The Facts on the GOP Health Care Bill
Do you know all the facts behind the American Health Care Act (AHCA)? Check out this article by Fact Check and find out about all the details behind the GOP new health care legislation.
House Republicans released their replacement plan for the Affordable Care Act on March 6. How does the GOP’s American Health Care Act differ from the ACA? We look at the major provisions of the amended version of the bill, as of May 4. (The legislation passed the House on May 4 and now goes to the Senate for consideration.)
Is there a requirement to have insurance or pay a tax?
No. For all months after Dec. 31, 2015, the bill eliminates the tax penalties that the ACA imposes on nonexempt individuals for not having health insurance, as well as employers with 50 or more full-time workers who do not offer health insurance to their employees. (To be clear, unless this bill becomes law quickly, those filing their 2016 tax returns will still be subject to the penalty.)
Are insurance companies required to offer coverage regardless of preexisting conditions?
Yes, but there’s a penalty for not having continuous coverage. Under both the ACA and the GOP bill, insurers can’t deny coverage to anyone based on health status. Under the GOP bill, they are required, however, to charge 30 percent higher premiums for one year, regardless of health status, to those entering the individual market who didn’t have continuous coverage, which is defined as a lapse of coverage of 63 days or more over the previous 12 months.
However, an amendment proposed in late April allows states to obtain a waiver that would enable insurers to charge more to people with preexisting conditions who do not maintain continuous coverage. Such policyholders could be charged higher premiums based on health status for one year. After that, provided there wasn’t another 63-day gap, the policyholder would get a new, less expensive premium that was not based on health status. This change would begin in 2019, or 2018 for those enrolling during special enrollment periods.
States with such a waiver would also have to have either a “risk mitigation program,” such as a high-risk pool, or participate in a new Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program, as a House summary of the amendment says. Beyond those programs, another amendment to the bill would provide $8 billion in federal money over five years to financially aid those with preexisting conditions who find themselves facing higher premiums in waiver states.
For more on this waiver program, see our May 4 article, “The Preexisting Conditions Debate.”
What happens to the expansion of Medicaid?
It will be phased out.
Prior to the ACA, Medicaid was available to groups including qualified low-income families, pregnant women, children and the disabled. The ACA expanded eligibility to all individuals under age 65 who earn up to 138 percent of the federal poverty level (about $16,643 a year for an individual), but only in states that opted for the expansion. Thirty-one states and the District of Columbia have opted in to the expansion, which includes enhanced federal funding, so far. More than 11 million newly eligible adults had enrolled in Medicaid through March 2016, according to an analysis by the Kaiser Family Foundation of data from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services.
Under the Republican health care plan, no new enrollment can occur under this Medicaid expansion, with enhanced federal funds, after Dec. 31, 2019. States that haven’t already opted in to the expansion by March 1, 2017, can’t get the ACA’s enhanced federal funding for the expansion-eligible population.
To be clear, the bill doesn’t eliminate the Medicaid expansion coverage for those who are enrolled prior to 2020 in the current expansion states. But if those enrollees have a break in coverage for more than one month after Dec. 31, 2019, they won’t be able to re-enroll (unless a state wanted to cover the additional cost itself).
The Republican plan includes another notable change to Medicaid. It would cap the amount of federal funding that states can receive per Medicaid enrollee, with varying amounts for each category of enrollee, such as children, and the blind and disabled. Currently, the federal government guarantees matching funds to states for qualifying Medicaid expenses, regardless of cost. Under the GOP bill, states have the option of receiving a block grant, rather than the per-capita amounts, for traditional adult enrollees and children – not the elderly or disabled. States also have the option of instituting work requirements for able-bodied adults, but not pregnant women.
Are insurers required to cover certain benefits?
The latest version of the bill requires insurers to provide 10 essential health benefits mandated by the ACA, unless a state obtains a waiver to set its own benefit requirements. The ACA’s essential health benefits required insurance companies to cover 10 health services: ambulatory, emergency, hospitalization, maternity and newborn care, mental health and substance use disorder services, prescription drugs, rehabilitative services and devices, laboratory services, preventive care and chronic disease management, and pediatric services including dental and vision.
Beginning in 2020, states could set their own essential health benefits by obtaining a waiver.
