The First Amendment, Catholic Organizations, Same Sex Marriage, and Women's Health

Two recent news stories that could affect Catholic organizations and their freedom to ensure the practice of and adherence to Catholic teaching are causing a buzz on the internet and within the walls of many Catholic organizations.

First is news from Pennsylvania that a state legislator has introduced a bill that would prohibit employers from requiring employees to abide by religious doctrine as a condition of employment. This legislative bill was filed after a non-diocesan Catholic school fired one of its teacher employees who lives in New Jersey. Through a change in that state's law, the employee automatically entered into a civil "marriage" with his same-sex partner. The law changed earlier this year when a court in New Jersey mandated the redefinition of civil marriage to recognize same-sex couples. This meant that the civil union that the school employee and his same-sex partner had entered into in 2008 became recognized as a "marriage" under New Jersey law.

When the school learned of this turn of events, the principal said he had no choice but to fire the teacher because his employment contract said he must abide by Catholic doctrine. The employee asserts that his sexuality was known, that he has been with his partner for many years and that they have frequented school events together. In his mind their marriage did not change anything. The pending legislation is an attempt to prevent religious employers from requiring employees to abide by religious doctrine that is deemed to conflict with civil rights of individuals. In themean time, it is viewed as oppressive and violative of religious freedom by many, both inside and outside of Pennsylvania  and New Jersey.

The second story is from the LA Times and is entitled, "Are Catholic hospitals bad for women's health? ACLU says yes." This article mentions an ACLU report that notes the growth in the number of Catholic hospitals in the ten years from 2001 to 2011. See chart below.


Original posted on ACLUwebsite

The LA Times article insists that the health of women is endangered when they go to Catholic hospitals because doctors and other staff are hampered by having to abide by Catholic doctrine rather than being concerned about the patient and her health. The article follows on the heels of a lawsuit that was filed recently by the ACLU on behalf of Tamesha Means against the USCCB. The complaint essentially alleges that the Bishops' Conference owes Means compensation because their Church laws prevented Means from getting proper care at a Catholic hospital when she sought care there during atroubled pregnancy. According to the LA Times article:

Everyone knows that Catholic hospitals don’t perform elective abortions.  

Incomprehensibly, Catholic hospitals even fall afoul of the church if they perform an abortion to save a mother’s life. 

But are they negligent if they fail to merely inform a pregnant woman that abortion is the safest option when her health is in danger and her fetus faces certain death? And that if she wants an abortion, she should seek help elsewhere? 

That’s the crux of the issue in a negligence lawsuit filed by the ACLU on behalf of Tamesha Means, a Michigan woman whose local hospital treated her with Tylenol and sent her home twice after her water broke 18 weeks into her pregnancy. The suit alleges that the hospital, the only one within 30 miles of Means' home, did not tell her that her fetus was doomed, nor that inducing labor and terminating the pregnancy was the only way to reduce the risk of a dangerous infection. 

But there is a twist in this case. 

Instead of filing suit against Mercy Health Partners, the Muskegon, Mich., hospital where the incident took place, the ACLU took the unusual step of suing the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, which sets the rules for Catholic hospitals on many aspects of care, including abortion.

Many will recall the controversial news story from Arizona in 2010 when a sister at a Catholic hospital was told by the bishop that she was automatically excommunicated due to her role in deciding that an abortion was necessary for a patient at the hospital. A few months later, the bishop stripped the hospital of its Catholic identity for its defense of the decisions made and the procedures used on the patient. The actions of the bishop remain a controversial topic in many Church circles.

Whether the actions of the Arizona bishop and the hospital staff in Michigan were right or wrong, these events and other high profile Catholic hospital cases will undoubtedly be a part of the big picture that the ACLU attempts to paint of Catholic doctrine and social teaching when and if its case against the USCCB moves forward. Indeed, whether the principal of the Catholic school in Pennsylvania acted appropriately and legally may depend on the party with whom you sympathize.

The question now becomes: Are the First Amendment and women's healthcare services on an unavoidable collision course? And what of the First Amendment versus the rights of gay people? If a collision is inevitable in these cases, will there be any survivors?

Obama Administration Announces Another ACA Waiver for Some Individuals

Late last night or early this morning, depending on where you live, the Obama Administration announced another change to implementation of the Affordable Care Act for some individuals. This time the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services announced that individuals whose policies will be cancelled as of January 1 (because they would not be compliant with the ACA) will be able to seek a hardship exemption. Such an exemption will allow them to purchase catastrophic plans that are normally available only to individuals under age 30. Here is the announcement letter that CMS issued.

