Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

IRS Warns Employers: Do Not Try to Avoid ObamaCare Insurance Mandate
Cybercast News Service ^ | January 10, 2013 | Matt Cover

Posted on 01/10/2013 6:51:52 AM PST by Olog-hai

The Internal Revenue Service warned employers in a new regulatory proposal not to come up with clever schemes to avoid Obamacare’s employer health insurance mandate.

The IRS said it would soon issue “anti-abuse rules” to discourage employers from taking advantage of any regulatory loopholes.

“The Treasury Department and the IRS are aware of various structures being considered under which employers might use temporary staffing agencies (or other staffing agencies)… to evade application of section 4980H [the employer insurance mandate],” the IRS said in a proposed regulatory announcement issued December 28. …

(Excerpt) Read more at cnsnews.com ...


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Constitution/Conservatism; Front Page News; News/Current Events; US: District of Columbia
KEYWORDS: fuirs; govtabuse; irs; mandate; nazistate; obama; obamabrownshirts; obamacare; policestate; tyranny; waronliberty
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last
This keeps up, there will soon be no employers to warn.
1 posted on 01/10/2013 6:52:02 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“Ve have vays of makink you talk”


2 posted on 01/10/2013 6:53:55 AM PST by skeeter
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

3 posted on 01/10/2013 6:54:15 AM PST by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
And you can just forget about driving at 64 mph as well; that will only attract our suspicion.
4 posted on 01/10/2013 6:54:35 AM PST by Steely Tom (If the Constitution can be a living document, I guess a corporation can be a person.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Anyone question now why the idiot in our White House has recently armed all federal agents with an enormous amounts of weapons and ammo? Has anyone now any questions as to why they needed all those weapons and ammunition?

They know there’ll be some big problems pretty soon with the citizens of this country.

This is far beyond a conspiracy.


5 posted on 01/10/2013 6:55:54 AM PST by laweeks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
...employers might use temporary staffing agencies...

Huh! Thanks for the tip! Of course there might be a bunch of these agencies that have 49 employees apiece...

6 posted on 01/10/2013 6:57:08 AM PST by alancarp (Obama will grab your guns and ship them to Mexican drug mobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Image Hosted by ImageShack.us
7 posted on 01/10/2013 6:57:10 AM PST by cripplecreek (REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The Internal Revenue Service warned employers in a new regulatory proposal

Another division of Obama's "Brown Shirts" Seig Heil!!

8 posted on 01/10/2013 6:57:53 AM PST by Don Corleone ("Oil the gun..eat the cannoli. Take it to the Mattress.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

hey they told us in school this exact sentence “tax evasion is illegal, tax avoidance is legal”, so is the IRS putting the kabosh on tax planning?


9 posted on 01/10/2013 6:57:53 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
People need to start turning it around. "Nice government agency you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it"

/johnny

10 posted on 01/10/2013 7:01:46 AM PST by JRandomFreeper (Gone Galt)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Directive 10-289


11 posted on 01/10/2013 7:02:47 AM PST by dfwgator
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
When in America did it become a "LOOPHOLE" to legally avoid paying more of your hard earned money to the Government?

The media is our number ONE enemy.
12 posted on 01/10/2013 7:04:38 AM PST by Cheerio (Barry Hussein Soetoro-0bama=The Complete Destruction of American Capitalism)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

You mean they left a ‘loophole’ in their obambacare law?


13 posted on 01/10/2013 7:04:49 AM PST by Scrambler Bob (Honk Honk - I am the Goose that laid the Golden Eggs - and I have tightened the sphincter! ....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Lol! If stopping the use of tax loopholes was really this easy, why haven't they just issued one of these "anti loophole" edicts across the board?

Answer: They are just blowing smoke and trying to scare companies into compliance. If a creative tax accountant uses a loophole, then the IRS has the option to challenge it on a case by case basis in court.

14 posted on 01/10/2013 7:08:22 AM PST by apillar
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Scrambler Bob

I guess they had to pass the law to see where the loopholes were in it.


15 posted on 01/10/2013 7:09:11 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Thus, you can forget the specific words of the statute, it says whatever the IRS says it says.


16 posted on 01/10/2013 7:09:32 AM PST by circlecity
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

“IRS Warns Employers: Do Not Try to Avoid ObamaCare Insurance Mandate”

Addendum: “Do not even THINK about trying to avoid the ObamaCare Insurance Mandate”

Addendum: “We will tell you what ‘avoid’ and ‘try’ means


17 posted on 01/10/2013 7:11:47 AM PST by RFEngineer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Right, so there is no choice, as Obama promised.


18 posted on 01/10/2013 7:15:52 AM PST by Durbin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Similarly, IRS said that if an employer hires the same person for two part-time stints by using two different employment agencies, it will hold either the employer or one of the employment agencies liable for the mandate’s penalties.

And the government beast continues to grow, and kill productive jobs.

19 posted on 01/10/2013 7:17:58 AM PST by FatherofFive (Islam is evil and must be eradicated)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Perhaps it’s time to change the name of the IRS. In the spirit of Dear Leader’s awesome transparent administration, I’m thinking something along the lines of ‘House of Overlords’ or HOs (for short) might be appropriate.
20 posted on 01/10/2013 7:19:50 AM PST by liberalh8ter (If Barack has a memory like a steel trap, why can't he remember what the Constitution says?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
Fact is, we are a highly-polarized country. The Left has convinced Eric Holder's people that the only reason they're not all "rich" is because evil white people have stolen everything from them. This is all pretty predictable, from the French Revolution to the Bolsheviks to Mao to Pol Pot and on and on.

War is coming. We will not survive. Some of our kids might.

21 posted on 01/10/2013 7:20:06 AM PST by E. Pluribus Unum (TYRANNY: When the people fear the politicians. LIBERTY: When the politicians fear the people.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The IRS also said that in order for an employer’s health insurance plan to pass muster with the government, it must be available to 95 percent of employees and cost no more than 9.5 percent of an employee’s wages.

Now this is a new rule I hadn't heard of. We have great insurance through my husband's company and it's always been the company pays 3/4, we pay 1/4. That costs is around $250-300 per month. We're okay with the no more than 9.5% of salary but my husband's one of the higher paid employees, but what about the employees at the bottom of the totem pole. The guy making $10 an hour, that policy is going to be more than 9.5% of his pay...so what will the company do, make employees pay for insurance based on their salary...or lower their policy costs by buying crummy insurance that won't be more than 9.5% of the $10 an hour worker?

22 posted on 01/10/2013 7:21:00 AM PST by memyselfandi59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Don Corleone
IRS auditors and enforcement people know very well that there's not a single rule in Obamakkkare that is enforceable provided NO ONE OBEYS ANY OF IT.

If we do not obey this law, nor adhere to any of its rules, the country does not have enough IRS and other federal agents to round us up, nor courts to try us, nor juries to find us guilty.

A handful of states might try to use force to bring their residents into compliance, e.g. New York, Massachusetts, California, New Jersey or Maryland, but few others have politicians who would cross the line.

23 posted on 01/10/2013 7:27:45 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
The Internal Revenue Service warned employers in a new regulatory proposal not to come up with clever schemes to avoid Obamacare’s employer health insurance mandate

While the Administration talks about minting trillion dollar coins to get around the debt ceiling.

Nice.

24 posted on 01/10/2013 7:29:13 AM PST by tacticalogic ("Oh, bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: memyselfandi59

I don’t understand the purpose of that requirement, either. It seems like it really would have the effect of lowering the quality of health care insurance for lower income individuals. Also, aren’t there mandates in Obamacare speaking to what must be covered in an “acceptable policy?” If that’s the case, that would most likely increase the price of lower cost insurance policies.

The oth question I have is, what happens if your current policy cost exceeds 9.5 percent of your wages? Is the employer required to buy a cheaper policy for you? The language stated is “...must not exceed 9.5 percent...”


25 posted on 01/10/2013 7:31:38 AM PST by MNGal
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: memyselfandi59

or lower their salaries so the ins will be 9.5%


26 posted on 01/10/2013 7:32:08 AM PST by yldstrk (My heroes have always been cowboys)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

People in business can only try to make a profit given the totality of the incentives and regulations they are forced to successfully navigate.

If you punish an employer where the margin on low skilled employees between their pay and their productivity is very low, when government mandates that full time employees must have an expensive fringe benefit, but allows part time employees to escape the mandate, guess what? Employees at the lower end of the skills and productivity matrix are going to be part timers.

So yet another Blue model breaks down: all the social justice activists who thought that ObamaCare was going to bring out the magic unicorns all traversing the golden rainbow while defecating Skittles and Arizona Tea are going to be shocked to find out that instead of workers getting a more easy life with free health care, the full time job is going to disappear.

Instead of one full time job and a 40 hour week, workers at every level up to valuable management and those with high skills (like programmers and doctors) are going to work two part time jobs and have a 50 hour week, and no benefits.

The instant this new reality dawns on the low-information voters, they are going still blame greedy insurance companies! And as sure as the sun rises, you know that community activists and the social justice crowd are going to find a way to explain (er, lie) this reality to their advantage. And so the social struggle for the soul of the “worker” continues. Sadly, economic reality is the first thing to be cast aside.


27 posted on 01/10/2013 7:32:18 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Well, that should take care of the small businesses. NEXT - the peoples’ freedom.


28 posted on 01/10/2013 7:32:29 AM PST by mykroar ("I'm afraid I can't use a mule. I have several hundred up on Capitol Hill." - Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dfwgator
Obama's Directive 10-289

An old but ever so topical FR thread.

29 posted on 01/10/2013 7:33:38 AM PST by ScaniaBoy (Part of the Right Wing Research & Attack Machine)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: memyselfandi59
The US government has difficulty with that one ~ USPS employees pay 10% out of pocket for their insurance, which costs far more. If it's based on total cost of the policy, there are just a few thousand federal employees who would have valid health insurance.

This is one case where it is possible for IRS to go to the guy with the brown shirt, arrest him, put him on trial, then flense him, 'cause all the way at the top there's one employer ~ Ol'Bama hissef!!!

I am sure the rule writer for this one will disappear shortly.

30 posted on 01/10/2013 7:33:59 AM PST by muawiyah
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: liberalh8ter

this is getting entertaining. Does the dear leader really think that he can now tell employers how many hours he can relegate to his employees??

haah!!!!! about to pop some popcorn if anyone wants some.


31 posted on 01/10/2013 7:36:16 AM PST by Chuzzlewit
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat

For my part, my startup will never have 50 employees as long as ObamaCare is in effect. I’ll offshore and outsource and set up related businesses somewhere else to avoid the limit.

ObamaCare is an affront the Constitution. The very idea that a person can be forced by government to buy something is anathema to the Declaration of Independence and especially to “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness”, which the last time I checked is still the law of the land, if not in legal reality then at least as a timeless principle from the Creator.


32 posted on 01/10/2013 7:36:49 AM PST by theBuckwheat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Angry backlash is coming.


33 posted on 01/10/2013 7:40:49 AM PST by Biggirl ("Jesus talked to us as individuals"-Jim Vicevich/Thanks JimV!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

A company can always avoid the mandates by going out of business.


34 posted on 01/10/2013 7:42:01 AM PST by Vince Ferrer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Right, they just don’t seem to get that they can not force compliance with their scheme if the people are against it. Are they going to force me to keep my business open and not fire everyone?


35 posted on 01/10/2013 7:43:49 AM PST by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: skeeter

Dem is fightin’ words.


36 posted on 01/10/2013 7:47:50 AM PST by Bloody Sam Roberts (Humans have eliminated natural selection. Morons are now a protected species. They breed and vote.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
A couple of corrupted to the core, "neo-nobility", educated barbarians



smiling at all the serfs' suffering.
37 posted on 01/10/2013 7:51:06 AM PST by rollo tomasi (Working hard to pay for deadbeats and corrupt politicians.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

Cutting your employee to 28 hrs. is now a “clever scheme” apparently.


38 posted on 01/10/2013 7:53:18 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alancarp
...employers might use temporary staffing agencies...

Except staffing agencies need to make a profit too. Paying your employee + Obamacare is likely still going to be cheaper than paying their hourly markup I'd assume.


39 posted on 01/10/2013 7:55:27 AM PST by Buckeye McFrog
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: alancarp

So in order to keep the Gestapo from being suspicious, instead of having 49 employees, businesses can keep it down to 46 or 47. Now that’s going to really help the unemployment rate.


