IRS Extends Due Date for Employers to Provide Form 1095 to Employees and Participants

Similar to the last couple years, the IRS announced in Notice 2018-94 that it has extended the due date for employers and insurance companies to provide 2018 Form 1095s to individuals. Applicable large employers (ALES), and small employers who offer self-insured plans, now have until March 4, 2019 to provide Forms 1095-B or 1095-C to employees and plan participants. The original due date was Jan. 31, 2019. This extension is automatic, employers do not have to request it, but there also is no option to further extend beyond March 4.

Reporting to the IRS

The due dates for filing Form 1094 and Form 1095 returns with the IRS have NOT been extended. For 2018 reporting, the deadline to file employer Form 1094 and Form 1095s with the IRS is Feb. 28, 2019 for paper filers, and April 1, 2019 for those who file electronically. Any employer filing 250 or more Form 1095s must file electronically.

Good Faith Relief

The IRS has also extended relief from reporting penalties that can apply under §§6721 and 6722 for a failure to report correct information so long as an employer can show it made good-faith efforts to comply with information-reporting requirements under §§6055 and 6056 (reporting on covered individuals and on coverage offered to full-time employees). It is important to keep in mind that there is no similar relief for a failure to file within the required time frame. Guidance indicates that for incorrect reporting that was timely submitted and distributed to individuals, “the Service will take into account whether an employer or other coverage provider made reasonable efforts to prepare for reporting the required information to the Service and furnishing it to employees and covered individuals, such as gathering and transmitting the necessary data to an agent to prepare the data for submission to the Service or testing its ability to transmit information to the Service.”

IRS Notice 2018-94: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-18-94.pdf

While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.

IRS Announces Increases to Healthcare FSA and Commuter Benefits Limits

Finally the IRS has released a Revenue Statement announcing that the Healthcare FSA limit is increasing to $2,700 for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2019, which is an increase of $50 from the current 2018 maximum of $2,650.

Also, the monthly commuter benefit limit for both mass transit and parking increased by $5, for a maximum monthly contribution limit of $265.

For more information, click here

IRS Announces 2019 Health FSA Limits

In Revenue Procedure 2018-57, the IRS sets forth a variety of 2019 adjusted tax limits. Among other things, the notice addresses slightly increased limits for employee contributions toward health flexible spending accounts (FSAs). Therefore, employers who currently offer health FSAs may choose to increase the annual election limit for participants for the 2019 plan year.

Health Flexible Spending Account (FSA) – 2019 Annual Limit of $2,700 for Employee Contributions

Healthcare reform imposed a $2,500 limit on annual salary reduction contributions to health FSAs offered under §125 (Cafeteria) plans, effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2012. The $2,500 amount is indexed for cost-of-living adjustments. The annual limitation for 2018 was $2,650. The annual limitation has now increased by $50 to $2,700 for 2019.

Employee Health FSA Contributions

The $2,700 annual limit applies only to the amount that can be deducted pre-tax from an employee’s compensation to make employee contributions through a cafeteria plan. In some circumstances an employee can have an annual health FSA benefit of greater than $2,700, for example:

  • If the employer makes contributions to the employee’s FSA accounts (see more below); or

  • If the health FSA includes the optional $500 carry-over provision and the employee has a carry-over from the previous year.

NOTE: Non-elective employer contributions to a health FSA (e.g., matching or seed contributions, or flex credits) generally do not count toward the limit. However, if employees may elect to receive the employer contributions in cash or as a taxable benefit, then the contributions will be treated as salary reductions and will count toward the $2,700 limit if contributed to the health FSA.

Employer Health FSA Contributions

Employer contributions to an employee’s health FSA are not limited by this rule, and may be made in addition to the $2,700 allowed for employee contributions. However, a health FSA must meet “excepted benefit” status to avoid violating health care reform requirements. To meet excepted benefit status, the health FSA must satisfy the following two conditions:

  • Maximum Benefit Condition. The maximum benefit payable under the health FSA to any participant cannot exceed the greater of (i) 2x the participant’s salary reduction election; or (ii) the amount of the participant’s salary reduction election plus $500. In other words, the employer could either make a matching contribution (up to $2,700 for 2019) or limit the contribution to $500.