At that point, state requirements could vary, as they did before the ACA was enacted. For instance, a 2009 report from the Council for Affordable Health Insurance, a group representing insurance companies, said 47 states had a mandate for emergency service benefits, while 23 mandated maternity care and only three mandated prescription drug coverage.
State Medicaid plans would not have to meet the essential health benefits requirement after Dec. 31, 2019.
Are there subsidies to help individuals buy insurance? How do they differ from the Affordable Care Act?
There are two forms of financial assistance under the ACA: premium tax credits (which would change under the GOP plan) and cost-sharing to lower out-of-pocket costs (which would be eliminated).
Let’s look at the premium tax credits first. They would be available to individuals who buy their own coverage on the individual, or nongroup, market. But instead of a sliding scale based on income, as under the ACA, the Republican plan’s tax credits are based on age, with older Americans getting more. (The plan, however, allows insurers to charge older Americans up to five times more than younger people, as we will explain later.)
The ACA tax credits also take into account the local cost of insurance, varying the amount of the credit in order to put a cap on the amount an individual or family would have to spend for their premiums. The Republican plan doesn’t do that. (See this explanation from the nonpartisan Kaiser Family Foundation for more on how the ACA tax credits are currently calculated.)
There are income limits under the GOP bill. Those earning under $75,000, or $150,000 for a married couple, in modified adjusted gross income, get the same, fixed amounts for their age groups — starting at $2,000 a year for those under age 30, increasing in $500 increments per decade in age, up to $4,000 a year for those 60 and older. The tax credits are capped at $14,000 per family, using the five oldest family members to calculate the amount. This new structure would begin in 2020, with modifications in 2018 and 2019 to give more to younger people and less to older people.
For those earning above those income thresholds, the tax credit is reduced by 10 percent of the amount earned above the threshold. For instance, an individual age 60 or older earning $100,000 a year would get a tax credit of $1,500 ($4,000 minus 10 percent of $25,000).
That hypothetical 60-year-old gets $0 in tax credits under the ACA. But if our 60-year-old earns $30,000 a year, she would likely get more under the ACA than the GOP plan: In Franklin County, Ohio, for instance, the tax credit would be $6,550 under the ACA in 2020 and $4,000 under the Republican plan. (This interactive map from the KFF shows the difference in tax credits under the health care plans.)
As for the cost-sharing subsidies available now under the ACA — which can lower out-of-pocket costs for copays and other expenses for those earning between 100 percent and 250 percent of the federal poverty level — those would be eliminated in 2020. However, the GOP bill sets up a Patient and State Stability Fund, with $100 billion in funding over nine years with state matching requirements, that can be used for various purposes, including lowering out-of-pocket costs of a state’s residents. An additional $30 billion was added to this fund for other programs: $15 billion would be used to set up the Federal Invisible Risk Sharing Program, another reinsurance program, and $15 billion is set aside specifically for maternity and mental health coverage.
Small-business tax credits would end in 2020. The health insurance marketplaces stay, but the tax credits can be used for plans sold outside of those marketplaces. And the different levels of plans (bronze, silver, etc.) based on actuarial value (the percentage of costs covered) are eliminated; anyone can buy a catastrophic plan, not just those under 30 as is the case with the ACA.
What does the bill do regarding health savings accounts?
It increases the contribution limits for tax-exempt HSAs, from $3,400 for individuals and $6,750 for families now to $6,550 and $13,100, respectively. It allows individuals to use HSA money for over-the-counter drugs, something the ACA had limited to only over-the-counter drugs for which individuals had obtained a prescription.
There were so-called winners and losers in the individual market under the ACA. How would that change under this bill?
Both the current law and the Republican proposal primarily impact the individual market, where 7 percent of the U.S. population buys its own health insurance. As we’ve written many times, how the ACA affected someone in this market depended on their individual circumstances — and the same goes for the House Republicans’ plan. In general, because the ACA said that insurers could no longer vary premiums based on health status and limited the variation based on age, older and sicker individuals could have paid less than they had before, while younger and healthier individuals could have paid more.