40 posted on 01/10/2013 7:56:29 AM PST by txrefugee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

Going out of business would ultimately be cheaper still. Liberal rhetoric doesn’t work too well on empty stomachs.


41 posted on 01/10/2013 8:00:12 AM PST by Olog-hai
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: E. Pluribus Unum
"War is coming. We will not survive. Some of our kids might."

Tears....America used to be so wonderful. Can't we get that back somehow?

More tears...

42 posted on 01/10/2013 8:00:44 AM PST by hummingbird
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai

This needs to be renamed the Lawyers Full Empl;oyment regulation. Just about every business out there is going to be at the pointy end of this thing.


43 posted on 01/10/2013 8:02:01 AM PST by Cyber Liberty (Obama considers the Third World morally superior to the United States.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JRandomFreeper
People need to start turning it around. "Nice government agency you have here. Be a shame if anything happened to it"

LOL -- That Is Awesome.

44 posted on 01/10/2013 8:11:12 AM PST by OneWingedShark (Q: Why am I here? A: To do Justly, to love mercy, and to walk humbly with my God.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Buckeye McFrog

‘tis true - the next thought I had was that two side-by-side fast food joints would be wise to collaborate: use the same employees between them and coordinate schedules to give them all 20 hours a week at each separate business location... everybody wins.


45 posted on 01/10/2013 8:11:38 AM PST by alancarp (Obama will grab your guns and ship them to Mexican drug mobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: theBuckwheat
The Supremes called it a tax making it legal. The Dems will not call it a tax
to ensure they get away with Fascism in America. Boehner promised to fight
this as a tax but that was the end of it, just words that nobody is holding him accountable for.


And about that Boehner, do you recall "one" single Dem who didn't want Boehner as Speaker?
Reid has been silent also. Silence from the left speaks volumes about Boehner.

46 posted on 01/10/2013 8:13:11 AM PST by MaxMax (Gun free zones was the invitation to gun bans)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: Olog-hai
IRS Obama Warns Employers: Do Not Try to Avoid ObamaCare Insurance Mandate

Fixed.

47 posted on 01/10/2013 8:13:46 AM PST by TexasCajun
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yldstrk

I hadn’t thought of that one :)

But it’s a real problem waiting to happen. I imagine they could buy a couple different types of policies, crummy ones, not so crummy ones, and good ones...then the more you make the better insurance you could afford.

Do I really believe the ACLU will sit quietly by and watch the $10 an hour employee get bad insurance when working at the same company of the higher paid employee who has a decent plan...that’s a lawsuit waiting to happen.

Like I said, we’ve always paid around $300 per month the company picks up the $900, the plan costs $1200 per month total. I think they do offer other options, but they all look to be around the same cost. The reason our cost has stayed pretty stable for the last few years, is each year deductibles edge up, certain benefits, physical therapy, for instance, is cut back, and out of pockets are more.

But an employee making $10 a hour makes approx. $21,000. 9.5% of that is $1995 per year, or around $166 per month, which would make the total cost of the policy $646 per month (if we’re working on the assumption that employee pays 1/4, company pays 3/4.) Wonder what kind of group insurance you get for $646 per month? I’m sure you can get a policy for that, I just imagine they’d have large deductibles and out of pocket expense.


48 posted on 01/10/2013 8:14:43 AM PST by memyselfandi59
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Chuzzlewit
this is getting entertaining....

It truly is, and I see this announcement by the IRS as the beginning of the unraveling.

The fact is that nobody likes this bill, especially now that "low information" voters are finding out what it means to them.

The Supreme Court invalidated the portion of the law that would have served to coerce the states into creating exchanges. Some thirty states have opted out, and the law did not provide funding for a federal exchange.

Oh, and we have the House.

I don't think a federal exchange is even going to happen, and then there will be no mechanism by which the poor will be subsidized to buy a policy.

The Democrats in the Senate then, are placed between a rock and hard place. I think as 2014 approaches we can get them to vote to rescind. It will be suicide if they don't, the way this thing is going.

49 posted on 01/10/2013 8:17:38 AM PST by wayoverontheright
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: Steely Tom

LOL!! thanks for the chuckle


50 posted on 01/10/2013 8:21:12 AM PST by silverleaf (Age Takes a Toll: Please Have Exact Change)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-5051-98 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson