the reporting requirements of ACA. Such an employer will generally satisfy its reporting obligations by filing Form 1094-B and Form 1095-B.

Is an ALE member required to report under the Affordable Care Act with respect to a full-time employee who is not offered coverage during the year?

Yes. An ALE member is required to report information about the health coverage, if any, offered to each of its full-time employees, including whether an offer of health coverage was – or was not – made. This requirement applies to all ALE members, regardless of whether they offered health coverage to all, none, or some of their full-time employees. For each of its full-time employees, the ALE member is required to file Form 1095-C with the IRS and furnish a copy of Form 1095-C to the employee, regardless of whether or not health coverage was or was not offered to the employee. Therefore, even if an ALE member does not offer coverage to any of its full-time employees, it must file returns with the IRS and furnish statements to each of its full-time employees to report information specifying that coverage was not offered.

For the full list of questions and answers about reporting requirements for employers, see our Reporting Offers of Health Insurance Coverage by Employers page on IRS.gov/aca. The IRS website is also the place to find questions and answers for a wide range of ACA topics for individuals, employers and other organizations.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

May 17, 2020
By Marsha M. Brown, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Trustee Douglas W. Neway (Jacksonville, FL) We talk about it daily - emailing issues back and forth as to what is reasonable and what is not. Should every Court have a basic reasonable fee structure or should every attorney be required to file an application to prove the reasonableness of his/her...
Members
April 4, 2021
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction We saw in Part 1 that the circuits are falling in line to follow the "snapshot" rule, fixing the debtor's exemption rights as of the date of the petition and finding support in both the Code and recent Supreme Court jurisprudence. As the First Circuit put it . ....
Members
kevinanderson
June 26, 2022
Consumers have burned through their stimulus cash and are now drawing down their savings to satisfy pent up spending sprees and to cover the increasing cost of living. This cannot continue. From 2015 through the end of 2019, consumers held a consistent average of $1.1 trillion in savings. However, with the commencement of the COVID pandemic and the first of...
Members
emily-connor-kennedy
July 24, 2022
I hope that you’ve enjoyed the articles from Mark Leffler and Steve Relyea discussing how our firm began litigating against creditors in bankruptcy court and mortgage servicers in federal district court. In this (final) installment, I will discuss our entry into Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation. Our firm’s history with Fair Credit Reporting Act litigation is intertwined with the relationships...
Members
gendron-1
April 2, 2023
Section in 109(g)(2) of the Bankruptcy Code bars a debtor from filing a new case for 180 days if the Debtor voluntarily dismisses a case “following” a motion for relief. Not surprisingly, courts are split on how they interpret the word “following” as used in § 109(g)(2). After all, the word “following” is not limited to one definition, or even...
Members
June 28, 2020
By Anthony J. Gomez, CPA, former extern to the Honorable John P. Gustafson, Northern District of Ohio at Toledo Click here for Part 1 Click here for Part 2 IV. The Hanging Paragraph’s effect on Interest Rates When the hanging paragraph is applicable, creditors are entitled to the full value of their secured claims as . . . It looks...
Members
morgenstern-clarren
November 26, 2023
Although this article was originally published in 2009, Judge Morgenstern-Clarren took a fresh look just this week. It is just as relevant today as the day she first wrote it
Members
October 27, 2019
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) Debtor could cure default beyond 60 months. Agreeing with In re Klaas, 858 F.3d 820 (3d Cir. 2017), bankruptcy court had discretion to permit debtors to cure plan default, allowing a reasonable grace period beyond the 60 months of confirmed plan. Dismissal of the case for plan default was not required under §...
Members
August 11, 2019
By Henry E. Hildebrand, III, Chapter 13 Standing Trustee (Nashville, TN) Exemptions in consumer cases have always presented difficult problems for practitioners and trustees. In a bow to states’ rights, the Bankruptcy Act of 1898 deferred to exemptions created by state law. When BAPCPA was enacted in 2005, Congress continued the practice of allowing each state to “opt out” of...
Members
July 28, 2019
Tiffany M. Cornejo was appointed as the Chapter 13 Standing Trustee for the District of New Mexico on December 1, 2017. She took the reins from retiring Kelley Skehen. Ms. Cornejo received her Bachelor of Science in Journalism (B.S.J.) degree at the University of Kansas in Lawrence in 2002 and remained there to obtain her Juris Doctor in 2005. She...

Looking to Become a Member?

ConsiderChapter13.org offers a forum to advance continuing education of consumer bankruptcy via access to insightful articles, informative webinars, and the latest industry news. Join now to benefit from expert resources and stay informed.

Webinars

These informative sessions are led by industry experts and cover a range of consumer bankruptcy topics.

Member Articles

Written by industry experts, these articles provide in-depth analysis and practical guidance on consumer bankruptcy topics.

Industry News

The Academy is the go-to source for the latest news and analysis in the Chapter 13 bankruptcy industry.

To get started, please let us know which of these best fits your current position: