IRS Issues Proposed Rules Expanding Health Insurance Subsidy
Written on .
Tag(s): May 2022 Newsletter
The IRS has issued proposed regulations to require that "affordability" of health plans be based on the cost of coverage for not only the employee (as provided under current regulations) but also the employee's family members. The proposed regulations would allow family members who pay more than 10% of income for coverage to receive premium tax credits to purchase health coverage through the Obamacare Exchange.
Employers who do not offer affordable coverage to employees are subject to penalties, but such penalties do not apply to coverage for family members.
This is part of our May 2022 Newsletter.
View newsletter online
Download the newsletter as a PDF
Related Content
Get Email Updates
Receive newsletters and alerts directly in your email inbox. Sign up below.

TPS Update (as of 9/3/2025)
The Trump Administration has acted to terminate TPS status for several countries. Of course, litigation has followed each notice of termina…

DOL To Shut Down OFCCP and Transfer Duties to EEOC
For years the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) was a formidable enforcer of equal employment and affirmative action a…

Meaning of Supreme Court Ruling Limiting Nationwide Injunctions in Birthright Case
Readers may be confused about the significance of the U.S. Supreme Court rulings in Trump v. CASA and related cases, as part of the birthri…

In Spite of Adminstration Changes, Monitoring of the Workplace Continues to Create Legal Issues
In the last month of the Biden Administration, the EEOC issued a fact sheet on wearable technology under the anti-discrimination laws, “Wea…

The Importance of Corporate Culture
The concept of company culture is important for most employers. It is important because it actually constitutes an operating system for em…

Supreme Court Ruling Limits Transgender Rights
There have been several recent developments concerning transgender rights. Most interpret the Supreme Court’s 2020 ruling in Bostock v. Cl…