Hi Jennifer Leugers

Please verify ACA Customization on this company and please make changes on this screen if necessary,so that the report can be re-run with latest customization.

CC: Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar,Sachin Hingole

Hi all - customization is complete. Please run the 2016 1095C for the LHP groups in the attached. Please note - I do have VOID selected as I don't want anyone to get confused as to which copy is the one that needs to be sent after the close of the year.

Cathleen Harrington

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

LHP forms will be ready for verification tomorrow(11/18/2016).

CC: Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar,Sachin Hingole

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

We have run all the below reports. Please refer latest run for verification.

• 2016 1095C for Bay County
• 2016 1095C for HH Killeen
• 2016 1095C for IT Services
• 2016 1095C for Mgmt Services
• 2016 1095C for Montclair
• 2016 1095C for Pasack
• 2016 1095C for Pocatello
• 2016 1095C for Texas MD

Note - No records found for report 2016 1095C for Sherman

CC : Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar Sachin Hingole

Hi Nandu -

When should the new 1J and 1K codes be used?

For LHP, it looks like when someone loses their coverage mid-month, they are going from a 1A to a 1K and I'm trying to figure out why.

Sample employees -
Carolyn Anderson
Charles Bottorff
Sabrina Andorfer
Lisa Cabrera

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

IRS Site States that :
Codes 1J and 1K have been added for use on Line 14 to report a “conditional offer of spousal coverage.” A conditional offer is an offer of coverage that is subject to one or more reasonable, objective conditions.

Employers that have a spousal carve-out arrangement will need to be aware of these two new codes (specifically, 1K).

1J:
MEC providing minimum value (“MV”) offered to employee and at least MEC conditionally offered to spouse; MEC not offered to dependent(s).

1K:
MEC providing MV offered to employee; at least MEC offered to dependents; and at least MEC conditionally offered to spouse.

For above employees, their classes are changed so that they are ineligible. So these employees are losing eligibility of the plan that is offering them 1A and next eligible plan in the month of their termination is providing them 1K. Hence their codes are going from 1A to 1K.

Let us know in case of any queries.

CC:Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar,Sachin Hingole

Hi Nandu - so if there are no conditions on when they offer coverage to the Spouse / dependents, should we select anything in that new field on the Customization screen?

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

There no need to select anything in the new field on the Customization screen,if there are no conditions on when they offer coverage to the Spouse / dependents.

Hi all - why would an employee go from a 1A to a 1K? Does it matter if it is the month they terminate? EE Morgan Molina is the EE in question.

As mentioned in my earlier comment, employees that are terminated are losing eligibility of the plan that is offering them 1A and next eligible plan in the month of their termination is providing them 1K. Hence their codes are going from 1A to 1K.

EE Morgan Molina is eligible for below plans :
PPO Buy-Up Plan
PPO Base Plan
COBRA PPO Base Plan
COBRA PPO Buy-Up Plan
CDHP with HRA
CDHP COBRA Plan

EE is eligible for plan "CDHP with HRA" till date of termination.She is not enrolled in this plan.This plan's cost is less than FPL amount and so 1A is displayed. This plan is not for the full month of November as she was terminated.

She is enrolled in "PPO Buy-Up Plan" till end of the month of November.This plan's cost is greater than FPL amount and has conditional offer too.As this plan is eligible and she is enrolled for the whole month of November,1K is displayed.

Note:EE that are eligible for plan but not enrolled,eligibility is lost on the day of termination.
EE that are enrolled in a plan,eligibility is as per termination rule set on plan.

CC:Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar,Sachin Hingole

Hi Ramya - unfortunately I'm not following this logic.

The EE was covered for the entire month of November (their benefit end date is 11.30.16) so I'm not understanding why it switches.

Nothing in the 1A code says anything about them having to be employed for the whole month. Also - it doesn't matter what plan they are enrolled in it is just what they are eligible for so the 1A should still apply.

Please help me understand the logic used here as we need to explain it to the client.

Debbie Kulling

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

Please refer to the highlighted text in the attached screenshot taken from IRS Site.

In short it says that,on line 14,an employer offers health coverage for a month only if it offers health coverage that would provide coverage for every day of that calendar month.

In above scenario of employee, EE loses eligibility of plan "CDHP with HRA" which was providing 1A, on the day of termination. As eligibility is lost before month end,EE is not eligible for this plan in the month of termination. EE does not have offer of this plan for entire month of November.So 1A is not displayed.
If the employee had been enrolled in this plan and if their benefit end date is 11/30/2016,then employee would have got 1A in the November.

However,she is enrolled in "PPO Buy-Up Plan" till end of November.This plan provides 1K code.So 1K is displayed in month of November.

In case you have further queries,let us know if we can schedule a call to discuss this.

CC:Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar,Sachin Hingole,Debbie Kulling

So if the employee was enrolled in the CDHP with HRA plan, termed 11/15 but had the plan coverage term 11/30, she still would have gotten a 1A?

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

Yes, if she was enrolled in CDHP with HRA plan and she was termed 11/15 but had the plan coverage till 11/30, she would have gotten 1A for the month of November.

CC:Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar,Sachin Hingole

Hi all - once we have confirmed ticket 886 has been completed, please re-run all of the LHP files.

Hi Jennifer Leugers,

We have run all 2016 1095C reports from LHP production after changes done in WT-886, please refer latest run for verification. Please refer Yogesh comment from WT-886 for more details.

"2016 1095C for Sherman" this report does not have any records as all EE's from this reports are inactive.

Thanks,
Sachin Hingole

Nandkumar Prabhakar Karlekar Rakesh Roy Ramya Tantry Smita Pawar Mahendra Mungase