  • Availability Condition. Other non-excepted group health plan coverage (e.g., major medical coverage) must be made available for the year to those eligible to participate in the health FSA. Therefore, individuals must be eligible for both a group medical plan and a health FSA, but they do not have to be enrolled in both.

The full text of Rev. Proc. 2018-57, including 2019 amounts and limitations for other taxes (e.g. qualified transportation fringe benefits, adoption assistance programs, eligible long-term care premiums), may be found at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-18-57.pdf.

While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.

IRS Now Assessing §4980H Penalties for the 2016 Plan Year

The IRS began assessing §4980H (Employer Mandate) penalties late in 2017 by sending Letter 226Js. Letters are being received by applicable large employers who appear to owe a penalty based on the self-reporting submitted via a Form 1094-C and 1095-C. Through September 2018, the letters were tied to proposed assessments for the 2015 calendar year, but now in the last couple of weeks, the IRS has started sending out letters for 2016.

Upon receipt of a Letter 226J, the employer has 30 days to either make payment or appeal the proposed assessment (unless an extension for an additional 30 days is obtained). The Letter 226J is only a proposed assessment, leaving the door open for an employer to appeal and potentially not have to make any payment. However, if the IRS does not receive a timely response to the Letter 226J, the employer will be sent a formal collection letter via a CP220J Notice. Upon receipt of a CP220J Notice, the employer is required to submit payment and then must go through a formal IRS appeal process to get any of the money returned.

Since many of the proposed assessments are the result of a misunderstanding of the offer of coverage requirements and/or employer reporting mistakes, most employers can appeal some or all of the proposed assessment, arguing that coverage was offered in accordance with §4980H requirements. However, keep in mind that with transition relief expiring after the 2015 plan year, employers were required to meet higher standards beginning in 2016 (e.g., coverage must be offered to 95% of full-time employees and their dependent children to avoid a penalty under §4980H(a)), which may leave more employers at risk of incurring bigger penalties.

We have worked on appeals for more than 40 employers, in all cases successfully appealing any proposed assessment that was not reflective of the coverage offered by the employer. In other words, submitting an adequate explanation and supporting documentation results in the IRS’s being willing to dismiss or reduce the assessments. Even for those employers who may not have been completely in compliance with §4980H offer of coverage requirements, it is worthwhile to make sure that full-time employees were counted and reported accurately, and that coding on Form 1095-Cs matches the coverage actually offered, to reduce any proposed assessments to the extent possible.

To appeal a proposed assessment under §4980H, we suggest submitting the following:

  • A letter/explanation disputing all or part of the assessment;

  • A completed Form 14764 indicating disagreement with the assessment and that no payment/partial payment is being sent in; and

  • Revised coding on Form 14765 for employees listed, if applicable, along with supporting documentation (e.g., SBC showing minimum value, employee contribution and pay information, proof of waivers).

Generally, within 4–6 weeks after IRS receipt of the employer’s appeal to the Letter 226J, the employer will receive a Letter 227K, 227L, or 227M indicating whether the IRS agrees with the appeal. If the IRS agrees with the appeal, no further action is required. If the IRS only partially agrees, or disagrees completely, the employer could choose to appeal again, perhaps providing a more detailed explanation and additional supporting documentation; or the employer could choose to make payment as assessed.

While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.

New HRA Rules Proposed

Issue Date: October 2018

The Department of the Treasury; Department of Labor, and The Department of Health and Human Services (the Departments) have jointly issued proposed regulations designed to expand the use of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). The new rules would allow HRAs to be used to pay for individual health insurance policies, create a new type of limited excepted benefit HRA, and allow employees to have premiums for some types of individual policies reimbursed on a pre-tax basis through a Section 125 cafeteria plan.

Background

The proposed rules are in response to President Trump’s executive order in October 2017 that directed regulatory agencies to revise existing guidance to “…expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with non-group coverage.”

Current regulatory and sub-regulatory guidance issued since 2013 prohibits employers from paying for an employee’s individual health insurance policy and requires that HRAs offered to employees must be integrated with group health insurance policies. The new rules add two new HRA options:

  1. HRA integrated with ACA-compliant individual health coverage

  2. Stand-alone HRA that qualifies as an excepted benefit with an annual maximum funding of $1,800

New Option #1: HRA Integrated with Individual Insurance Coverage

This option would allow an employer to provide tax-free funding to an employee HRA account that could be used to purchase individual health insurance policies. The rules include provisions designed to limit an employer’s ability to steer higher-risk employees to the individual market:

  •  Employers cannot offer both a traditional group health plan and an HRA integrated with individual insurance to the same employees. Employer must choose to offer a group health plan or the HRA coverage based on specific “classes” of employees, including full-time, part-time, seasonal, union/non-union, employees under age 25, and employees in different rating areas.

  • The HRA must be offered on the same terms and conditions to all employees within each class. However, the dollar amount may differ based on age or number of dependents eligible for reimbursement.

Other Rules

  • All individuals eligible for reimbursement under the HRA must be enrolled in ACA-compliant individual health coverage and provide proof of that coverage.

  • Employees must be able to opt-out of coverage and reimbursement.

  • Employers must provide a new notice to participants. The notice must include information such as a description of the terms of the HRA, the maximum dollar amount available, substantiation requirements for reimbursements, the ability to opt-out, information about premium tax credit (PTC) eligibility, and more.

  • The individual coverage integrated with the HRA would not be subject to ERISA assuming requirements similar to the DOL voluntary safe harbor requirements are met.

Affordable Care Act Issues

The HRA would be considered an offer of minimum essential coverage (MEC) for purposes of satisfying §4980H(a) employer shared responsibility requirements. If the HRA also provides minimum value and is affordable, the offer would also satisfy Section 4980H(b) requirements. All individual policies sold through a public exchange provide minimum value, so an HRA integrated with one of these policies would automatically meet the minimum value requirement. The rules also contain a proposed methodology for determining if the offer will be considered affordable

Enrollment in the HRA would cause an employee to lose eligibility for a PTC when purchasing individual health insurance through a public Exchange. In addition, if the HRA provides minimum value and is affordable, an employee would lose eligibility for a PTC even if the individual opts-out of coverage. This is similar to the rules applicable to employer sponsored group health plans. Under current rules, employees are not eligible for the PTC if they are also eligible for affordable, minimum value employer group health coverage, even if they choose not to enroll.

New Option #2: Excepted Benefit HRA

Currently, employers are prohibited from offering a stand-alone HRA to active employees unless it reimburses claims only for limited expenses such as dental and vision. The new rules would allow a stand-alone HRA to reimburse all Section 213(d) expenses and still qualify as an excepted benefit. To maintain excepted benefit status, the HRA must meet certain requirements:

  • The maximum benefit cannot exceed $1,800 for the plan year (indexed annually).

  • Employees must be eligible (but not necessarily enrolled) for both the employer’s group health plan and the HRA.

  • The HRA must be available for all similarly situated individuals, regardless of any health factor.

Pre-Tax Payment of Individual Health Insurance Premiums

In addition to an integrated HRA, employers may also allow employee to pay individual health coverage premiums on a pre-tax basis through a Section 125 cafeteria plan. Employees can pay pre-tax only for individual policies sold outside the public Exchange. The ability to pay for individual health coverage through a cafeteria plan appears to be limited at this time to part premiums owed by the employee as part of an integrated HRA, although the rules requested comments on permitting it as a stand-alone arrangement.

Summary

The new rules make no changes to the employer’s ability to integrate an HRA with group health plan coverage. Employers are also still allowed to offer a stand-alone HRA for the reimbursement of excepted benefits, and to offer a full stand-alone HRA to retirees. The Departments are taking comments on the rules through December 28, 2018. Final rules are expected to be issued early in 2019 with an effective date of plan years beginning January 1, 2020.

While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept  liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.

Employer Exchange Subsidy Notices - Appeal or Not?

Introduction

Employers continue to receive notices from public Exchanges indicating that one or more employees are currently receiving a subsidy when purchasing individual health insurance coverage through a public Exchange (e.g. Covered California), which could potentially trigger employer penalties under §4980H. If an employer receives such a notice for one of its employees, the employer has a right, but is not required, to appeal when they feel an employee should not be receiving a subsidy because the employer offers minimum-value, affordable coverage.

Background

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires all public Exchanges (Marketplaces) to notify employers when an employee is receiving a subsidy (tax credits and cost-sharing reductions) for individual health insurance purchased through a public Exchange and to provide an opportunity for employers to appeal. Final rules published in August 2013 set forth the requirements for an employer to appeal the finding that it is not offering coverage meeting §4980H requirements. The particulars of the process, however, are managed by each Exchange separately. So long as the requirements in the final rules are met, each state Exchange is allowed to set up its own process and procedures. Information about how to file an appeal is usually included in the notice, but it may be necessary to check with the applicable Exchange to find out exactly how to handle the appeals process.

NOTE: These notices come from the Exchanges and not from the IRS. The IRS has its own set of letters/notices used to enforce compliance with §4980H offer of coverage requirements (the “employer mandate”) and §6056 employer reporting requirements. IRS letters relating to proposed employer shared responsibility payments under §4980H come in the form of a Letter 226J. IRS letters indicating that employer reporting via a Form 1094-C and 1095-Cs was not received by the IRS for an employer expected to be an applicable large employer come in the form of a Letter 5699.

Appeal Form and Process

Information about the form and process being used by federally facilitated Exchanges as well as by several state-run Exchanges may be found here. The forms and processes for all other states may be found by visiting the state’s Exchange site. The process generally involves filing a paper appeal, providing documentation (e.g. SBC indicating minimum value, rate sheet showing employee contributions for single coverage, and rate of pay information for employees), and in some cases participating in a hearing.

Should Employers Appeal? Maybe…

Small Employers (fewer than 50 FTEs)

Small employers have no penalty exposure under §4980H. The only reason such an employer may want to appeal would be to prevent an employee from incorrectly receiving a subsidy through a public Exchange that might have to be paid back at the end of the year via personal tax return (employee relations). However, perhaps it would be easier simply to have a conversation directly with the employee rather than working through the appeal process.

Applicable Large Employers (50 or more FTEs)

Just because the employer receives a notice it does not mean the employer will actually owe a penalty payment under §4980H. Such penalties/payments are assessed by the IRS after reconciliation of the employer reporting. And if according to such reporting the IRS sends a payment notice, the employer will at that time have a chance to appeal with the IRS.

In addition, it’s not clear how quickly employers are notified that an employee is approved to receive a subsidy toward individual coverage through a public Exchange. Although the Exchanges should provide notice within the same year the subsidy is awarded, it could be several months later that an employer actually receives a notification, and there isn’t much detail in the letters about the employees’ actual coverage. In other words, an employer will not have a perfect understanding of which months employees qualified for a tax subsidy based on the notification provided.

For part-time employees, the employer is not under any obligation to offer any type of coverage under §4980H, so going through the appeal process probably isn’t necessary. As mentioned above for small employers, the only reason an employer might want to appeal a notice provided for a part-time employee would be to prevent an employee from incorrectly receiving a subsidy through a public Exchange that might have to be paid back at the end of the year via personal tax return (employee relations).

For full-time employees:

If the employee was NOT offered minimum-value, affordable coverage, there is nothing to appeal; rather, it serves as an indication that the employer will probably owe a penalty under §4980H for at least some months of the year.

If the employee was offered minimum-value, affordable coverage, the employer really has two options:

  1. Appeal as outlined in the notice and provide proof that the coverage offered provides minimum value and is affordable; or

  2. Reconcile this with the IRS early the following year when the employer reporting is submitted via Forms 1094-C and 1095-C.

Summary

Bottom line, the employer does not have to appeal to avoid a penalty under §4980H. Rather, penalties will not apply until after the employer reporting (via Forms 1094-C and 1095-C) is reconciled with the IRS. Now that many employers have gone through the appeals process with the IRS for 2015, we have a better idea of what the IRS appeals process requires. Because some employers have struggled to successfully appeal subsidy eligibility determinations with the public Exchanges, employers might choose instead to wait and reconcile any §4980H penalties directly with the IRS. However, for those employers who choose not to appeal following receipt of a letter from a public Exchange, it may still be beneficial to inform affected employees if there is reason to believe they might not be eligible for the subsidy because of coverage offered by the employer.