 

 

This latest change in enforcement or implementation comes on the heels of a number of other recent pronouncements by the Administration. After insurers began announcing that they would have to cancel millions of policies for noncompliance with the required coverage for what are called "essential health benefits" in the ACA, millions of people were left with the prospect of being uninsured. These cancellations ignited a firestorm and launched a public relations nightmare for the Obama Administration in light of the Presidents repeated insistence over the last five years that "if you like your health insurance you can keep it." The cancellations proved that assertion to be patently false.

 

In an attempt to fix the problem that the cancellations created, President Obama announced in mid November that insurance companies would be allowed to renew for one more year coverage that did not meet ACA standards. The problem with that attempt at a resolution was that it falls to the states running their own health care marketplace websites to make the actual determination as to which plans can stay in force or not. And two states with the largest populations--New York and California--were among the 22 states that have said that they will not allow plans to be renewed if they do not mee the requirments of the ACA.

 

The Administration also extended the deadline by which individuals have to enroll in order to be eligible for coverage on January 1, 2014, from the original date of December 15 to December 23, 2013. This one-week extension was meant to compensate for the delay caused by the error-plagued rollout of the healthcare.gov website on October 1. In addition, the Administration recently asked insurers to extend the date by which individuals can make their first payment to January 10, 2014, while making the coverage retroactive to January 1. This pronouncement two days ago got little notice in the media since it came in the middle of a week of last-minute Christmas shopping. The 10-day extension is likely to affect only a handful of people who take advantage of it while confusing others who think it means they can wait until January 10 to enroll.

 

So, this latest pronouncement of a hardship exemption for cancellees seems to be yet another attempt to convince individuals whose policies have been cancelled to enroll in the marketplace. However, it could create even more logistical nighmares across the board -- for those who run the exchanges, for insurers who have fewer people paying for coverage, for consumers who do not understand their options, and for those with serious health problems who get a hardship waiver. What these purchasers of catastrophic plans are likely to discover is that these plans cover very little when they go for medical treatment, and they require high up-front costs before coverage kicks in for essential health benefits.

 

If you are interested in catastrophic coverage and want to see a list of catastrophic plans available in your area, go to https://www.healthcare.gov/catastrophic-plan-information/.





Are Employer-Provided Life Insurance Premiums a Taxable Fringe Benefit?

Does your religious institute or a sponsored ministry pay premiums for life insurance for its employees, in whole or in part? Did you know that the portion that the employer pays is a fringe benefit to the employee and may be taxable under the Internal Revenue Code? IRS Publication 15-B (pp. 11-14) discusses fringe benefits and requirements of -- and exceptions to -- taxation. (See excerpt from Pub 15b below.)

If you discover that you and your employees should be paying taxes on this fringe benefit, consult with your payroll department and ask them to help assess the situation. The higher an employee's income and age, the higher the tax liability is likely to be. You may also want to notify your employees that this perk is a fringe benefit and that taxes may have to be withheld.

If there is a tax liability, Medicare and Social Security taxes are required to be withheld, while income tax withholding is optional. Pub 15b explains this nuance. Notification of this taxable fringe benefit and its inclusion in income should be sent to employees before the issuance of 2013 W-2s in January of 2014.

Addendum to earlier post on the EBSA Form 700

Earlier today we posted on the EBSA Form 700 requirement for non-profit employers seeking an accommodation from the contraception mandate. Note that employers must also be aware of state laws that could affect the coverage options that are available to them. Some states do not allow fully insured plans to not cover contraception, and others require you to file a form with the state in addition to the federal form. Below is a snapshot from the website where we found this information, and the link is below the picture so you can read more.

See UnitedHealthcare article from December 4, 2012, "Nonprofits Need to Self-Certify for ACA Contraceptive Exemption" at http://broker.uhc.com/articleView-12786.

The Cadillac Tax and Its Impending Arrival

Should religious institutes be concerned already with the health insurance "Cadillac tax" that is set to take effect in 2018? The topic has been the subject of a few articles in recent months. This article from The Morning Call in Allentown, Pennsylvania, summarizes the dilemma that some employers see before them -- years before the Cadillac tax actually kicks in.