The GOP plan allows a wider variation in pricing based on age: Insurers can charge older individuals up to five times as much as younger people, and states can change that ratio. Under the ACA, the ratio was 3:1. So, younger individuals may see lower premiums under this bill, while older individuals could see higher premiums.
Older Americans do get higher tax credits than younger Americans under the Republican plan, but whether that amounts to more or less generous tax credits than under the ACA depends on other individual circumstances, including income and local insurance pricing. Those with low incomes could do worse under the GOP plan, while those who earned too much to qualify for tax credits under the ACA (an individual making more than $48,240) would get tax credits.
We would encourage readers to use the Kaiser Family Foundation’s interactive map to see how tax credits may change, depending on various circumstances. “Generally, people who are older, lower-income, or live in high-premium areas (like Alaska and Arizona) receive larger tax credits under the ACA than they would under the American Health Care Act replacement,” KFF says. “Conversely, some people who are younger, higher-income, or live in low-premium areas (like Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Washington) may receive larger assistance under the replacement plan.”
A few weeks after the bill was introduced, House Republicans, through an amendment, made a change to a tax provision to create placeholder funding that the Senate could use to boost tax credits for older Americans, as we explain in the next answer.
Also, some individuals with preexisting conditions could see higher premiums under the legislation, if they don’t maintain continuous coverage and live in states that received waivers for pricing some plans based on health status.
Which ACA taxes go away under the GOP plan?
Many of the ACA taxes would be eliminated.
As we said, the bill eliminates all fines on individuals for not having insurance and large employers for not offering insurance. Also, beginning in 2017, for high-income taxpayers, the bill eliminates the 3.8 percent tax on certain net investment income. The 0.9 percent additional Medicare tax on earnings above a threshold stays in place until 2023. The bill repeals the 2.3 percent tax on the sale price of certain medical devices in 2017 and the 10 percent tax on indoor tanning services (effective June 30, 2017). It also gets rid of the annual fees on entities, according to the IRS, “in the business of providing health insurance for United States health risks,” as well as fees on “each covered entity engaged in the business of manufacturing or importing branded prescription drugs.”
It reduces the tax on distributions from health savings accounts (HSAs) not used for qualified medical expenses from 20 percent to 10 percent and the tax on such distributions from Archer medical savings accounts (MSAs) from 20 percent to 15 percent. It lowers the threshold for receiving a tax deduction for medical expenses from 10 percent to 5.8 percent of adjusted gross income. (Originally, the bill lowered the threshold to 7.5 percent, but House Republicans changed that to create some flexibility for potential funding changes the Senate could make. A congressional aide told us that the change is expected to provide $85 billion in spending over 10 years that the Senate could use to boost the tax credit or provide other support for Americans in the 50-64 age bracket.)
And from 2020 through 2025, the bill suspends the so-called “Cadillac tax,” a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost insurance plans offered by employers.
Will young adults under the age of 26 still be able to remain on their parents’ plans?
Yes. The bill does not affect this provision of the ACA.
How does the bill treat abortion?
It puts a one-year freeze on funding to states for payments to a “prohibited entity,” defined as one that, among other criteria, provides abortions other than those due to rape, incest or danger to the life of the mother. This would include funding to Planned Parenthood under Medicaid, which is most of the organization’s government funding. Under current law, Planned Parenthood can’t use federal money for abortions, except those in cases of rape, incest or risk to the mother’s life.
Also under the GOP plan, tax credits can’t be used to purchase insurance that covers abortion beyond those three exceptions. Health insurance companies would still be able to offer “separate coverage” for expanded coverage of abortions, which individuals could then purchase on their own.
How many people will have insurance under the plan, as compared with the ACA?
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated that the legislation, as passed by the House, would lead to 14 million fewer people having insurance in 2018 and 23 million fewer insured in 2026, compared with current law under the ACA.
How much will the bill cost, as compared with the ACA?
CBO estimated that the legislation passed by the House would reduce federal deficits by $119 billion over the next decade, 2017-2026. It would reduce revenues by $992 billion, mostly by repealing the ACA’s taxes and fees, and reduce spending by $1.11 trillion for a net savings of $119 billion, according to CBO.
See the original article Here.
Source:
Robertson L., Gore D., Schipani V. (2017 May 24). The facts on the GOP health care bill [Web blog post]. Retrieved from address https://www.factcheck.org/2017/03/the-facts-on-the-gop-health-care-bill/
How Many Employers Could be Affected by the Cadillac Plan Tax?
Originally posted by Gary Claxton and Larry Levitt on August 25, 2015 on kff.org.
As fall approaches, we can expect to hear more about how employers are adapting their health plans for 2016 open enrollments. One topic likely to garner a good deal of attention is how the Affordable Care Act’s high-cost plan tax (HCPT), sometimes called the “Cadillac plan” tax, is affecting employer decisions about their health benefits. The tax takes effect in 2018.
The potential of facing an HCPT assessment as soon as 2018 is encouraging employers to assess their current health benefits and consider cost reductions to avoid triggering the tax. Some employers announced that they made changes in 2014 in anticipation of the HCPT, and more are likely to do so as the implementation date gets closer. By making modifications now, employers can phase-in changes to avoid a bigger disruption later on. Some of the things that employers can do to reduce costs under the tax include:
- Increasing deductibles and other cost sharing;
- Eliminating covered services;
- Capping or eliminating tax-preferred savings accounts like Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs), Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), or Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs);
- Eliminating higher-cost health insurance options;
- Using less expensive (often narrower) provider networks; or
- Offering benefits through a private exchange (which can use all of these tools to cap the value of plan choices to stay under the thresholds).
For the most part these changes will result in employees paying for a greater share of their health care out-of-pocket.
In addition to raising revenue to fund the cost of coverage expansion under the ACA, the HCPT was intended to discourage employers from offering overly-generous benefit plans and help to contain health care spending. Health benefits offered through work are not taxed like other compensation, with the result that employees may receive tax benefits worth thousands of dollars if they get their health insurance at work. Economists have long argued that providing such tax benefits without a limit encourages employers to offer more generous benefit plans than they otherwise would because employees prefer to receive additional benefits (which are not taxed) in lieu of wages (which are). Employees with generous plans use more health care because they face fewer out-of-pocket costs, and that contributes to the growth in health care costs.
The HCPT taxes plans that exceed certain cost thresholds beginning in 2018. The 2018 thresholds are $10,200 for self-only (single) coverage and $27,500 for other than self-only coverage, and after that they generally increase annually with inflation. The amount of the tax is 40 percent of the difference between the total cost of health benefits for an employee in a year and the threshold amount for that year.
While the HCPT is often described as a tax on generous health insurance plans, it actually is calculated with respect to each employee based on the combination of health benefits received by that employee, and can be different for different employees at the same employer and even for different employees enrolled in the same health insurance plan. While final regulations have not yet been issued, the cost for each employee generally will include:
- The average cost for the health insurance plan (whether insured or self-funded);
- Employer contributions to an (HSA), Archer medical spending account or HRA;
- Contributions (including employee-elected payroll deductions and non-elective employer contributions) to an FSA;
- The value of coverage in certain on-site medical clinics; and
- The cost for certain limited-benefit plans if they are provided on a tax-preferred basis.
The inclusion of FSAs here is important. FSAs generally are structured to allow employees the opportunity to divert some of their pay to pretax health benefits, which means that they can avoid payroll and income taxes on money they expect to use for health care. Employees often are permitted to elect any amount of contribution up to a cap (which is $2,550 in 2015), which means that the amount of benefits for an employee subject to the HCPT in a year could vary depending on their FSA election.
The amount and structure of the HCPT provide a strong incentive for employers to avoid hitting the thresholds. The tax rate of 40 percent is high relative to the tax that many employees would pay if the benefits were merely taxed like other compensation, and the ACA does not allow the taxpayers (e.g., the employer) to deduct the tax as a cost of doing business, which can significantly increase the tax incidence for for-profit companies. Further, to avoid the perception that this was a new tax on employees, the HCPT was structured as a tax on the service providers of the health benefit plans providing benefits an employee: insurers in the case of insured health benefit plans; employers in the case of HSAs and Archer MSAs; and the person that administers the benefits, such as third party administrators, in the case of other health benefits. While it is generally expected that insurers and service providers will pass the cost of the tax back to the employer, doing so may not always be straightforward. Because there can be numerous service providers with respect to an employee, the excess amount must be allocated across providers. In some cases, it may not be possible to know whether or not the benefits provided to an employee will exceed the threshold amount until after the end of a year (for example, in the case of an experience-rated health insurance plan), which means that service providers may need to bill the employer retroactively for the cost of the tax they must pay. Amounts that employers provide to reimburse service providers for the HCPT create taxable income for the service provider, which the parties will want to account for in the transaction. The IRS has requested comments on potential methods for determining tax liability among benefit administrators, including a way that could assign the responsibility to the employer in cases other that insured benefit plans. The proposed approach could simplify administration of the tax.
To read the full story go to the Kaiser Family Foundation website at kff.org.
Seven Health Tax Tips
Source: https://www.benefitspro.com
By Kathryn Mayer
It's everyone's favorite time of year: Tax season. Do you know how to make the most of it?
According to eHealth, many consumers overlook credits and deductions built into the tax code designed to make medical care and health insurance more affordable. Consumers who had high medical expenditures in 2012, who were self-employed or owners of small businesses, or who cared for aging parents, should especially educate themselves on the opportunities to deduct a portion of their expenses from their federal income taxes.
Here are seven health and health insurance tax tips to consider when completing federal income taxes, courtesy of eHealth.
Itemize medical expenses while you can. Not everyone has medical expenses high enough to deduct them on their federal tax returns, but even fewer will be able to do so next year. 2012 is the last year you’ll be able to itemize and deduct medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income. As a result of health reform, that threshold is being raised to 10 percent for the 2013 tax year. So, if you itemize on your federal tax return, do the math. Qualifying medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of your adjusted gross income for 2012 may be itemized.
You can refer to IRS Publication 502 for more information about qualifying medical expenses, but these may include monthly premiums you pay for coverage (including some Medicare premiums), copayments, deductibles, dental expenses and costs for some services not covered by your insurance plan. You may even deduct mileage accrued while driving to and from regular appointments. This deduction isn’t for everyone, but if you (or one of your dependents) were seriously ill or hospitalized last year, you may qualify.
Consider expenses for the care for an aging parent. If your elderly parent earned less than $3,800 in 2012 (excluding Social Security in most cases) and you provided more than half of his or her financial support, you may be able to claim your parent as a dependent. This earns you an additional dependent exemption, even if your parent doesn’t live with you. And if you’ve paid for the medical or nursing care of a dependent parent, you also may be able to itemize your costs as qualified medical expenses.
Medicare premiums and medical home improvements. If you’re a retired senior, you may have an easier time meeting the 7.5 percent adjusted gross income threshold to deduct itemized medical expenses on your federal return. In addition to your out-of-pocket expenses for medical, dental or vision care, you also may be able to include capital expenses for the installation of home medical equipment or improvements of your property for wheelchair access. In addition, premiums taken from your Social Security check to pay for Medicare Part B may qualify as deductible, as well as premiums you paid for Medicare Part D (Prescription Drug) coverage or a Medicare Supplemental plan.
Deducting health insurance premiums as a business expense. If you had self-employment income in 2012, you may be able to deduct health insurance premiums you paid for yourself and your dependents as an ‘above the line’ business expense (that is, without itemizing) on your federal tax return. Be aware, however, that you may not deduct premiums (including Medicare premiums) paid for any month in which you were eligible to participate in an employer-sponsored health insurance plan, and the amount you deduct cannot be greater than your net self-employment income for the year. Also, keep in mind that you cannot include what you paid toward your monthly premiums as an ‘above the line’ expense and also itemize it. Talk to a tax professional to learn more about the different types of self-employment status and the tax implications of each in your state.
Fund your HSA for 2012. An HSA is a tax-advantaged savings account used in conjunction with an HSA-eligible health insurance plan. Account contributions, qualified distributions and earnings are all tax-exempt. An HSA allows you to deposit a portion of your pre-tax income into a savings account and use those funds to pay for qualified medical expenses. Unused money can be invested and accrue from year to year. If you have an HSA, be sure to deduct your contributions up to federally prescribed limits. Contributions to your HSA designated for 2012 and made before April 15, 2013 can be counted toward your 2012 federal taxes. According to the IRS, HSA contributions for the 2012 tax year are capped at $3,100 for individuals and $6,250 for families. If you’re over age 55, you may qualify to make an additional $1,000 contribution for the year.
Get tax credits for providing employees with coverage. If you’re a small business owner providing group health insurance coverage for your workers, don’t forget that there may be special tax credits available to you. If you have 25 or fewer employees with average annual wages of less than $50,000, you may be eligible for a special tax credit of up to 35 percent of the amount you contribute toward employee insurance premiums. Starting in 2014, that credit will increase to 50 percent. Keep in mind that in order to qualify for the credit you must have paid at least fifty percent of your employees’ total monthly premiums.
Start thinking about tax changes for 2014. Once you’ve completed your taxes this year, take a look at your income and see if you’ll qualify for a federal health insurance subsidy in 2014. If your adjusted gross income was less than 400 percent of the federal poverty level (that’s about $45,000 for a single person or $92,000 for a family of four, in 2012 dollars), you may qualify for a government subsidy in 2014. Failure to obtain health insurance in 2014 could result in a tax penalty. Another change: starting this year, you may notice a new dollar figure in Box 12 of your W-2. If you have employer-based health insurance, the cost of your coverage is reported to the IRS here. You are not taxed on this amount, but so-called “Cadillac” plans (with aggregate values of over $10,200 for individual coverage or $27,500 for families) may be subject to an excise tax starting in 2018.
Payroll Tax Issues Remain in Limbo with Many Due to Sunset
By Josie Martinez, Senior Partner and Legal Counsel
With 2013 just weeks away, payroll professionals are getting extremely anxious about various favorable payroll tax provisions affecting individuals and businesses that have yet to be determined relating to 2013 withholdings. The provisions mentioned below may expire as of Jan. 1, 2013, unless Congress acts to extend them. Of great concern to many employers/payroll professionals (not to mention the employees that are affected by such provisions) are the following four issues:
1. Transportation/Commuting Benefit. Unless Congress decides differently in the very near future, the mass transit portion of the commuter benefit ($125 a month in 2012) will remain unconnected to the tax-free exclusion for qualified parking expenses of the commuter benefit ($240 a month in 2012). For 2011, Congress had included a provision that kept the mass transit portion of the commuter benefit equal to the parking tax benefit. Unfortunately, because Congress did not again extend the transit benefit before it expired at the end of 2011, the monthly maximum transit amount was reduced to $125 per month on Jan. 1, 2012. The issue of reinstating parity between the parking and transit benefits through the end of 2013 remains unresolved.
2. Social Security. The 2 percent payroll tax cut in effect in 2011 and 2012 temporarily reduced the Social Security withholding tax rate on wages earned by employees from 6.2 percent to 4.2 percent on the first $110,000 of wages. While this decrease is set to expire as of Jan. 1, 2013, an additional 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax increase will also apply on employee wages in excess of $200,000 (an increase from 1.45 percent to 2.35 percent).
3. Educational Assistance. Through Dec. 31, 2012, employers were permitted to reimburse employees up to $5,250 on a tax-free basis for educational assistance (pursuant to Section 127 of the Internal Revenue Code). This benefit included reimbursement for higher education courses at the associate, undergraduate and graduate levels and for programs that allowed the employee to qualify for a new position. Should the provision -- which Congress has extended repeatedly since its inception in 1978 -- expire, educational reimbursements will be much more limited.
4. Adoption assistance. This year, employees were able to exclude from gross income up to $12,650 (paid or reimbursed by an employer) for qualifying adoption or attempted adoption expenses under the adoption assistance program. Qualified adoption expenses are those expenses that are reasonable and necessary adoption fees, including court costs, attorney fees, traveling expenses and other expenses directly related to the legal adoption of an eligible child. The income tax exclusion for amounts paid by an employer is also scheduled to expire on Dec. 31, 2012.
Given this tax uncertainty, employers must prepare for changing payroll taxes and have contingency plans in place. Keeping in mind that transparency is essential, employers should inform employees -- particularly those directly affected by these benefits -- of the uncertainty behind these provisions and the potential ramifications should these tax provisions not be extended beyond Jan. 1, 2013. As an employer, consider what changes are necessary should the tax status of these benefits change, in particular from a payroll perspective. An employee may still get the same benefit, however, the value may now be taxable. Even if tax extensions for education assistance, adoption assistance and the 2 percent payroll tax increase are adopted in a new tax bill, employers should note that it is highly unlikely that either the new limits on health care flexible spending accounts or the new 0.9 percent payroll tax increase for high-income employees will be altered or eliminated. The paramount question remains: Will Congress act in time?
Think Anyone Can Prepare Your Tax Return? Think Again!
by Source Blogger
The United States has a complex tax system. Some politicians have even declared that a “flat tax” would work in maintaining a consistent, marginal tax.
In the meantime, it is up to us to do our own taxes. Taxes to me, is another service that is provided that you can probably do yourself. Most tax preparers have software where they can submit the same, simple information you can enter into tax preparation platforms like Turbo Tax or Tax Act on your own.
Over the last decade, more and more individuals have been either doing their own taxes or having a friend do them (In 2010, professional tax preparers handled only about 60% of those returns)…. and staying away from all the price gouging that companies like HR Block and Jackson Hewitt impose, particularly if you are in financial need and require a rapid return. (Note: as of last year, Rapid Refunds were restricted by federal regulators at HR Block and capped at $1500 for Jackson Hewitt.)
My wife, who is not a certified tax professional, often does the tax returns for about 10-15 of her co-workers and various family members. Does this appear to be the trend now?
While the Mrs. seems to be doing a good job, what are some red flags you should look for when a tax preparer is referred to you? Just because they appear confident and ready to earn your business, should you let them?
5 Red Flags To Look For: Think Anyone Can Prepare Your Taxes? Think Again!
1) Lack Of Availability/Lack Of Integrity — Giving one access to your financial documents and exposing intimate details about your life, family, income, expenses, and deductions is not something you should take lightly. Take some time to meet this person in person and learn about them. You want to know about their background, experience… plus, you want to know what level of support you can expect if something goes wrong now… and 5 years from now!
If I’ve given documents to my tax preparer, I expect, he/she will have questions, need more clarification, or may even request supporting documentation. When that’s not the case, and when the preparer is anxious to rush to a filing, I’d worry!
Another concern is when the tax preparer wants to remain anonymous and your friend who recommended them wants to pick up your W-2′s and deliver them on your behalf.
Also, be weary if someone who works at a tax firm is scraping work on the side for their own benefit and either misrepresenting their company or misrepresenting what their role is.
2) Big Promises — The reality is many Americans actually end up owing money. If you haven’t evaluated my financial situation, how can you promise… anything?
This type of approach is insulting and a ploy to take advantage of people’s unfortunate naivety.
Sure, anyone can promise a BIG refund if they grossly manipulate the numbers, but the IRS will surely target these miscalculations and audit you!
3) Credentials — Oh, they don’t have any? May I have some references? I want to speak with clients you have worked with in the past.
You can avoid potentially serious issues by checking if your tax preparer has the correct identification. The IRS recently began assigning Preparer Tax Identification Numbers (PTINs), and if your tax specialist can’t provide one, you may be courting trouble by using an unlicensed preparer.
4) My Refund Is In YOUR Checking Account? — If a tax preparer insists that any refund check be made out to his or her company, or deposited directly into a bank account without your name on it, that’s a huge red flag that your refund may not find you when all is said and done.
5) Your Fee Is What Percentage Of My Return? — Reputable tax-prep firms charge a flat fee for their services, based on the size and scope of your tax return. If a preparer bases your fee on a percentage of your tax refund, that should be an immediate deal-breaker. That gives the preparer incentive to pump up your refund by any means possible, which can invite some mishandling of your financial information.
Bottom Line
Just because someone has done something for a long time, does not mean they do it well.
In the end, including claiming too many exemptions, failing to claim allowable tax credits and missing tax deductions that could have saved you money is YOUR responsibility. Your good name on the line (literally), it’s best to thoroughly review any tax specialist you’re thinking of bringing aboard.
People take a lot for granted when they are buying a home, a car, giving their money to a Financial Adviser, or getting their taxes done. Don’t be that person.
Source Blogger says: Be Careful!