IRS Extends Due Date for Employers and Providers to Issue Health Coverage Forms to Individuals in 2018

IRS announced 12/22/17 that it has extended the 2018 due date for certain entities to provide 2017 health coverage information forms to individuals. Insurers, self-insuring employers, other coverage providers, and applicable large employers now have until March 2, 2018, to provide Forms 1095-B or 1095-C to individuals, which is a 30-day extension from the original due date of Jan. 31. Insurers, self-insuring employers, other coverage providers, and applicable large employers must furnish statements to employees or covered individuals regarding the health care coverage offered to them. Individuals may use this information to determine whether, for each month of the calendar year, they may claim the premium tax credit on their individual income tax returns.

This 30-day extension is automatic. Employers and providers don’t have to request it. The due dates for filing 2017 information returns with the IRS are not extended. For 2018, the due dates to file information returns with the IRS are:

  • Feb. 28 for paper filers
  • April 2 for electronic filers

Because of these extensions, individuals may not receive their Forms 1095-B or 1095-C by the time they are ready to file their 2017 individual income tax return. While information on these forms may assist in preparing a return, the forms are not required to file. Taxpayers can prepare and file their returns using other information about their health coverage. They do not have to wait for Forms 1095-B or 1095-C to file.

No Author Biography has been linked to this Article.

Related Articles

June 23, 2019
Members of the military and their families often qualify for special tax benefits. For example, members of the armed forces don’t have to pay taxes on some types of income. In addition, special rules could lower the tax they owe or allow them more time to file and pay their federal taxes. Here are some of these special tax benefits:...
June 28, 2020
By Cathy Moran, Esq. (Redwood City, CA) Long after the human patients recover from the coronavirus, small businesses will still be ailing. And long nights will be spent deciding whether to try to stay in business. As bankruptcy lawyers, we’re going to see people in pain trying to assess what to do next. Business owners may see the exit heading...
Members
image004
April 2, 2023
Consumer law attorney, mentor and educator, Oliver Max Gardner III recently announced that he is retiring. His passion, diligent research and unmatched expertise has served as a north star in consumer law for so many of us. From building a community of like-minded enthusiasts through the renowned Bankruptcy Boot Camp and cultivating an army of consumer litigators to fiercely defending...
gustafson2
Conduit vs. Direct Mortgage Payments – The Case Law To Consider1 The requirement that debtors pay their mortgage payments to their Chapter 13 Trustee as a “conduit” has advantages and disadvantages. One advantage is the fact that the Chapter 13 Trustee’s records are readily accepted by both the court and creditors in the event of a payment dispute. This advantage...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
June 26, 2022
Even though the Model Plan in the district provides that the applicable commitment period starts from confirmation, the debtor may not apply pre-confirmation payments toward payments made during the applicable commitment period but must apply those payments in addition to the applicable commitment period payments. (Applebaum) In re Batoha, 2022 WL 1310943 (Bankr. E.D. Mich. May 2, 2022) Case Summary...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
February 12, 2023
Section 1329(c), as it currently exists, forecloses the ability of Chapter 13 debtor to modify a confirmed plan to alter the plan payment amount while maintaining an extended plan, previously approved under the CARES Act. (Hanan) In re Nelson, 2022 WL 6795096 (Bankr. E.D. Wis. October 11, 2022) Case Summary Immediately after the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, Congress sought...
Members
April 7, 2019
By Lawrence R. Ahern III, Brown & Ahern (Nashville, TN) Introduction On March 20, 2019, the Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Obduskey v. McCarthy & Holthus LLP1 that actions required by state law in a nonjudicial foreclosure are not regulated by the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA).2 The decision resolved a split in the circuits. In addition to the...
Members
May 17, 2020
By The Honorable William Houston Brown (Retired) No attorney fees for Chapter 7 work in converted case. In a case that began as Chapter 7 and converted to Chapter 13, the debtor’s attorney sought fees for work in the Chapter 7 phase under § 330(a)(4)(B) rather than § 330(a)(1). The Court found the better interpretation of § 330(a)(4)(B)’s language “in...
Members
December 20, 2020
By James M. Davis, Staff Attorney to Chapter 13 Standing Trustee Henry E. Hildebrand, III (Nashville, TN) Bankruptcy Courts take determinations from the Supreme Court seriously. And rightfully so. But sometimes, some bankruptcy courts are guilty of reading too much into the Court’s statements. The latest example is the soul searching around “nunc pro tunc” (“now for then”) orders. Earlier...
Members
Copy of Hildebrand-2016
January 23, 2022
Requirements and remedies in Rule 3002.1 apply to reverse mortgages as well as conventional mortgages; while discharge of Chapter 13 plan does not discharge a mortgage obligation treated pursuant to § 1325(b)(5), the court may prohibit prospective use of a nondisclosed obligation as grounds for a default. (Waites) In re Legare-Doctor, 2021 WL 5712149 (Bankr. D. S.C. Dec. 1, 2021)...
Members