The sum of $10,200 is not a lot when you consider that the tax kicks in four years down the road, and insurance premiums will presumably and (arguably) necessarily rise between now and then. It is easy to conceive of that sum catching many employers off-guard if they do not do some analysis now. Religious institutes would be wise to take at look at the cost of the insurance they currently provide their employees (AND their members) and do some number crunching to see if the Cadillac tax could be arriving in your places of employment in four or five years...

EBSA Form 700 and the Contraceptive Mandate

Many religious institutes are reporting that they have received a notice from their insurance companies or their third party administrators asking them to indicate a choice or sign a form immediately with regard to their health care coverage. The form most often being asked about is the EBSA Form 700. Note that not every organization that claims to be religious needs to sign that form.

This request from insurers is coming now because insurance providers need to know whether they are on the hook under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) for providing contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs for employees of your organization. As you hopefully know, the ACA requires all insurance coverage to provide "essential health benefits," which includes "women's preventive care." This is where the objectionable coverage for contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs comes into play, which is the subject of dozens of lawsuits across the United States. We at RCRI have held two webinars on the subject this year to inform our members of what is happening with the "contraceptive mandate," as it has come to be known.

Back to the form that you may be asked to sign by your insurance company. There are two main ways that you may be exempt from having to provide these women's preventive services. First is if your plan is grandfathered. You should know if this applies to your employee plan already, and your insurance company should know, so I won't go into any detail on grandfathered plans here.

The second way to be exempt is if you qualify as a either a "religious employer" or as an "eligible organization." (Some would say this is two ways because they have different results.) The final regulations on the contraceptive mandate define a "religious employer" as "an employer that is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity and is referred to in section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) or (iii) of the Code." Section 6033(a)(3)(A)(i) and (iii) of the Code refers to churches, their integrated auxiliaries, and conventions or associations of churches, as well as to the exclusively religious activities of any religious order. The italicized  phrases are the ones that are most likely to apply to religious orders and some of their sponsored ministries.

The religious institute itself most likely will qualify as a "religious employer." However, any of its ministries beyond those activities that are "exclusively religious" must be examined to see if they qualify as "integrated auxiliaries" of a church (in this case, the Catholic Church). A full explanation of what an integrated auxiliary is is beyond the scope of this blog post, but religious institutes should familiarize themselves with the criteria. (It is a similar analysis to the one conducted to determine whether a ministry is required to file a Form 990, and often hinges on whether the organization is "internally supported.") [Note: Donna Miller can provide more on this topic and how to conduct an analysis if you request it from her at dmiller@trcri.org.]

If your organization does not qualify as a "religious employer" and is not exempt outright from having to provide the contraceptive coverage, you may be an "eligible organization"-- that is, qualified for an "accommodation." This means that you do not have to pay premiums for the employees to be covered for contraception, sterilization and abortion-inducing drugs, but your insurance provider or third-party administrator DOES have to cover these items for your employees.

Although intended to be a solution to the outcry that the original definition religious employer was too narrow, this provision remains controversial for many employers who have religious objections. You can read a letter entitled "Unacceptable" dated February 10, 2012, signed by dozens of Catholic university personnel and multi-denominational theologians at this link. This letter summarizes the continuing objection that these individuals and organizations have over the amended contraceptive mandate final rules. A statement of similar content was also made by the USCCB this past summer, and that statement can be found here. On the other hand, despite its initial objection to the narrow definition of "religious employer" contained in the proposed rules, Catholic Health Association announced that it could "live with" the accommodation provision in the amended rules and would not challenge the mandate any further. Its statement can be found at the end of this NCR article.

So what is an "eligible organization"?

[A]n eligible organization is an organization that: (1) opposes providing coverage for some or all of the contraceptive services required to be covered [...] on account of religious objections; (2) is organized and operates as a nonprofit entity; (3) holds itself out as a religious organization; and (4) self-certifies that it satisfies the first three criteria (as discussed in more detail later in this section). (https://www.federalregister.gov/articles/2013/07/02/2013-15866/coverage-of-certain-preventive-services-under-the-affordable-care-act#h-13)

So, in order to be an eligible organization, your organization must oppose the coverage requirements due to religious objections, be a nonprofit, hold yourself out as a religious organization, and sign certification to that effect. Notice that this is the only one of the two provisions (religious employer and eligible organization) that requires a certification to be signed. However, it is quite understandable that insurers and third-party administrators would request that religious employers also sign a form indicating their status so that they can justify not providing coverage for the objectionable women's services.

In Summary, the EBSA Form 700 is to be signed by organizations that qualify as an "eligible organization" (eligible for an accommodation). Religious employers should not sign the same form because it indicates that an accommodation should be made for the employees, and no such accommodation is required under the contraceptive mandate. An adapted Form 700 can be drafted using language that expresses that a complete exemption from the contraceptive mandate, rather than an accommodation, is being claimed.

Do You Have a Choice in Health Insurance?

A number of religious institute members have expressed concern and disappointment in recent months over the way that the Affordable Care Act has structured health insurance on the exchanges. Because those members who work within the institute or for another Catholic employer have no reportable income, the only option available to them when they go to the state marketplace is Medicaid. Even if they wanted to pay something toward their health care, they are not allowed to apply for a non-Medicaid plan on the exchange and qualify for a subsidy.

An article yesterday by Nicole Hopkins in the Wall Street Journal expressed similar dismay over this dilemma. Hopkins' mother is age 52 and has minimal income due to circumstances in recent years. However, despite her low income, for years she has chosen to pay for her own health insurance. Under the new law, however, the policy she has been happy to pay for for years will no longer be available. Indeed, her cost would increase by 50%, and her deductible would skyrocket, if she chose to continue to pay for her own insurance. Hopkins writes:

The Sept. 26 letter from my mother's insurer promised that the more expensive plan "conforms with the new health care law"—by covering maternity needs, newborn wellness and pediatric dental care. My mother asked: "Do I need maternity care at 52?" In addition to requiring her to pay an extra $1,677 annually, the plan would have increased her deductible by $1,500.

Thinking that her mother had made a mistake and that she must be able to bypass Medicaid and opt to pay something for her coverage, Hopkins walked her mother (in the state of Washington) through the online application process from across the country (in New York). Of the application process she writes:

The situation sounded absurd, so I asked her to walk me through her application on Washington Healthplanfinder to make sure she wasn't missing anything. Sitting in New York with my computer, I logged onto the site under her name and entered the information my mother provided over the phone. I fully expected her to realize that she had forgotten some crucial piece of information, like a decimal point in her annual income. We checked and double-checked the information, but the only option still appeared to be Medicaid. She suggested clicking on "Apply for Coverage," thinking that other options might appear.

Instead, almost mockingly, her "Eligibility Results" came back: "Congratulations, we received and reviewed your application and determined [you] will receive the health care coverage listed below: Washington Apple Health. You will receive a letter telling you which managed care plan you are enrolled with." Washington Apple Health is the mawkish rebranding of Medicaid in Washington state.

The page lacked a cancel button or any way to opt out of Medicaid. It was done; she was enrolled, and there was nothing to do but click "Next" and then to sign out.

Hopkins listened as her mother explained to her why she was so averse to being forced to go on Medicaid.

"I just don't expect anything positive out of getting free health care," she said. "I don't see why other people should have to pay for my care, whether it be through taxes or otherwise." In paying for health insurance herself—she won't accept help from her family, either—she was safeguarding her dignity and independence and her sense of being a fully functioning member of society.

Before ObamaCare, Medicaid was one option. Not the option. Before this, she had never been, in effect, ordered to take a handout. Now she has been forced to join the government-reliant poor, though she would prefer to contribute her two mites. The authorities behind "affordable care" had erased her right to calculate what she was willing to spend to preserve her dignity—to determine what she thinks is affordable.

That little contribution can mean the difference between dignity and despair.

For the truly poor, being institutionally forced to take welfare is demoralizing. The Affordable Care Act is at risk of systematizing learned helplessness by telling individuals like my mother that they cannot afford to care for themselves in the way they could before the law was enacted. "This makes me feel poorer than ever," she said.

Naturally not everyone feels the same way as Hopkins' mother. Many see Medicaid as an "entitlement" that is available to anyone who qualifies. It has been, and continues to be, for many a life-saving program. And that is a good thing.

But when someone is willing and able to pay something toward her upkeep, when it matters to her that she maintain some modicum of internal pride and dignity, being forced to depend on the government is a humiliating experience. Ms. Hopkins' mother's dilemma is indeed sad.

In a country that has grown and thrived for centuries due to an indefatigable belief in hard work, unfettered  human ingenuity, and  indomitable courage, are we indeed facing a government that can tell us "we know what's best for you" (comprehensive coverage that you do not need) and "you must settle for what we give you" (Medicaid)? Sadly, it is looking that way more and more.

To read Ms. Hopkins' entire article, go to http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303531204579207724152219590.

Various Tax Benefit Changes for 2014

The following year-end tax information is taken from IRS Newswire IR-2013-87. We have highlighted several points that affect either or both religious with earned income and/or their employees or which are commonly asked about by our members.

Note that the combined standard deduction ($6200) and personal exemption ($3950) for 2014 equals $10,150, which is the threshold amount of income that a religious (under age 65) would have to report in order to be required to file an income tax return in 2015. This could be important when it comes to determining whether a member will be susceptible to paying a tax/penalty if s/he is not covered by a qualified health insurance coverage in accord with the ACA.

Note that Revenue Procedure 2013-35 listing these and other changes is available at http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-13-35.pdf.

In 2014, Various Tax Benefits Increase
Due to Inflation Adjustments

WASHINGTON — For tax year 2014, the Internal Revenue Service announced today annual inflation adjustments for more than 40 tax provisions, including the tax rate schedules, and other tax changes. Revenue Procedure 2013-35 provides details about these annual adjustments.
The tax items for tax year 2014 of greatest interest to most taxpayers include the following dollar amounts.

• The tax rate of 39.6 percent affects singles whose income exceeds $406,750 ($457,600 for married taxpayers filing a joint return), up from $400,000 and $450,000, respectively. The other marginal rates – 10, 15, 25, 28, 33 and 35 percent – and the related income tax thresholds are described in the revenue procedure.
• The standard deduction rises to $6,200 for singles and married persons filing separate returns and $12,400 for married couples filing jointly, up from $6,100 and $12,200, respectively, for tax year 2013. The standard deduction for heads of household rises to $9,100, up from $8,950.
• The limitation for itemized deductions claimed on tax year 2014 returns of individuals begins with incomes of $254,200 or more ($305,050 for married couples filing jointly).
• The personal exemption rises to $3,950, up from the 2013 exemption of $3,900. However, the exemption is subject to a phase-out that begins with adjusted gross incomes of $254,200 ($305,050 for married couples filing jointly). It phases out completely at $376,700 ($427,550 for married couples filing jointly.)
• The Alternative Minimum Tax exemption amount for tax year 2014 is $52,800 ($82,100, for married couples filing jointly). The 2013 exemption amount was $51,900 ($80,800 for married couples filing jointly).
• The maximum Earned Income Credit amount is $6,143 for taxpayers filing jointly who have 3 or more qualifying children, up from a total of $6,044 for tax year 2013. The revenue procedure has a table providing maximum credit amounts for other categories, income thresholds and phaseouts.
• Estates of decedents who die during 2014 have a basic exclusion amount of $5,340,000, up from a total of $5,250,000 for estates of decedents who died in 2013.
• The annual exclusion for gifts remains at $14,000 for 2014.
• The annual dollar limit on employee contributions to employer-sponsored healthcare flexible spending arrangements (FSA) remains unchanged at $2,500.
• The foreign earned income exclusion rises to $99,200 for tax year 2014, up from $97,600, for 2013.
• The small employer health insurance credit [SBHCTC] provides that the maximum credit is phased out based on the employer’s number of full-time equivalent employees in excess of 10 and the employer’s average annual wages in excess of $25,400 for tax year 2014, up from $25,000 for 2013.

Details on these inflation adjustments and others not listed in this release can be found in Revenue Procedure 2013-35, which will be published in Internal Revenue Bulletin 2013-47 on Nov. 18, 2013.

Confusion Surrounds Implementation of ACA

If you are finding yourself confused over what lies ahead as we quickly approach deadlines in the implementation of the Affordable Care Act, you are not alone. The employer mandate has been delayed for a year, but not the individual mandate. People all over the country are expressing mixed emotion and mixed levels of understanding about what to expect.

Recently at our National Conference in Anaheim we had two experts speak at our pre-Conference workshop on the ACA. Many religious institutes remain concerned over the requirement that essentially all health insurance policies (for men and for women alike) cover women's preventive services that include contraceptives, sterilization, and abortion-inducing drugs. We have a webinar scheduled for mid-November that will address in part the latest on the status of the contraceptive mandate and the ongoing litigation in courts across the United States. Watch for emails and check our website in the next few weeks when we open the webinar for registrations.

Employer Reporting of Employee Health Insurance Costs on W-2s

We continue to receive questions about the status of the ACA provision requiring employers to report on their employees' W-2s the amount that is paid for the employees' health coverage. This provision is still unsettled, and the IRS has instructed that until further notice certain employers with under 250 employees are not required to report the health coverage costs on employee W-2s. Employers can do so, but it is optional.

For more on this IRS statement, go to http://www.irs.gov/uac/Employer-Provided-Health-Coverage-Informational-Reporting-Requirements:-Questions-and-Answers.

For details on what must be reported, see the chart at this link: http://www.irs.gov/uac/Form-W-2-Reporting-of-Employer-Sponsored-Health-Coverage.

Are You Eligible for the Combined Federal Campaign?

The 2013 Combined Federal Campaign (CFC) has been launched and federal organizations across the country are preparing to participate. CFC is the largest and most successful workplace fundraising campaign in the world. It raised $7 billion for thousands of charities over the past 50 years.  In 2012, 130,000 generous federal employees gave nearly $62 million to help neighbors in need around the corner, across the nation and throughout the world.

Through the CFC’s local campaigns, federal employees have the opportunity to donate to thousands of approved charities (see for example, the complete online list of participating charities in the Washington, DC area campaign: 2013 Catalog of Caring).

The theme of this year’s campaign is “Make It Possible,” designating all the ways the CFC campaign makes it possible for federal employees to make the world a better place.  Many federal agencies will be kicking off their campaigns on October 1 and will run them until December 15 to allow employees to choose charities to receive their donations.

Although it is too late to get onto the list for 2013’s campaign (for money that will be distributed in 2014), Catholic organizations may want to apply to be on the list of eligible organizations in late 2014 (for distributions made in 2015).

RCRI produced a webinar on the CFC in 2012. You can view the webinar and learn more about this potential for fundraising at this link: http://www.trcri.org/members/CFC.php.

EMPLOYER “DID YOU KNOW” PPACA FACTS

Some employers are unaware of some very important requirements and looming deadlines by which they must abide under the new health care law. We have grown accustomed to seeing the IRS and HHS named as the governing bodies in the implementation and enforcement of the PPACA, but the Department of Labor (DOL) is the third agency that is tasked with implementing and governing the new law. Below are a few often overlooked provisions that the DOL has published. Leaders of religious institutes and business office personnel should take notice and make sure that their sponsored ministries are compliant.

(1) Employers Must Give Employees Notice of Coverage Options by October 1, 2013 
Originally set for March 1, this deadline was extended until October 1, the same date that the state marketplace exchanges are set to open for business. See http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/newsroom/tr13-02.html.

This provision applies to virtually ALL employers no matter how many employees you have. It is incorporated into the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), and it requires employers to provide a notice of coverage options to each employee, regardless of plan enrollment status (if applicable) or of part-time or full-time status. (Employers are not required to provide a separate notice to dependents.)

•  Employers are required to provide the notice to each new employee at the time of hiring beginning October 1, 2013. For 2014, the Department will consider a notice to be provided at the time of hiring if the notice is provided within 14 days of an employee’s start date. 
• With respect to employees who are current employees before October 1, 2013, employers are required to provide the notice not later than October 1, 2013. The notice is required to be provided automatically, free of charge. 

The notice must be provided in writing in a manner calculated to be understood by the average employee. It may be hand-delivered directly to the employee, provided by first-class mail, or delivered electronically (if the employee has access to email at work and is sure to get it). Posting a central notice in a common area does not suffice.

The notice that an employer sends must be in writing and it must inform the employee:

• …of the existence of the Marketplace (Exchange) including a description of the services provided by the Marketplace, and the manner in which the employee may contact the Marketplace to request assistance; 
• …that if the employer plan's share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided under the plan is less than 60 percent of such costs, that the employee may be eligible for a premium tax credit if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace; and 
• …that if the employee purchases a qualified health plan through the Marketplace, the employee may lose the employer contribution (if any) to any health benefits plan offered by the employer and that all or a portion of such contribution may be excludable from income for Federal income tax purposes. 

Sample Notices for Employers to Adapt for Employees
-For a sample notice that employers can use for employees to whom they offer health insurance coverage, go to this link.
-For a sample notice that employers can use for employees to whom they do NOT offer health insurance coverage, go to this link.
The differences in these notices is very subtle, but be careful to use the correct one. Also, be sure to fill in the blanks with the applicable contact information when called for.

(2) Automatic Enrollment in Health Plans when employers have more than 200 employees http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca5.html
PPACA amended the FLSA by adding a new section requiring employers with more than 200 full-time employees to automatically enroll new full-time employees in the employer’s health benefits plans and continue enrollment of current employees.

What Agency is responsible for guidance under this new FLSA provision? 
The Secretary of Labor has delegated responsibility for rulemaking and for regulations of this new provision to the Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) within the DOL. EBSA and the Department of the Treasury will coordinate to develop the rules that will apply in determining full-time employee status for purposes of the amendments to the FLSA and the rulemaking by the Treasury Department under the Internal Revenue Code to develop the rules that will apply in determining full-time employee status.

When do employers have to comply with the new automatic enrollment requirements of the FLSA? 
Are you ready for this answer? Section 18A provides that employer compliance with the automatic enrollment provisions of that section shall be carried out “[i]n accordance with regulations promulgated by the Secretary [of Labor].” Accordingly, it is the view of the Department of Labor that, until such regulations are issued, employers are not required to comply with section 18A. The Department of Labor expects to work with stakeholders to ensure that it has the necessary information and data it needs to develop regulations in this area that take into account the practices employers currently use for auto-enrollment and to solicit the views and practices of a broad range of stakeholders, including employers, workers, and their families. The Department of Labor intends to complete this rulemaking by 2014.

(3) Ninety Day Waiting Period Limitation for New Employee Coverage (Link is here)

New DOL regulations propose that a group health plan, and a health insurance issuer offering group health insurance coverage, not apply any waiting period that exceeds 90 days. (Neither a plan nor an issuer offering coverage is required to have any waiting period.) If, under the terms of the plan, an employee can elect coverage that becomes effective on a date that does not exceed the 90-day waiting period limitation, the coverage complies with the waiting period rules, and the plan or issuer will not be considered to violate the waiting period rules merely because individuals choose to elect coverage beyond the end of the 90-day waiting period.

This provision is effective January 1, 2014. The proposed regulations have several sample scenarios to help employers figure out if their plans are or will be compliant with the provision when it takes effect.

How Well Do You Know Your Bible?

If you are relaxing tonight, flipping channels, and looking for something to watch on the television, consider a 9:00 (Eastern time) detour over to the Game Show Network (GSN) where you can watch a fun episode of "The American Bible Challenge." (To see if the channel is available in your area, go to the GSN TV website and enter your zip code. Note the time differences also for those not in the Eastern time zone!)

What will make this program fun tonight is that a team of three Dominican Sisters from Michigan (Dominican Sisters of Mary, Mother of the Eucharist) will be competing in the semifinal round of this family-friendly quiz show that is a cross between "Minute to Win It" and "Are You Smarter than a Fifth Grader?" Jeff Foxworthy is the host of the program, and he will entertain you in his own comic style.

Sister Peter Joseph, Sister Maria Suso, and Sister Evangeline

Here is a snippet from the three young Sisters' previous appearance on the game show.

I learned about the Sisters' upcoming semifinal round appearance on Zenit. You can read more about them and their religious institute at this link.

We wish the Sisters the best of luck in their endeavor!

Certain Tax Return Preparers Freed from Exam and Continuing Education Requirements

Two weeks ago, individuals who assist with the filing of tax returns won a significant victory over the IRS. The lawsuit filed by three individual tax return preparers in March of 2012 charged that the IRS did not have the authority to require them to complete an exam and attend continuing education classes annually. These requirements had been enacted by the IRS in 2011, as a means of trying to ensure that those who are paid to assist others with the filing of their tax returns are competent to do so. However, the requirements placed a heavy burden on many small business preparers who were subjected to the rigorous requirements. For example, the fee to take the exam was $116.

On January 18, 2013, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia agreed with the plaintiffs and enjoined the Internal Revenue Service from enforcing the regulatory requirements for registered tax return preparers. In accordance with this order, tax return preparers covered by this program are not required to complete competency testing or secure continuing education. The ruling does not affect the regulatory practice requirements for CPAs, attorneys, enrolled agents, enrolled retirement plan agents or enrolled actuaries.



Two weeks after that decision of the District Court, on Friday, Feb. 1, the court clarified its order and said  that it does not affect the requirement for all paid tax return preparers to obtain a preparer tax identification number (PTIN). Consistent with this modification, the IRS has reopened the online PTIN system. The current PTIN sign-in page is being modified, so until then, those signing in as registered tax return preparers can answer however they choose when asked if they have completed the educational requirements.

For more information go to www.irs.gov/taxpros.

To access the case Loving v. Internal Revenue Service, go to this link at www.leagle.com.

Pay Now or Pay Later?

Credit cards have become an almost indispensable part of conducting business in this country. Even the most routine and mundane of purchases see us using the number-emblazoned plastic to complete a transaction. Generally speaking, with credit cards we can track our purchases, pay all at once, and not have to worry about running out of cash in a bind. They have become a necessity for some rather than a mere convenience.

However, a change happened this week that could make you think twice about swiping that card at some retail establishments. As a result of a settlement in a lawsuit that dragged on for over seven years involving a number of retail merchants against the two biggest credit card issuers -- Visa and MasterCard -- merchants are now free to pass along to their customers certain "swipe fees" that the issuers charge to merchants for the use of their cards by customers.

The fees generally apply to credit cards
rather than debit cards.

For decades Visa and MasterCard prohibited merchants who accept their credit cards from charging a fee to customers to compensate the merchant for having to pay a percentage fee to MasterCard or Visa. (Discover and American Express were not named as defendants in the lawsuit.) Merchants must contract with the credit card issuers whose cards they accept in order to set up the payment process, so these two issuing companies essentially held a monopoly on the credit industry. Merchants who wanted to increase their business by accepting credit cards were told by these two card issuers that they could not charge a "swipe fee" to customers, meaning merchants were not allowed to pass on the fee atop the established price.

Here's an example. If a customer came to XYZ store and purchased $100 worth of goods, Visa and MasterCard would only send the merchant $97 to $99, depending on the fee arrangement (based on volume of sales and other factors). The "swipe fee" was called an administrative fee -- it is how credit card companies make money since (believe it or not) a majority of consumers pay off their bills on time monthly and thus owe no interest or finance charges. If a customer was forced to cover that $3.00 fee (thus paying $103 for a $100 purchase), s/he may go elsewhere for a credit card that did not charge the merchant, and who was thus not passing it along to the customer. So the prohibition was a way that the issuers could make the retailer absorb the cost of doing business.

But for some merchants, that cost of doing business put them out of business in the highly competitive markets. Some merchants found creative ways around the problem, such as offering a discounted lower price for those who pay with cash -- a favorite of gas stations across many states. But this did not truly resolve the credit card dilemma -- since many people do not carry cash in large enough quantities to cover purchases.

The class action law suit was an attempt by several thousand merchants who cried foul over what they deemed to be an unfair practice by Visa and MasterCard. The two companies have such a large market share of the credit industry that they were able to suppress the freedom of retailers and control the commerce with their contractual obligations and prohibitions. The court agreed with much of the plaintiffs' arguments, and is now considering approving a $7.2 billion dollar settlement that millions of plaintiffs would have to share. Although the settlement of the lawsuit is still pending final approval, January 27 was the date on which merchants were allowed to start charging up to a 4% surcharge on credit cards issued by these two credit industry giants. Several large merchants, such as Target, Home Depot, and Wal-Mart, have said they will not tack on the credit card surcharge when customers pay by Visa and MasterCard credit cards. Some smaller companies are unwilling--or unable-- to make that promise.

There are still a number of troubling unresolved issues in case that continue to make some retailers unhappy. For instance, Visa and MasterCard have not been precluded from re-imposing the prohibition later, and they will be free to raise the interchange rates that they charge in the future. A final hearing on the settlement is set for September of this year.

Prayer Request for a Wisconsin Baby as He Recovers

Posted by Donna Miller

For two months now, I have been following the progress of a baby boy in Wisconsin named Dominic Pio. This amazing baby has been through so much in his short life. Baby Dominic was born with a facial deformity, and a month ago today he underwent major surgery to remove the growth from his face.

Because of the interest that was generated in Dominic's story, his mother started a blog to update friends and loved ones on the progress he is making. That is how I learned of Dominic and his family's journey. You can read all about what Baby Dominic Pio  has been through at www.dominicpio.com.

My reason for telling our members about this story is not legal or financial or canonical in nature. It is simply that Mary Gundrum, Dominic Pio's mother, posted a video that their friends made for Dominic Pio and his family. In the video, they give a nod of appreciation to one of our RCRI members organizations--the Schoenstatt Sisters of Mary of Waukesha, Wisconsin--for giving the performers a place to practice and for all their prayers for Dominic Pio. Here is the inspiring video.

I'm sure the Gundrum family will appreciate 

all who keep Baby Dominic in their prayers!