While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.

House Bill 360

As you have probably heard, on August 29, 2018, Delaware Governor John Carney signed House Bill 360 (“Law”) into law, adding Delaware to the list of states that have enacted laws expanding workplace protections against sexual harassment. This law takes effect on January 1, 2019.

Key points of this law include:

  • The expanded definition of what constitutes sexual harassment

  • Employers with 50 or more employees in Delaware provide interactive anti-sexual harassment training to employees and supervisors in the calendar year 2019 and every two (2) years after

  • Employers with four or more employees in Delaware are required to distribute this state-issued Information Sheets to employees explaining their rights and remedies within six (6) months of the Law’s effective date, i.e., by July 1, 2019

Lyons HCM can help you meet the training requirement. Contact us today to learn more about our training program and our new train-the-trainer program.

Determining the COBRA Premium for an HRA

Setting the correct COBRA premium for a Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA) can be challenging. COBRA defines “applicable premium” as the cost to the plan of providing coverage to similarly situated beneficiaries who have not experienced a qualifying event. For self-insured plans, such as HRAs, the premium must be actuarially determined, or be determined by using a “past-cost” method. It should not be based on an individual’s actual HRA balance at the time of the COBRA event.

Determining the HRA Cost

IRS COBRA regulations describe two acceptable methods of setting the COBRA premium for an HRA. Under the actuarial method, the applicable premium “shall be equal to a reasonable estimate of the cost of providing coverage for such period for similarly situated beneficiaries which…is determined on an actuarial basis… . Under the past-cost method, the applicable premium equals “the cost to the plan for similarly situated beneficiaries for the same period occurring during the preceding determination period…adjusted by…the percentage increase or decrease [cost of living].”  The past-cost method cannot be used “in any case in which there is any significant difference between [plan years], in coverage under, or in employees covered by, the plan.

The Past-Cost Method

To set HRA premiums using the past-cost method, the employer looks at the total claims reimbursed by the HRA during a 12-month “determination period.” This cost basis can then be adjusted by a trend factor, and reasonable plan administrative costs can be added to determine the total cost of the plan.

Obviously, new HRAs cannot use the past-cost method (they have no past cost for a prior year). Even HRAs that have been around for a while might not be able to use the past-cost method if they have a carryover feature. The carryover may produce a significant difference in coverage from one year to the next (i.e., higher or lower coverage limits in a subsequent year).

Note that the rules state that the past-cost method cannot be used if there is a significant difference in coverage from one year to the next. However, we doubt that anyone would object to the use of the past-cost method if the result would be to charge qualified beneficiaries (Q.B.s) a lower premium than would be justified by the actuarial method.

Using the Actuarial Method to Set HRA COBRA Premiums

The actuarial method requires the administrator to make a reasonable actuarial estimate of the cost of providing HRA coverage for similarly situated beneficiaries. Note that COBRA rules do not require an employer to hire an actuary to use the actuarial method. In fact, many employers rely on actuarial determinations made by the third-party administrator or insurance company administering the plan.

When either method is used, the resulting COBRA premiums should be based on total plan cost, not on the individual HRA balance of a participant electing COBRA. IRS has provided “safe harbor” language that supports this position, stating: “An HRA complies with the COBRA requirements for calculating the applicable premium under Code Section 4980B if the applicable premium is the same for qualified beneficiaries with different total reimbursement amounts available from the HRA…” In other words, under the safe harbor, the COBRA applicable premium is “blended” so that it is the same for all HRA COBRA Q.B.s, regardless of their account balances.

Setting Single vs. Family COBRA Rates

Once the applicable HRA plan cost has been calculated, the employer must figure out what to change for single vs. family COBRA coverage. Unfortunately, there is even less IRS guidance on this process. At this point, a “per participant” COBRA rate can be determined using the number of participants eligible for the coverage during the determination period. Limited IRS guidance provided implies that a single individual electing COBRA should be charged the “single employee” rate, even if that individual was a covered spouse or dependent prior to the COBRA event.

For COBRA Q.B.s electing family coverage, employers should take into account the average number of participants eligible for HRA benefits among active employees who have elected family coverage. For example, if active employees with family coverage have an average of 3.7 HRA participants (employee, spouse, and dependents) eligible for benefits, an employer would charge 3.7 times the single rate for an employee electing family COBRA coverage.

One Plan vs. Two?

Under existing rules, an HRA must be integrated with the employer’s group health plan for active employees. This means that the HRA can be offered only to employees, spouses, and dependents who are actually enrolled in the employer’s group health plan. This makes the COBRA offer easier. HRA coverage would generally be offered only to COBRA Q.B.s who also elect to continue with the employer’s health plan. The HRA premiums would simply be added to the COBRA premiums due for continuation of the group health plan.

Summary

HRA sponsors implementing a do-it-yourself approach may take some comfort from the fact that the IRS has never issued regulations governing the determination of the applicable premium. From COBRA’s inception, the compliance standard to which administrators have been held, when no final regulations exist, is good faith compliance with a reasonable interpretation of COBRA. Nevertheless, in many cases it may be more prudent to retain an actuary or to rely on the TPA that administers the employer’s HRA to set the COBRA premium actuarially. Most importantly, employers should make sure HRA coverage is offered to any Q.B.s covered by the HRA who has a COBRA event, including spouses and dependents.

 

 

 

 

While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept  liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.

Employer Reporting – 2018 Draft Forms and Instructions

There have been no legislative or regulatory changes to employer reporting requirements, and the IRS is actively reaching out to applicable large employers who failed to report, or who appear to be subject to assessments under §4980H. Therefore, employers subject to reporting requirements under §6055 and §6056 should ensure that data is being captured and that appropriate processes are in place for reporting on Forms 1094 and 1095 at the end of 2018.

The IRS has released draft forms and instructions for the 2018 calendar year. Not surprisingly, the 2018 forms and instructions are almost identical to those provided for 2017. The only notable change is a small increase in the penalties for failure to report correctly and on time. Previously, the penalty was $260 per form (capped $3,218,500); but for 2018, the penalty is $270 per form (capped at $3,275,500).

The draft forms may be found on the IRS draft forms website at:  https://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/draftTaxForms.html.
Enter the form number (i.e., 1094 or 1095) in the search box.

NOTE: The individual mandate is in place through the end of 2018, so coverage reporting under §6055   is still required. For fully insured plans, coverage reporting is handled by the insurance carrier. However, for self-funded plans of all sizes, the employer is responsible for reporting on any individuals covered under the self-funded plan. The reporting for employers offering self-funded coverage is handled either on the Form 1095-B (typically used by small employers) or in Part III of the Form 1095-C (used by applicable large employers).

While every effort has been taken in compiling this information to ensure that its contents are totally accurate, neither the publisher nor the author can accept liability for any inaccuracies or changed circumstances of any information herein or for the consequences of any reliance placed upon it. This publication is distributed on the understanding that the publisher is not engaged in rendering legal, accounting or other professional advice or services. Readers should always seek professional advice before entering into any commitments.

Lyons HCM Boot Camp for HR Administrators

Interested in building your Human Resource credentials? Lyons HCM is offering a series of three workshops addressing topics we frequently get questions on. Each of these half-day workshops covers two topics. Lyons Companies Director of Human Capital Management, Diane Campanile, SHRM-SCP, will present content, review compliance requirements, and offer best practice recommendations. 

Plan to join us on the third Thursday of each month:

  • Workshop 1: Hiring Practices and FLSA Classification
    Thursday, September 20, 9 am to noon
    2.5 PDCs for SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP

  • Workshop 2: Performance Management and Employment Termination
    Thursday, October 18, 9 am to noon
    2.5 PDCs for SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP

  • Workshop 3: Leave Management and Record Keeping
    Thursday, November 15, 9 am to noon
    2.5 PDCs for SHRM-CP or SHRM-SCP

Location: Lyons Companies Wilmington office or via webinar 

Who should attend: Human resources professionals with less than five years’ experience or employees that perform human resources functions and seek additional HR training

There is no cost to attend; but registration is required.

Click below to register to attend individual workshops or the entire series: