text:
Blog Archives
HR Update: DOL Clarifies Worker Classification Test
On July 15, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued an administrative interpretation to clarify how to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.
Employee misclassification is a growing concern for the DOL. An increasing number of U.S. workplaces are restructuring their business organizations, creating a higher risk of misclassifying employees as independent contractors.
Employer misclassification has a direct impact on employee eligibility for benefits, legal protections (such as minimum wage and overtime rights) and taxation.
Worker Classification Tests
Several tests exist to determine whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. The most common tests include the common law or agency test, the economic realities test, the hybrid test and the IRS test.
Traditionally, the DOL has favored using the six-factor economic realities test because this test seeks to determine whether a worker is economically dependent on his or her employer or whether the worker is in business for him- or herself. The DOL's rationale is that if the worker is economically dependent on the employer, the worker should be classified as an employee and protected by employment laws, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA).
The Economic Realities Test
The six factors for the economic realities test are:
- Whether the worker's job is an integral part of the employer's business;
- Whether the worker's managerial skill affects his or her opportunity for profit or loss;
- Whether the worker's and the employer's investments are comparable;
- Whether the work performed requires special skills and initiative;
- Whether the relationship between the worker and the employer is permanent or indefinite; and
- An analysis of the nature and degree of the employer's control over the worker.
In the administrative interpretation, the DOL emphasized repeatedly that no one factor is determinative and that the factors should not be applied in a mechanical fashion. Rather, the DOL encourages employers to use the six factors as a guide in their efforts to classify workers correctly.
The DOL further explains that the six factors should be interpreted within the context of the FLSA's definition of employment. The FLSA defines "to employ" as to suffer or permit someone to work. The DOL explains that this broad definition of employment was "specifically designed to ensure as broad of a scope of statutory coverage as possible." This "suffer or permit" standard prevents employers from using agents to evade labor and employment responsibilities. According to the DOL, under the economic realities test, most workers will be considered employees subject to the FLSA.
An Integral Part of the Employer's Business
A worker that performs activities that are an integral part of the employer's business is more likely to be dependent on the employer, and, therefore, should be classified as an employee.
The administrative interpretation states that the courts have found the "integral" factor to be compelling even when the activity in question is just one component of the business or is performed by hundreds or thousands of other workers. For example, the DOL states, "a worker answering calls at a call center along with hundreds of others is performing work that is integral to the call center's business, even if that work is the same as, and interchangeable with, many others' work."
The DOL also mentioned that work can be integral to an employers' business even if it is performed away from the employer's premises, at the worker's home or even on the premises of the employers' customers.
Managerial Skill
The focus of this factor is whether the worker's managerial skill can affect his or her opportunity for profit or loss. To determine profit or loss opportunities, employers should look beyond the job at hand and determine whether the worker's skills can lead to additional business from other parties or reduce the opportunities for future work.
When evaluating this factor, employers should consider a worker's decision to hire others, purchase materials and equipment, advertise, rent space and manage timetables.
The DOL specifically mentions that a worker's ability to work more hours and the amount of work available from the employer have "nothing to do with the worker's managerial skills and do little to separate employees from independent contractors." This is because both are likely to earn more if they work more and if there is more work available.
Comparable Investments
To determine whether the employer and worker investments are comparable, employers should look at the nature and the extent of the investments.
An independent contractor should make some investment and undertake at least some risk of loss if he or she is in business for him- or herself. The investment should support a business beyond any particular job. These types of investments include furthering the business' capacity to expand, reducing business cost structure and extending the reach of the independent contractor's market.
However, a worker's investments should not be considered in isolation. They should be compared to the employer's investment. If the worker's investment is relatively minor, the employer and the worker may not be on the same footing and the worker may be economically dependent on the employer.
Finally, investing in tools and equipment is not an automatic indication of significant investment or that the worker is an independent contractor. This type of investment must be compared to the worker's investment in his or her overall business and to the employer's investment in the project and perhaps in its overall activities.
Special Skills and Initiative
A worker's skills and initiative can be an indicator of economic independence. However, when considering a worker's skill, employers should consider the worker's business skills, judgement and initiative, rather than his or her technical skills, which are often required to perform the work. Special skills and initiative are indicators of economic independence when the worker can use them in an independent way, such as demonstrating business-like initiative.
The DOL provides the following illustrative examples:
|Example 1
|A highly skilled carpenter provides carpentry services for a construction firm; however, such skills are not exercised in an independent manner. For example, the carpenter does not make any independent judgments at the job site beyond the work that he is doing for that job; he does not determine the sequence of work, order additional materials, or think about bidding the next job, but rather is told what work to perform where. In this scenario, the carpenter, although highly-skilled technically, is not demonstrating the skill and initiative of an independent contractor (such as managerial and business skills). He is simply providing his skilled labor.
|Example 2
|In contrast, a highly skilled carpenter who provides a specialized service for a variety of area construction companies, for example, custom, handcrafted cabinets that are made-to-order, may be demonstrating the skill and initiative of an independent contractor if the carpenter markets his services, determines when to order materials and the quantity of materials to order, and determines which orders to fill.
Permanent or Indefinite Employment
Employment that is permanent or indefinite in character suggests that the worker is an employee. Most independent contractors will avoid permanent or indefinite work relationships and are usually hired to work until a job or a project is complete (even if this takes several months or years). Moreover, once a job or project is complete, the independent contractor does not necessarily continue to provide his or her services to the employer.
Employers should consider a worker's reasons for intermittent, seasonal, permanent or indefinite employment. Neither working for others nor having multiple sources of income transforms a worker into an independent contractor. The key is to determine "whether the lack of permanence or indefiniteness is due to operational characteristics intrinsic to the industry (such as employers that hire part-time workers or use staffing agencies) or the worker's own business initiative."
For seasonal employment, the proper test to determine permanency is whether the employees worked for the entire operative period of a particular season, not whether the worker returns from season to season.
Nature and Degree of Employer Control
An independent contractor controls meaningful aspects of the work he or she performs. This type of control should lead objective observers to conclude that the worker is conducting his or her own business.
Control over meaningful aspects of the work may extend beyond controlling working hours and could include work schedules, dress code and task prioritization.
The DOL asserts that this control cannot be theoretical and explains that what counts is not what the worker could have done, but what the worker actually does.
Finally, the DOL warns that the control factor should not "play an oversized role" and dwarf other factors in the economic realities test when determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor.
More Information
Please contact us for additional information on appropriate worker classification. We provide Solutions for Business. Solutions….that Work!
DOL Proposes Changes to FLSA White Collar Exemption Rules
Provided by CIBC of Illinois, Inc.
On June 30, 2015, the U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) issued a proposed rule to modify the "white collar exemptions" provided by the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The white collar exemptions are minimum wage and overtime exception rules for executive, administrative, professional, outside sales and computer employees.
Specifically, the proposed rule seeks to:
- Increase the salary requirements for employees to be considered exempt;
- Implement automatic salary requirement updates; and
- Receive feedback on whether modifying the duties test is necessary at this time.
The DOL estimates that, if implemented, the proposed rule would extend overtime protections to approximately 5 million workers who are currently exempt under the white collar rules and would clarify overtime compensation eligibility for another 6 million white collar workers.
The DOL has invited the general public to comment on the proposed rule. Comments can be submitted electronically or via regular mail. All comments must be submitted or postmarked by Aug. 29, 2015.
Why Is the DOL Issuing a Proposed Rule?
On March 13, 2014, President Barack Obama directed the DOL to simplify and modernize the regulations that protect "white collar" workers under the FLSA.
The Administration's concern is that current white collar exemption requirements are outdated, since the salary threshold has been changed only twice in the last 40 years. Fewer workers are eligible for overtime now than in the past due to inflation.
White Collar Exemptions
To qualify for the white collar exemption, an employee must meet a salary basis test, a salary level test and a duties test.
- The salary basis test is used to make sure the employee is paid a predetermined and fixed salary that is not subject to reduction due to variations in the quality or quantity of work.
- The salary level test is used to ensure that the employee meets a minimum specified amount to qualify for the exemption.
- The duties test requires that the employee's job duties conform to executive, administrative or professional duties, as defined by law.
Higher Salary Requirements
The proposed rule would increase the current minimum salary level of $455 per week ($23,660 per year) to $921 per week or ($47,892 per year). The proposed new salary level represents the 40th percentile of wages earned by workers across the United States in 2013. Projected data for 2016 would set these numbers to $970 per week and $50,440 per year.
The proposed rule would also increase the $100,000 salary level for highly compensated individuals to $122,148 per year—the 90th percentile of wages earned by workers in 2013.
The DOL is also considering special salary tests for employees in American Samoa and workers in the motion picture industry.
The DOL has stated that these updates are necessary to accurately represent the intent of minimum wage and overtime exemptions, which have not been updated since 2004.
Automatic Salary Requirement Updates
If implemented, the proposed rule will automatically update minimum salary level requirements for the white collar exemptions every year. Implementing automatic annual updates would prevent salary level requirements that lag behind current wage payment trends.
In the proposed rule, the DOL explains that it is considering tying minimum salary requirements to:
- Fixed percentiles of wages paid (40th percentile for weekly wage and 90th percentile for highly compensated individuals); or
- Inflation, as measured by the consumer price index.
Calculating Employee Wages
The proposed rule also states that the DOL is considering allowing an employer to apply nondiscretionary bonuses and incentive payments towards a portion of an employee's standard salary level.
The proposed rule explains that including these bonuses would more accurately represent an employee's earnings and would provide a better assessment of whether a white collar exemption should apply.
Public Comments on Duties Test
The proposed rule does not include specific suggestions to modify the white collar exemption duties test.
However, the DOL is considering whether updating this test is also necessary. To this end, the DOL is inviting public comments on whether the duties test is working as intended. The DOL has included several questions in the proposed rule for commenters to consider.
Impact on Employers
If implemented, the proposed rule would require employers to re-determine the exemption status of employees, update and adapt overtime policies, notify employees of policy changes and adjust their payroll systems.
These measures could trigger significant costs. For example, employers may be required to pay overtime wages to previously exempt employees or incur ongoing managerial costs because they would need to monitor more closely the work of employees they didn't have to monitor before.
On the other hand, the DOL is predicting that higher salary level requirements for white collar exemptions will simplify the process of employee classification because employers would not be required to perform a duties test for employees below the updated salary requirements. This simplification could result in fewer lawsuits and lower litigation costs for employers.
As always, contact us today for a full analysis of your exposure to this new regulation, and for Custom CIBC Solutions to help mitigate your associated costs.
Employee Benefits Update from CIBC of Illinois, Inc.
Agencies Plan to Issue Final Rules for SBC Requirements
On March 31, 2015, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury (Departments) issued Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) announcing their intention to issue final regulations for the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) and uniform glossary requirement. These regulations will finalize the proposed regulations from Dec. 22, 2014.
The ACA requires these disclosure tools—the SBC and uniform glossary—to help consumers compare available coverage options. The requirement to provide them applies to both grandfathered and non-grandfathered plans.
Health plan issuers must provide the SBC to applicants and enrollees free of charge. The SBC is a concise document that provides simple and consistent information about health plan benefits and coverage.
The final regulations are expected to be released in the near future and will apply for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2016 (including open enrollment periods in fall of 2015 for coverage beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2016).
The updated template and related documents, including sample language and instructions, for the SBC and uniform glossary will not be issued until January 2016. The updated template will then apply for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017. Until further guidance is issued, the previously updated template provided on the DOL's website on April 23, 2014, continues to be authorized.
The March 31 FAQ guidance leaves a lot of uncertainty for employers in regard to their SBC documents. The changes included in the final regulations may require health plans to update their SBC documents before the new template is released.
The forthcoming final regulations may address this issue. In some cases, the Departments have provided temporary enforcement safe harbors when guidance is not issued sufficiently in advance of an effective date. However, at this time, no safe harbors or other relief has been provided on this issue.
Plan Offerings Now Diverging by Group Size
A new trend of health plan offerings has emerged over the past few years. Group size appears to be a determining factor in whether employers are offering more generous health plans or working on implementing more cost-sharing strategies for health benefits.
Large organizations—with more than 500 lives—tend to offer generous health plans, likely in an effort to use their benefits packages as recruiting and retention tools in a market that is becoming increasingly fierce.
Smaller groups are cutting back on benefits and using cost-sharing efforts with employees. This trend of leaner benefits with smaller groups is likely an effort to bring down expenses associated with rising health care costs and other costs related to the ACA.
For more information on how your benefits offerings compare to other employers, contact CIBC of Illinois, Inc. for benchmarking information.
On May 4, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Revenue Procedure 2015-30 to announce the inflation-adjusted limits for health savings accounts (HSAs) for calendar year 2016.
The following limits apply for 2016:
- The HSA contribution limit is $3,350 for self-only and $6,750 for family.
- The minimum deductible for high deductible health plans (HDHPs) is $1,300 for self-only and $2,600 for family.
- The maximum out-of-pocket for HDHPs is $6,550 for self-only and $13,100 for family.
HR Briefing from CIBC of Illinois: May 2015
Supreme Court Issues Ruling in Pregnancy Discrimination Case
On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former employee of United Parcel Service (UPS). The employee was faced with the choice to either continue working her labor-intensive job during pregnancy or take unpaid leave.
In its Young v. UPS decision, the Supreme Court held that the employee should be given the opportunity to prove that UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by not providing her the same light-duty accommodation that was given to other UPS employees who were considered injured or disabled. The PDA requires that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition be treated the same for all employment-related purposes as "other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."
The employee in this case, Peggy Young, worked as a part-time driver for UPS. In 2006, Young became pregnant and was advised by her doctor that she should not lift more than 20 pounds. However, UPS required drivers to be
able to lift up to 70 pounds and denied Young's lifting restriction.
Young sued UPS, alleging that it violated the PDA because it had a light-duty policy for other types of workers, including those who were injured on the job or disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), but not for pregnant workers. UPS argued that it treated her as it would treat other relevant individuals and therefore did not discriminate against her based on pregnancy.
In 2008, the ADA's definition of "disability" was expanded, requiring employers to accommodate employees with temporary lifting restrictions originating outside of work. In 2014, the EEOC also issued guidance requiring employers that provide light-duty assignments to employees who are unable to perform their full duties to make similar accommodations for pregnant employees. Many employers may have already changed their policies in light of this guidance.
The Supreme Court sent the case to the lower court for further review and also outlined standards for PDA cases. An individual may show discrimination by showing that her employer did not accommodate her while pregnant but did accommodate others who are similar "in their ability or inability to work."
The decision is a victory for pregnant workers because it establishes an easier framework to prove illegal discrimination. Employers should review their policies to make sure that they do not discriminate against pregnant workers in violation of applicable laws. A significant factor in determining whether discrimination occurred will be if the employer accommodates a large percentage of nonpregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.
HR Summertime Checklist
Employers and HR departments that take time to prepare for the summer months may be able to enjoy them a bit more. Now is a good time to start considering the employee management areas outlined below to ensure a smooth summer. Think about how each area impacts your organization and whether any action should be taken.
PTO/Vacation Requests – Do managers and supervisors know how to administer employee requests to make sure appropriate staffing levels are maintained and employees are treated fairly?
Summer Hours – Will your company begin or continue a "summer hours" policy? Will it be company-wide?
Dress Code – Does your company allow for a more relaxed dress code during the summer? How long does this last?
Staffing – Are you a seasonal employer who should start hiring for the summer? Are there layoffs to be administered prior to summer? Will you be hiring interns?
Of course, the above is not an all-inclusive list and each organization is unique. Think about what the summertime season means for your organization and get prepared.
Many employers have implemented wellness programs to control health care costs. However, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has filed several lawsuits against employer-sponsored wellness programs it says violate the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Genetic Information Nondiscrimination Act (GINA).
Until more clear guidance is available, you should take note of the issues highlighted in the EEOC cases. Specifically, you should review your wellness plan to ensure participation is voluntary and that employees are not excessively penalized for refusing to participate. In addition, you should evaluate whether the information collected about employees is protected under the ADA, GINA or any other employment benefit law.
For help with any part of the Employee Benefits spectrum, call us today at 877-936-3580.
Compliance Alert: EEOC Issues Proposed Rule on the ADA and Wellness Programs
On April 16, 2015, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) released a proposed rule that describes how the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) applies to employee wellness programs that include questions about employees' health or medical examinations. Although the ADA limits when employers may inquire about employees' health or require them to undergo medical examinations, these inquiries and exams are permitted if they are part of a voluntary wellness program.
The long-awaited proposed rule would provide much needed guidance for employers on how to structure employee wellness programs without violating the ADA. Most importantly, the proposed rule addresses the amount of incentives that may be offered under employee wellness programs that are part of group health plans. This amount is generally consistent with HIPAA's limits on wellness program incentives, although the proposed rule does not fully incorporate HIPAA's increased incentive limit for tobacco cessation programs.
Implications for Employers
The EEOC is seeking comments on the proposed rule and may make revisions to its guidance before it is finalized. While employers are not required to comply with the proposed rule before it is finalized, they may choose to do so. According to the EEOC, it is unlikely that a court or the EEOC would find an ADA violation where an employer complied with the proposed guidance until a final rule is issued.
Wellness Programs
Many employers offer workplace wellness programs as a way to help control health care costs, encourage healthier lifestyles and prevent disease.
Employers may offer participatory wellness programs, which do not require individuals to meet a health-related standard in order to obtain an incentive. Participatory wellness programs include, for example, subsidized fitness club memberships, reimbursement of smoking cessation classes (without regard to whether the employee quits smoking) or rewards for completing a health risk assessment (HRA) without any further action required by the employee with respect to the health issues identified by the HRA.
Employers may also offer health-contingent wellness programs, which require individuals to satisfy a standard related to a health factor in order to obtain an incentive. For example, health-contingent wellness programs may require participants to participate in exercise programs, remain tobacco-free or attain certain results on biometric screenings (for example, low cholesterol, blood glucose and blood pressure levels) to obtain an incentive.
Wellness program incentives can be framed as rewards or penalties and often take the form of prizes, cash, or a reduction or increase in health care premiums or cost-sharing.
Legal Concerns for Wellness Programs
Employee wellness programs must be carefully designed to comply with the ADA and other federal laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, sex (including pregnancy), national origin, religion, compensation, age or genetic information.
Additionally, wellness programs that are part of group health plans must be designed to comply with HIPAA's nondiscrimination requirements, as amended by the Affordable Care Act (ACA). Under HIPAA, health-contingent wellness programs are required to follow certain standards related to nondiscrimination, including a standard that limits the amount of incentives that can be offered. The maximum reward under HIPAA for health-contingent wellness programs is 30 percent of the cost of health coverage (or 50 percent for programs designed to prevent or reduce tobacco use).
EEOC Guidance
The ADA prohibits employers with 15 or more employees from discriminating against individuals with disabilities. Under the ADA, an employer may make disability-related inquiries and require medical examinations after employment begins only if they are job-related and consistent with business necessity. However, these inquiries and exams are permitted if they are part of a voluntary wellness program.
Neither the ADA nor prior EEOC guidance addressed the extent to which incentives affected the voluntary nature of a wellness program. Recently, the EEOC filed well-publicized lawsuits against a number of employers, alleging that their wellness programs violated the ADA and other federal fair employment laws. In response, Congress called on the EEOC to issue guidance on wellness programs and introduced legislation, the Preserving Employee Wellness Program Act, to provide more certainty for employers regarding wellness programs.
Proposed Guidance
The EEOC's proposed rule would establish the following parameters for permissible wellness program designs under the ADA.
- Reasonable Design: A wellness program must be reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease. A program that collects information on an HRA to provide feedback to employees about their health risks, or that uses aggregate information from HRAs to design programs aimed at particular medical conditions is reasonably designed. A program that collects information without providing feedback to employees or without using the information to design specific health programs is not reasonably designed.
- Voluntary: Wellness programs must be voluntary. Employees may not be required to participate in a wellness program, may not be denied health insurance or given reduced health benefits if they do not participate, and may not be disciplined for not participating. Employers also may not interfere with the ADA rights of employees who do not want to participate in wellness programs, and may not coerce, intimidate or threaten employees to get them to participate or achieve certain health outcomes.
- Employee Notice: For wellness programs that are part of group health plans, employers must provide employees with a notice that describes what medical information will be collected as part of the wellness program, who will receive it, how the information will be used and how it will be kept confidential.
- Limited Incentives: For wellness programs that are part of group health plans, employers may offer limited incentives for employees to participate in the programs or to achieve certain health outcomes. Consistent with HIPAA, the amount of the incentive that may be offered for an employee to participate or to achieve health outcomes may not exceed 30 percent of the total cost of employee-only coverage. For example, if the total cost of coverage paid by both the employer and employee for self-only coverage is $5,000, the maximum incentive for an employee under that plan is $1,500.
This incentive limit only applies to wellness programs that include disability-related inquiries or medical examinations. According to the EEOC, a smoking cessation program that merely asks employees whether they use tobacco (or whether they stopped using tobacco upon completion of the program) is not a wellness program that includes disability-related inquiries or medical examinations. Thus, the EEOC's proposed guidance would allow an employer to offer incentives as high as 50 percent of the cost of employee coverage for that smoking cessation program, consistent with HIPAA's requirements. However, an incentive tied to a biometric screening or medical examination that tests for the presence of tobacco would be limited to 30 percent under the proposed rule.
- Confidentiality: Medical information obtained as part of a wellness program must be kept confidential. Generally, employers may only receive medical information in aggregate form that does not disclose, and is not reasonably likely to disclose, the identity of specific employees.
Wellness programs that are part of a group health plan may generally comply with their obligation to keep medical information confidential by complying with the HIPAA Privacy Rule. Employers that are not HIPAA covered entities may generally comply with the ADA by signing a certification, as provided for by HIPAA regulations, that they will not use or disclose individually identifiable medical information for employment purposes and abiding by that certification.
Practices such as training individuals in the handling of confidential medical information, encryption of information in electronic form, and prompt reporting of breaches in confidentiality can help assure employees that their medical information is being handled properly.
- Reasonable Accommodations: Employers must provide reasonable accommodations that enable employees with disabilities to participate and to earn whatever incentives the employer offers. For example, an employer that offers an incentive for employees to attend a nutrition class must, absent undue hardship, provide a sign language interpreter for a deaf employee who needs one to participate in the class. An employer also may need to provide materials related to a wellness program in alternate format, such as large print or Braille, for someone with vision impairment. An employee may need to provide an alternative to a blood test if an employee's disability would make drawing blood dangerous.
More Information
To help employers understand the proposed guidance, the EEOC provided a fact sheet and a set of questions and answers or call us at 877-936-3580.
ACA Update: Summary of Benefits and Coverage and Uniform Glossary Details Remain Fuzzy, FAQ Released
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) created new disclosure tools—the summary of benefits and coverage (SBC) and uniform glossary—to help consumers compare coverage options available to them. Generally, group health plans and health insurance issuers are required to provide the SBC and uniform glossary free of charge. This disclosure requirement applies to both grandfathered and non-grandfathered plans.
On March 31, 2015, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury (Departments) issued a Frequently Asked Question (FAQ) announcing their intention to issue final regulations on the SBC requirement in the near future. The final regulations are expected to apply for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2016 (including open enrollment periods in fall of 2015 for coverage beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2016).
However, according to this FAQ, the new template, instructions and uniform glossary will not be finalized until January 2016, and will apply for plan years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017 (including open enrollment periods in fall of 2016 for coverage beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017).
Overview of the SBC Requirement
The ACA requires health plans and health insurance issuers to provide an SBC to applicants and enrollees, free of charge. The SBC is a concise document that provides simple and consistent information about health plan benefits and coverage.
The SBC requirement became effective for participants and beneficiaries who enroll or re-enroll through an open enrollment period beginning with the first open enrollment period starting on or after Sept. 23, 2012. For participants and beneficiaries who enroll other than through an open enrollment period (such as newly eligible or special enrollees), SBCs were required to be provided beginning with the first plan year starting on or after Sept. 23, 2012.
The DOL has provided a template for the SBC and Uniform Glossary documents along with instructions and sample language for completing the template, available on the DOL's website. On April 23, 2013, the SBC template was updated for the second year of applicability to incorporate ACA changes that become effective in later years. Until further guidance is issued, these documents continue to be authorized.
On Dec. 22, 2014, the Departments released proposed regulations on the SBC requirement, which would revise the SBC template, instruction guides and uniform glossary. At that time, the Departments expected that the new requirements for the SBC and uniform glossary would apply to coverage that begins on or after Sept. 1, 2015. The draft-updated template, instructions and supplementary materials are available on the DOL's website under the heading "Templates, Instructions, and Related Materials—Proposed (SBCs On or after 9/15/15)."
The SBC and Uniform Glossary must be provided in a culturally and linguistically appropriate manner. Translated versions of the template and glossary are available through the Centers for Consumer Information and Insurance Oversight (CCIIO) website.
To the extent a plan's terms do not reasonably correspond to the template and instructions, the template should be completed in a manner that is as consistent with the instructions as reasonably as possible, while still accurately reflecting the plan's terms. In addition, the DOL notes that ACA implementation will be marked by an emphasis on assisting (rather than imposing penalties on) plans and issuers that are working diligently and in good faith to understand and comply with the new law.
Thus, during the first and second years of applicability, penalties will not be imposed on plans and issuers that are working diligently and in good faith to comply with the new requirements. This enforcement relief will continue to apply until further guidance is issued.
Overview of the FAQ Guidance
In the FAQ issued on March 31, 2015, the Departments stated that they intend to issue final regulations in the near future. These regulations would finalize proposed changes in the proposed regulations from Dec. 22, 2014, which were proposed to apply beginning Sept. 1, 2015.
However, the FAQ notes that the final rules are expected to apply in connection with:
- Coverage that would renew or begin on the first day of the first plan year (or policy year, in the individual market) that begins on or after Jan. 1, 2016; or
- Open enrollment periods that occur in the fall of 2015 for coverage beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2016.
Despite this effective date, the new template, instructions and uniform glossary are not expected to be finalized until January 2016. According to the Departments, this delay is necessary to allow for consumer testing and offer an opportunity for the public to provide further input before finalizing revisions to the SBC template and associated documents.
The revised template and associated documents will apply to:
- Coverage that would renew or begin on the first day of the first plan year (or policy year, in the individual market) that begins on or after Jan. 1, 2017; or
- Open enrollment periods that occur in the fall of 2016 for coverage beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2017.
Impact on Employers
This FAQ guidance leaves a lot of uncertainty for employers with regard to their SBC documents. The changes included in the final regulations may require health plans to update their SBC documents before the new template is released.
The forthcoming final regulations may address this issue. In some cases, the Departments have provided temporary enforcement safe harbors when guidance is not issued sufficiently in advance of an effective date. However, at this time, no safe harbors or other relief has been provided on this issue.
For clarification of this information, or to be kept up to date with any and all parts of the Affordable Care Act, contact CIBC today.
HR Update: Pregnant Worker Accommodation Protections Addressed By U.S. Supreme Court
On March 25, 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a former employee of United Parcel Service (UPS) who was faced with the choice to either continue working her labor-intensive job during pregnancy or take unpaid leave. In a 6-3 decision, the Supreme Court held that the employee should be given the opportunity to prove that UPS violated the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) by not giving her the same light-duty accommodation that was given to other UPS employees who were considered injured or disabled.
The Supreme Court's decision establishes a legal framework for this type of pregnancy discrimination case. Due to this ruling, it may be easier for employees to succeed on claims that their employers violated the PDA by failing to accommodate them. To help limit liability under the PDA, employers should review their employment practices and policies regarding accommodations to make sure pregnant workers are treated the same as other workers with similar restrictions.
Pregnancy Discrimination Act
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits a covered employer (15 or more employees) from discriminating against any individual with respect to the terms, conditions or privileges of employment because of the individual's sex. In 1978, Congress added the PDA to Title VII. The PDA has two clauses:
- The first clause clarifies that Title VII's prohibition on sex discrimination includes discrimination based on pregnancy, childbirth or related medical conditions.
- The second clause requires that women affected by pregnancy, childbirth or a related medical condition be treated the same for all employment-related purposes as "other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work."
Factual Background
The employee, Peggy Young, worked as a part-time driver for UPS. When Young became pregnant in 2006, her doctor advised that she should not lift more than 20 pounds. UPS, however, required drivers like Young to be able to lift up to 70 pounds. When Young presented UPS with her doctor's note, she was told that she could not work while under a lifting restriction. Young consequently stayed home without pay during most of the time she was pregnant and eventually lost her employee medical coverage.
Young sued UPS, alleging that her employer violated the PDA's second clause because it had a light-duty policy for other types of workers, but not for pregnant workers.
Under its light-duty policy, UPS accommodated workers who were injured on the job, those suffering from disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and those who had lost their Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications. According to UPS, because Young did not fall within one of these three categories, it treated her the same as it would treat other relevant persons and therefore did not discriminate against her based on pregnancy.
Legal Decision
The district court granted UPS' motion for summary judgment, concluding that those who Young compared herself to—those falling under the on-the-job, DOT and ADA categories—were not similarly situated groups of employees. The 4th Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed the district court's decision.
The Supreme Court vacated the 4th Circuit's decision and remanded the case for further proceedings. The Supreme Court ruled that Young created a genuine dispute as to whether UPS provided more favorable treatment to at least some employees whose situations were similar to hers. Thus, the Supreme Court gave Young another chance to show that UPS violated the PDA when it failed to accommodate her light-duty request.
The Supreme Court also outlined the framework that applies in this type of disparate treatment case under the PDA. Under this framework, an individual alleging pregnancy discrimination may establish a case by showing that:
- She was pregnant at the relevant time;
- Her employer did not accommodate her; and
- Her employer did accommodate others who are similar only "in their ability or inability to work."
According to the Supreme Court, this burden is "not onerous" for an employee. It also does not require the employee to show that she and the non-pregnant employees who were treated more favorably were similar in all non-protected ways.
The employer may justify its refusal to accommodate the employee by relying on a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason. The employee may then in turn show that the employer's justification is a pretext for discrimination. An employee may show pretext by providing sufficient evidence that the employer's policies impose a significant burden on pregnant workers and that the employer's reasons are not strong enough to justify the burden. A significant factor that will help prove an employee's case is if the employer accommodates a large percentage of non-pregnant workers while failing to accommodate a large percentage of pregnant workers.
Impact of Decision
The Supreme Court's decision in Young v. UPS is a victory for pregnant workers because it establishes an easier framework to prove illegal discrimination. However, many employers may have already changed their policies to allow light-duty accommodations for pregnant workers due to other recent legal developments.
- In 2008, Congress expanded the definition of "disability" under the ADA to make it clear that physical or mental impairments that substantially limit an individual's ability to lift, stand or bend are ADA-covered disabilities. This expanded definition, as interpreted by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), requires employers to accommodate employees whose temporary lifting restrictions originate off the job.
In July 2014, the EEOC issued enforcement guidelines that cover employers' light-duty policies for pregnant workers. According to these guidelines, if an employer provides light-duty assignments to any of its employees who are temporarily unable to perform their full duties, then similar accommodations should be made for pregnant employees who cannot perform their full duties. Although the Supreme Court decided not to take these guidelines into consideration in Young vs. UPS, employers may have reevaluated their accommodations policies based on this guidance.
Q1 2015 Benefits Bulletin: A Look Back, and Ahead
From CIBC of Illinois
IRS Invites Comments on Cadillac Tax Implementation
On Feb. 23, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-16 to describe potential approaches for a number of issues related to the Affordable Care Act's (ACA) so-called Cadillac tax. The IRS is seeking comments as it begins developing guidance for the implementation of the Cadillac tax. Public comments may be submitted to the IRS until May 15, 2015.
Proposed or final regulations have not yet been issued on the ACA's Cadillac tax provision. This notice is intended to invite comment as guidelines are assembled, and taxpayers should not rely on the information provided in Notice 2015-16.
Cadillac Tax Overview
The Cadillac tax will go into effect beginning in 2018. This provision imposes a 40 percent excise tax on high-cost group health coverage. The Cadillac tax is intended to encourage companies to choose lower-cost health plans for their employees.
The Cadillac tax provision is found in Internal Revenue Code Section 4980I. This provision taxes the amount of an employee's "excess benefit." The excess benefit is the amount by which the monthly cost of an employee's employer-sponsored health coverage exceeds the annual limitation.
For 2018, the statutory dollar limits are:
- $10,200 per employee for self-only coverage; and
- $27,500 per employee for other-than-self-only coverage.
The tax amount for each employee's coverage will be calculated by the employer and paid by the coverage provider.
The Cadillac tax applies to "applicable employer-sponsored coverage" (both insured and self-insured). Applicable employer-sponsored coverage is coverage under any group health plan made available to the employee by the employer, which is excludable from the employee's gross income under Code Section 106.
Applicable coverage also includes health flexible spending accounts (FSAs), health savings accounts (HSAs), on-site medical clinics, retiree coverage, multiemployer plans and coverage only for a specified disease or illness and hospital indemnity or other fixed indemnity insurance (if paid on a pretax basis or if a Section 162(l) deduction is allowed).
DOL Issues Final Rule to Expand FMLA Protections for Same-sex Spouses
The Department of Labor (DOL) has issued a final rule that will expand rights under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) for same-sex spouses. Under the final rule, eligible employees in legal same-sex marriages will be able to take FMLA leave in order to care for their spouses or family members, regardless of where they live.
The DOL's new guidance is effective March 27, 2015, and it replaces guidance regarding FMLA protections for same-sex spouses that was issued following the U.S. Supreme Court's decision in United States v. Windsor.
The final rule changes the definition of "spouse" under the FMLA as follows:
Adopts a "place of celebration" rule (which is based on where the marriage was entered into), instead of the "state of residence" rule that applied under prior DOL guidance; and
- Expressly includes same-sex marriages in addition to common law marriages, and encompasses same-sex marriages entered into abroad that could have been entered into in at least one state.
This change will impact FMLA leave in several ways. Specifically, the definitional change means that eligible employees, regardless of where they live, will be able to:
- Take FMLA leave to care for their same-sex spouses with serious health conditions;
- Take qualifying exigency leave due to their same-sex spouses' covered military service; or
- Take military caregiver leave for their same-sex spouses.
In connection with the final rule, the DOL also issued a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) to help employers and employees understand the changes to the FMLA's definition of "spouse."
To comply with the final rule, employers should review and update their FMLA policies and procedures as necessary. Employers should also train employees who are involved in the leave management process on the expanded eligibility rules for same-sex spouses under the FMLA.
DOJ to Allow Claims Based on Gender Identity Discrimination
On Dec. 18, 2014, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) announced a reversal of its position regarding whether discrimination based on sex incudes discrimination based on an individual's gender identity and transgender status.
The DOJ has now taken the position that discrimination based on sex includes discrimination based on an individual's gender identity and transgender status.
Although the DOJ's authority to file discrimination lawsuits is limited to government employers, this announcement solidifies the federal government's position on gender identity rights.
Background Title VII of the Civil Rights Act prohibits employers from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin when making employment decisions. In 2006, the DOJ took the position that discrimination based on sex excluded discrimination based on an individual's gender identity or transgender status. The DOJ has now reversed this position.
Gender identity is an individual's internal sense of being male or female. An individual's internal identification may or may not correspond to the individual's biological gender. Transgender individuals are people with a gender identity that is different from the sex assigned to them at birth.
Effect on Employers Employers can expect to see more individuals file claims based on gender identity discrimination and increased federal support for employee protections against discrimination based on gender identity and sexual orientation.
Employers should review their employment policies to ensure that they are compliant with federal, state and local anti-discrimination regulations.
New Guidance and Relief for Employer Payment of Individual Premiums
Under the ACA, employer payment plans do not comply with several provisions that took effect beginning in 2014. Violations of these rules can result in excise taxes of $100 per day for each employee.
An employer payment plan is an arrangement where an employer reimburses or pays premiums for an employee's individual health insurance.
New Guidance on Employer Payments
The Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury have released several pieces of guidance clarifying the rules regarding these arrangements. The IRS issued Notice 2015-17 on Feb. 18, 2015, providing further clarification.
Specifically, this notice provides information on several related issues:
- Reiterates that employer payment plans are group health plans that will fail to comply with the ACA's market reforms applicable to group health plans;
- Clarifies that increases in employee compensation do not constitute an employer payment plan, as long as the increases are not conditioned on the purchase of individual health coverage;
- Provides transition relief from the excise tax for employer payment plans sponsored by small employers (those not subject to the ACA's employer shared responsibility rules) and to S corporation health care arrangements for 2-percent shareholder-employees;
- Addresses whether employers may reimburse employees for Medicare or TRICARE premiums for active employees under the ACA; and
- States that employer payments for individual premiums can be excludable from an employee's income under the tax code but will still violate the ACA's market reforms.
Employers should review their benefit and compensation plans and policies to ensure they are not in violation of current guidance regarding employer payment plans.
The information contained in this newsletter is not intended as legal or medical advice. Please consult a professional for more information.
Affordable Care Act Update: Subsidy Certifications Explained
Certifications of Employee Eligibility for Subsidies
The Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires health insurance Exchanges to send a notice to employers regarding employees who purchase coverage through an Exchange and qualify for a health insurance subsidy. These notices are also called "Section 1411 Certifications" because the notice requirement is contained in Section 1411 of the ACA.
The Section 1411 Certification is part of the process established by the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) for verifying that only eligible individuals receive health insurance subsidies. Both state-run and federally facilitated Exchanges are required to send these certifications to employers. For 2015, it is expected that HHS will issue the certifications in batches, beginning in spring 2015.
These certifications are not directly related to the ACA's shared responsibility rules for applicable large employers (ALEs). Starting in 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will contact ALEs to inform them of their potential liability for a shared responsibility penalty for 2015, and it will provide them with an opportunity to respond. Employers that receive certifications may appeal a subsidy determination to help ensure, as much as possible, that employees are not mistakenly receiving subsidies. Appealing subsidy determinations may also help limit an ALE's potential liability for a shared responsibility penalty.
affected employers
The Exchanges are required to provide the certifications to all employers with employees who purchase coverage through an Exchange and qualify for a health insurance subsidy. This includes ALEs that are subject to the ACA's shared responsibility rules and small employers that do not qualify as ALEs. Also, for efficiency reasons, Exchanges can either send the certifications on an employee-by-employee basis as subsidy determinations are made, or the Exchanges can send the certifications to employers for a group of employees.
health insurance subsidies
There are two federal health insurance subsidies available for coverage purchased through an Exchange—premium tax credits and cost-sharing reductions. Both of these subsidies vary in amount based on the taxpayer's household income, and they both reduce the out-of-pocket costs of health insurance for the insured.
- Premium tax credits are available for people with somewhat higher incomes (up to 400 percent of the federal poverty level), and they reduce out-of-pocket premium costs for the taxpayer.
- Reduced cost-sharing is available for individuals who qualify to receive the premium tax credit and have lower incomes (up to 250 percent of the federal poverty level). Through cost-sharing reductions, these individuals have lower out-of-pocket costs at the point of service (for example, lower deductibles and copayments).
To be eligible for a health insurance subsidy, a taxpayer:
- Must have a household income for the year between 100 percent and 400 percent of the federal poverty level for the taxpayer's family size,
- May not be claimed as a dependent of another taxpayer,
- Must file a joint return if married,
- Cannot be eligible for minimum essential coverage (Government or employer sponsored plan).
An employee who may enroll in an employer-sponsored plan, and individuals who may enroll in the plan because of a relationship with the employee, are generally considered eligible for minimum essential coverage if the plan is affordable and provides minimum value.
The requirements of affordability and minimum value do not apply if an employee actually enrolls in any employer-sponsored minimum essential coverage, including coverage provided through a cafeteria plan, a health FSA or an HRA, but only if the coverage does not consist solely of excepted benefits. Thus, if an employee enrolls in any employer-sponsored minimum essential coverage, the employee is ineligible for a subsidy.
section 1411 certification
The ACA directed HHS to establish a program for verifying whether an individual meets the eligibility standards for receiving an Exchange subsidy. As part of this verification process, an Exchange must notify the employer when it determines that an employee is eligible for subsidized coverage.
Final regulations issued by HHS on March 27, 2012, specify the content requirements for the Section 1411 Certifications.
Here is a key point:
Employees who are eligible for employer-sponsored coverage that is affordable and provides minimum value are not eligible for a subsidy. This is significant because the ACA's shared responsibility penalty for ALEs is triggered when a full-time employee receives a subsidy for coverage under an Exchange. An employee who is not eligible for a subsidy may still be eligible to enroll in a health plan through an Exchange. However, this would not result in a shared responsibility penalty for the employer.
section 1411 certification
The ACA directed HHS to establish a program for verifying whether an individual meets the eligibility standards for receiving an Exchange subsidy. As part of this verification process, an Exchange must notify the employer when it determines that an employee is eligible for subsidized coverage.
Final regulations issued by HHS on March 27, 2012, specify the content requirements for the Section 1411 Certifications.
section 1411 certification
The ACA directed HHS to establish a program for verifying whether an individual meets the eligibility standards for receiving an Exchange subsidy. As part of this verification process, an Exchange must notify the employer when it determines that an employee is eligible for subsidized coverage.
Final regulations issued by HHS on March 27, 2012, specify the content requirements for the Section 1411 Certifications.
|Section 1411 Certifications must:
|· Identify the employee;· Provide that the employee has been determined to be eligible for advance payments of a health insurance subsidy;· Indicate that, if the employer has 50 or more full-time employees, the employer may be liable for a penalty under Code Section 4980H; and
· Describe the employer's appeal rights.
appeal rights
When an employer receives a certification regarding an employee's eligibility for an Exchange subsidy, the employer may appeal the determination to correct any information about the health coverage it offers to employees. The appeals process can help:
- Minimize the employee's potential liability to repay advance payments of the subsidy that he or she was not eligible to receive; and
- Protect the employer from being incorrectly assessed with a tax penalty under the shared responsibility rules (if the employer is an ALE). If the appeal is successful and the employee does not receive an Exchange subsidy, the employee cannot trigger penalties for an ALE under the shared responsibility rules.
Final regulations issued by HHS on Aug. 30, 2013, established general parameters for the employer appeal process. A state-run Exchange may have its own appeals process or it may follow the federal appeals process established by HHS. In either case, the Exchange must:
- Give employers at least 90 days from the date of the Exchange notice to request an appeal;
- Allow employers to submit relevant information to support the appeal;
- Not limit or interfere with an employer's right to make an appeal request; and
- Accept appeal requests made by telephone, by mail, via the Internet or in person (if the Exchange is capable of receiving in-person appeal requests) and provide assistance in making the appeal request if this assistance is needed.
The appeals entity must provide written notice of the appeal decision within 90 days of the date the appeal request is received, if administratively feasible.
Another key point:
HHS' final regulations clarify that an appeals decision in favor of the employee's eligibility for a subsidy does not foreclose any appeal rights the employer may have for a penalty assessment under Code Section 4980H. Thus, while ALEs that receive certifications may appeal a subsidy determination to help ensure, as much as possible, that employees are not mistakenly receiving subsidies, they are not required to appeal a subsidy determination to preserve their rights to appeal an IRS assessment of a penalty tax.
Also, employers may develop policies to allow an employee to enroll in employer-sponsored coverage outside an open enrollment period when the employee is determined to be ineligible for Exchange subsidies as a result of an employer appeal decision.
other employer considerations
To help avoid incorrect subsidy determinations, HHS encourages employers to educate their employees about the details of employer-sponsored health coverage. This includes information on whether their plans are affordable and provide minimum value. Employees enrolling in Exchange coverage will generally complete an Employer Coverage Tool that gathers information about the employers' group health plans. HHS encourages employers to assist employees with their Exchange applications by providing information regarding the employer-sponsored coverage through the Employer Coverage Tool.
In addition, employers should remember that the ACA amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to include whistleblower protections for employees. Employees are protected from retaliation for reporting alleged violations of the ACA. Employees are also protected from retaliation for receiving a subsidy when enrolling in an Exchange plan. If an employer violates the ACA's whistleblower protections, it may be required to reinstate the employee, as well as provide back pay (with interest), compensatory damages and attorney fees.
As always, contact us at 877-936-3580 for more information on this, or any other aspect of employee benefits and the Affordable Care Act.
ACA Update: New Guidance and Relief for Employer Payment of Individual Premiums
In the past, many employers have helped employees pay for individual health insurance policies instead of offering an employer-sponsored plan. In recent months, the Departments of Labor (DOL), Health and Human Services (HHS) and the Treasury (Departments) have released several pieces of guidance addressing these arrangements.
The Departments' guidance specifically addresses "employer payment plans," under which an employer reimburses or pays premiums for an employee's individual health insurance policy.
According to this guidance, employer payment plans do not comply with several ACA provisions that took effect beginning in 2014. Violations of these rules can result in excise taxes of $100 per day for each employee.
IRS Notice 2015-17
On Feb. 18, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2015-17. This notice:
- Reiterates that employer payment plans are group health plans that will fail to comply with the ACA's market reforms applicable to group health plans;
- Clarifies that increases in employee compensation do not constitute an employer payment plan, as long as the increases are not conditioned on the purchase of individual health coverage;
- Provides transition relief from the excise tax for employer payment plans sponsored by small employers (those not subject to the ACA's employer shared responsibility rules) and to S corporation healthcare arrangements for 2-percent shareholder-employees;
- Addresses whether employers may reimburse employees for Medicare or TRICARE premiums for active employees under the ACA; and
- States that employer payments for individual premiums can be excludable from an employee's income under the tax code, but will still violate the ACA's market reforms.
The DOL and HHS have reviewed the notice and agree with the guidance provided. The Departments noted that they expect to issue further clarifications regarding other aspects of employer payment plans and HRAs in the near future.
Increases in Employee Compensation
Notice 2015-17 clarifies that, if an employer increases an employee's compensation, but does not condition the additional compensation on the purchase of health coverage (or otherwise endorse a particular policy, form or issuer of health insurance), it is not considered an employer payment plan.
According to the IRS, providing employees with information about the Exchange or the premium tax credit is not endorsement of a particular policy, form or issuer of health insurance. Because this type of arrangement generally will not constitute a group health plan, it is not subject to the ACA's market reforms.
Excise Tax Delay for Small Employers
Small employers have often helped employees pay for individual coverage. As noted above, these employers would normally be subject to an excise tax of $100 per day for each employee.
Notice 2015-17 provides a delay in the excise tax penalty for employers that are not applicable large employers (ALEs) under the ACA's employer shared responsibility rules. These employers may need additional time to obtain group health coverage or to adopt a suitable alternative.
Therefore, an excise tax will not be assessed for violations of the ACA's market reforms by certain employer payment plans that pay (or reimburse employees) for individual health policy premiums or Medicare Part B or Part D premiums.
This transition relief is available on a temporary basis. Employers may be eligible for relief from the excise tax as late as June 30, 2015. Specifically:
- For 2014, the relief applies to employers that are not ALEs in 2014.
- For Jan. 1 to June 30, 2015, the relief applies to employers that are not ALEs in 2015.
After June 30, 2015, these employers may be liable for the excise tax.
This relief does not extend to stand-alone HRAs or other arrangements that reimburse employees for medical expenses other than insurance premiums.
Employers eligible for this relief are not required to file IRS Form 8928 (regarding failures to satisfy requirements for group health plans) as a result of having these arrangements during the period for which the employer is eligible for the relief.
Reimbursement of Medicare and TRICARE Premiums
Notice 2015-17 notes that an arrangement under which an employer reimburses (or pays directly) some or all of Medicare Part B or Part D premiums for employees constitutes an employer payment plan. Similarly, an arrangement under which an employer reimburses (or pays directly) some or all of medical expenses for employees covered by TRICARE constitutes an HRA. In both cases, if the arrangement covers two or more active employees, it is a group health plan subject to the ACA's market reforms.
An employer payment plan or an HRA may not be integrated with Medicare coverage or TRICARE to satisfy the market reforms, because Medicare coverage and TRICARE are not group health plans for integration purposes.
However, an employer payment plan or HRA that pays for or reimburses Medicare Part B or Part D premiums, or medical expenses for employees covered by TRICARE, is integrated with another group health plan offered by the employer for purposes of the market reforms if:
- The employer offers a group health plan (other than the employer payment plan or HRA) to the employee that does not consist solely of excepted benefits and offers coverage providing minimum value;
- The employee participating in the employer payment plan or HRA is actually enrolled in Medicare Parts A and B or TRICARE;
- The employer payment plan or HRA is available only to employees who are enrolled in Medicare Part A and Part B or Part D, or TRICARE; and
- The employer payment plan or HRA is limited to reimbursement of Medicare Part B or Part D premiums, or cost-sharing, and excepted benefits, including Medigap premiums or TRICARE supplemental premiums.
Note that, to the extent that this type of arrangement is available to active employees, it may be subject to restrictions under other laws, such as the Medicare secondary payer provisions or laws that prohibit offering financial or other incentives for TRICARE-eligible employees to decline employer-provided group health plan coverage, similar to the Medicare secondary payer rules.
An employer payment plan that has fewer than two participants who are current employees (for example, a retiree-only plan) on the first day of the plan year is not subject to the market reforms, and, therefore, integration is not necessary to satisfy the market reforms.
Also, an employer may provide more than one type of healthcare arrangement for its employees (for example, a Medicare Part B employer payment plan and a TRICARE-related HRA), provided that each arrangement meets the applicable integration or other rules.
S Corporation Healthcare Arrangements for 2-percent Shareholder-employees
Under IRS Notice 2008-1, if an S corporation pays for (or reimburses) premiums for individual health insurance coverage covering a 2-percent shareholder, the payment or reimbursement is included in income, but the 2-percent shareholder-employee may deduct the amount of the premiums (provided that all other eligibility criteria for deductibility are satisfied). Notice 2015-17 refers to this as a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement.
The Departments stated that they may issue additional guidance on the application of the market reforms to a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement. However, until further guidance is issued (and at least through the end of 2015), the excise tax will not be assessed for any failure to satisfy the market reforms by a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement.
Furthermore, until additional guidance provides otherwise, an S corporation with a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement will not be required to file IRS Form 8928 (regarding failures to satisfy requirements for group health plans, including the market reforms) solely as a result of having a 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangement.
However, this guidance does not apply to reimbursements of individual health insurance coverage with respect to employees of an S corporation who are not 2-percent shareholders.
The IRS is also considering whether additional guidance is needed on the federal tax treatment of 2-percent shareholder-employee healthcare arrangements. However, until additional guidance provides otherwise, taxpayers may continue to rely on Notice 2008-1 with regard to the tax treatment of these arrangements for all federal income and employment tax purposes.
To the extent that a 2-percent shareholder is allowed both the deduction described above and a premium tax credit for coverage through an Exchange, Revenue Procedure 2014-41 provides guidance on calculating the deduction and the credit with respect to the 2-percent shareholder.
Notice 2015-17 also noted, however, that the market reforms do not apply to a group health plan that has fewer than two participants who are current employees on the first day of the plan year. Thus, an arrangement covering only a single employee (whether or not that employee is a 2-percent shareholder-employee) generally is not subject to the market reforms, whether or not the reimbursement arrangement otherwise constitutes a group health plan.
However, if an S corporation maintains more than one of these types of arrangements for different employees (whether or not 2-percent shareholder-employees), all are treated as a single arrangement covering more than one employee, so that this exception does not apply.
Employer Payment Plans under Code Sections 105 and 106
The notice also addresses Revenue Ruling 61-146 (Rev. Rul. 61-146), which has been cited by some as authority permitting employer payment plans under the tax code. Under Rev. Rul. 61-146, employer reimbursements of an employee's individual insurance premiums are excluded from the employee's gross income under Code Section 106. This exclusion also applies if the employer pays the premiums directly to the insurance company.
According to the IRS, this guidance regarding the tax exclusion continues to apply. This means only that the payments are excludable from the employee's gross income under Section 106 (regardless of whether the employer includes the payments as wages on the Form W-2).
However, the IRS stated that Rev. Rul. 61-146 does not address the application of the ACA's market reforms, and should not be read as containing any implication regarding the application of those market reforms.
An arrangement under which an employer provides reimbursements or payments that are dedicated to providing medical care (such as cash reimbursements for the purchase of an individual market policy) is, itself, a group health plan. Accordingly, the arrangement is subject to the ACA's market reform rules applicable to group health plans, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee. These employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms and, therefore, do not comply with the ACA.
The notice supplements two Information Letters previously issued by the IRS Office of Chief Counsel. Letter 2014-0037 and Letter 2014-0039 addressed the ability of employers to reimburse employees' medical expenses with pre-tax dollars under Code Section 105. These letters note that, although the ACA has not changed the tax treatment under Section 105 or 106, these arrangements violate the ACA's prohibition on annual limits because they reimburse medical expenses up to a fixed amount.
Prior Employer Payment Plan Guidance
- 24, 2013: Department FAQs addressed compliance of HRAs with the ACA's market reforms.
- 13, 2013: IRS Notice 2013-54 and DOL Technical Release 2013-03 clarified that HRAs, certain health FSAs and other employer payment plans are considered group health plans subject to the ACA's market reforms, and they cannot be integrated with individual policies to satisfy those requirements. As a result, effective for 2014 plan years, these plans are essentially prohibited.
- May 13, 2014: IRS FAQs addressed the consequences for employers that reimburse employees for individual health insurance premiums. These arrangements may trigger an excise tax of $100 per day for each applicable employee ($36,500 per year for each employee) under Code Section 4980D.
- 6, 2014: Department FAQs clarified that employer payment plans do not comply with the ACA's market reforms and may subject employers to penalties, whether provided on a pre- or after-tax basis.


text:
The 10th Anniversary Archive Exhibition of GMoMA Close
- Period/ 2016.09.29(Thu) ~ 2016.12.04(Sun)
The Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art (GMoMA) unveils the 10th Anniversary Archive Exhibition of GMoMA to mark its tenth anniversary. The exhibition features approximately 300 pieces of printed matter, photographs, and audio-visual materials pertaining to its exhibitions, educational programs and projects, and other diverse events alongside the preliminary design drawings for the museum building.
The Discovery of Space Close
- Period/ 2016.09.13(Tue) ~ 2017.08.27(Sun)
The Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art presents an educational exhibition of 《The Discovery of Space》 on the theme of "space" among the main elements of art. This exhibition has newly interpreted about 20 works from the museum's collection. It is a part of the art educational business of the Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art, which is served to share the pleasure of art with kids, teens and families.
The 10th Anniversary Exhibition of GMOMA _ Gyeonggi's 10 Masters: True Colors and Real Characters Close
- Period/ 2016.09.29(Thu) ~ 2016.12.04(Sun)
On October 25, 2016 the Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art will present Gyeonggi's 10 Masters: True Colors and Real Characters, an art exhibition to mark the 10th anniversary of the museum's opening. This exhibit will shed light on the art and life of ten senior artists who were born before 1950 and have lived in Gyeonggi-do for over 20 years, steadfastly dedicating themselves to creating works of art.
Quantum Jump 2016: HA Seokjun_Sweet Energy Close
- Period/ 2016.08.23(Tue) ~ 2016.09.18(Sun)
The second chapter of Quantum Jump, a series of relay exhibitions by the GMoMA that are held in collaboration with the Gyeonggi Creation Center, is HA Seokjun's Sweet Energy. HA's work is an exploration of points of debate between "those intoxicated by technology" and the media that embraces it in an era of all-powerful technology. The exhibition held at the GMoMA Project Gallery features his six works including three-dimensional installations and one-person media single-channel videos that have already been released on YouTube, a video-sharing website.
Quantum Jump 2016: SONG Minkyu- The Atlantic at the Edge of a Swimming Pool Close
- Period/ 2016.07.19(Tue) ~ 2016.08.15(Mon)
The Gyeonggi Creation Center and the Gyeonggi Museum of Modern Art present the relay exhibition Quantum Jump 2016: SONG Minkyu that will be held from July 19 through August 15, 2016. Quantum Jump is a series of exhibitions through which four resident artists are chosen to have their works displayed consecutively. Since 2015 this exhibition has been taking place at the GMoMA Project Gallery. The exhibition of the first artist, SONG Minkyu, is titled The Atlantic at the Edge of a Swimming Pool. It features the new works he produced at the Gyeonggi Creation Center and includes 120 drawings and installations.
G-Live : Fabien & Taeyoung Close
- Period/ 2016.07.07(Thu) ~ 2016.09.18(Sun)
Contemporary art in the 21st century considers even the process of producing art as a complete work it itself. It is true that 20th century art took place as if throwing a completed work of art at the viewers, with the practice of which we had become familiar. There had been discussions of "Non-Museum" in opposition to such a limited way of conveying art in the 1960s and 1970s, but it was difficult to challenge the absolute definition of art that originated from the fear of dominant space of the 'art gallery.' Such logic should be seen more as the result of social binds generated by the written law, limited to the specific space of the 'art gallery,' rather than the uncanny sense of distance one feels in gazing upon a work of art that has been completed by the hands of the artist.

subset: commoncrawl


text:
Get All the Dirt
Free gardening tips, specials and bold ideas
delivered directly to your inbox.
Your cart is currently empty.
One of our gardening buddies is a huge fan of single form peony flowers and makes the case that homeowners are missing out on magnificent blooms and outstanding plants by not including them.
Here's her reasoning:
Okay, so what's your reason for excluding these exotic lovelies from your garden?
Copyright © 2020 Leafari.com | Design by 2C Development Group


text:
Writer of Britain's best sitcoms to perform stand-up poking fun at Parkinson's
PUBLISHED: 09:52 08 May 2019 | UPDATED: 10:11 08 May 2019
The writer of some of Britain's much loved sitcoms is coming to Norwich to perform his comedy show about living with Parkinson's.
Paul Mayhew-Archer, 66, is performing his hit debut show Incurable Optimist at The Playhouse in Norwich this Friday and despite a career full of scripting and writing, he says he has found his home on stage.
Mr Mayhew-Archer said: " I love being on the stage, I mean I love writing and all that I have done but being on stage an experiencing a crowd laughing, it has been an eye opener.
"I never expected that I would get Parkinson's but then I never thought it would open up and whole new career.
"I was just winding down eight years ago and it never occurred to me that Parkinson's would give me so many opportunities."
Mr Mayhew-Archer, from Cambridge, uses his show to talk about what life has been like since his diagnosis in 2011.
You may also want to watch:
In 2016 he created his first documentary, Parkinson's: The Funny Side, poking fun at life with the disease, and he uses his set to continue the message.
He added: "I just decided to see the funny side of it as just another episode in my life. I don't know why but it came naturally to do so and I thought I would try a bit of stand-up and my first time was at the Royal Albert Hall.
"That was in front of about 4,000 people and I went on to do the Comedy Store and Edinburgh Fringe.
"There are lots of funny things that happen when you have Parkinson's and I found it is always better to be positive about them. For example there are charities that stand and shake tins outside supermarkets but for Parkinson's UK I can imagine the charity does very well.
"I have not been to Norwich before and I am really looking forward to it, one of the delights is I get a bus pass now and I'm going to places that I've never been to.
"It means that I am getting round the country meeting a lot of people who have Parkinson's. The people with Parkinson's are fantastic and I have always wanted to meet others."
He has co-written or worked on many much-loved comedy shows including I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue, Old Harry's Game, Mrs Brown's Boys, Spitting Image and Vicar of Dibley.
For more information or to book tickets go to www.norwichplayhouse.co.uk.


text:
By: Matthew Tievsky
When we take on a new client, one of the first documents we try to obtain is the police report. The police report includes plenty of useful information – contact information for the defendant, so that we can locate him or her; contact information for any witnesses; and the police officer's assessment of who was at fault, which gives some indication of the strength of our client's case. But if the police officer found the defendant at fault, can we actually use the police report at trial? Generally, the answer is "no."
There are a couple reasons for this. One reason is that the report itself is "hearsay": It is a statement by someone who is not testifying. We can cure that problem by calling the police officer to testify, but that raises a second problem: The police officer (in almost every case) did not see the automobile collision, and the police officer cannot testify to what he or she did not see or hear. The officer can only testify to what people involved in the collision said to the officer. Of course, that can be very useful information, if the defendant admitted fault or said something else incriminating, and for that reason sometimes we do call police officers to testify. But the mere fact that the police officer faulted someone in the police report (or, similarly, issued a ticket) won't win the case and, indeed, won't even be admitted as evidence at the trial.
If you have any questions about what effect a police report has on your potential auto accident claim, you should contact the car accident attorneys at Chaikin, Sherman, Cammarata & Siegel, P.C.


text:
As most gamers will already know, it's a well-established fact that animals can replace human characters rather easily in the video gaming realm. After all, the large majority of animals are at the very least as complex and interesting as either me or you and this often makes for great entertainment. However, as is the case with most gaming categories, there are some which are more playable than others. To save you having to play through some pretty terrible titles (Nom Cat and Super Ostrich Simulator immediately spring to mind), we've compiled a short list of video games which relate to our furry friends in some way.
Released for Microsoft Windows back in 2014, Depth is still without a doubt one of the most realistic animal-related gaming experiences out there. From controlling a shark's every move to snatching up divers for a quick lunch, the game has you thinking like a predator and adopting different strategies in order to stay alive. What's more, you get to choose from four different shark species (mako, great white, tiger and hammerhead), all with their own benefits and drawbacks. There's also the opportunity to play as the legendary and ferocious megalodon, which is thankfully much more entertaining than the Jason Statham movie of the same name, which reviews over at The Ringer prove was a disaster.
Fluffy Favourites
Fluffy Favourites is an interactive, five-reel, animal-based online slot game. Although there are already a number of themed slots out there, this offering is slightly different as it relates to, you guessed it, stuffed animals. Set to a bright green backdrop littered with rainbows and sun rays, Fluffy Favourites is as aesthetic as it is rewarding. With a number of interesting features including a toybox pick, which can land you a prize of up to a 100 times your total bet, Fluffy Favourites is a serious slot game in its own right. And who doesn't enjoy a good stuffed toy? Right? You can play Fluffy Favourites slots online at Aspers.
Video games which revolve around dinosaurs always tend to do well. The various adaptations of the Jurassic Park and Jurassic World franchise have generally hit the mark and who could forget the classic that is Turok: Dinosaur Hunter? Urvogel Games' Saurian is a slightly different dinosaur offering in that the player gets to wander the prehistoric landscape as their dinosaur of choice. In terms of scientific accuracy, Saurian really gets it right in many ways and a lot of thought has gone into making the game a real experience as opposed to a slog.
View this post on Instagram
More Than Just a Pretty Face
Although the inclusion of animals in sectors such as the movie industry adds that extra bit of cuteness, animals are an entirely different prospect in the gaming arena. Sure, there are your typical "cutesy" games which include cats, dogs and even the occasional unicorn, but animals are becoming competent gaming characters in their own right.
Subscribe to our mailing list
Get the latest game reviews, news, features, and more straight to your inbox
Thank you for subscribing to Brash Games.
Something went wrong.


text:
Game Developer since age 12 with experience in Unity3D, Godot, Gamemaker and various JavaScript Game Engines.
Software Engineer with years of experience in C#, especially developing Xamarin software, and Java using various technologies.
I have been coding since i was 12, originally because of my passion for game development, but i have been around many software topics. My favourite topics include:
My name is Sebastian Hyberts. I have always had a passion for game development and software development.
In 2016 I graduated GameIT College, a school with focus on game development.
During and after high-school i developed an internal-use app for Merrisun as the sole developer. This was done using C# Xamarin with a PHP backend, which i knew from previous projects.
I have worked for Kiloo as an Associate Software Engineer in 2015-2016 and Game Tester in 2016-2017.
I have worked towards becoming a game developer since i learned GameMaker at age 12, and i started programming in C# using Unity3D when i was 15.
I am currently developing a project for Varmekontrol creating a system for both internal and external use with Java and Spring.


text:
- Home
- Bike Checks
- Photos
- Videos
- Product
- News
- Forum
- Gear Club
Stacy Kohut has been slaying four-wheeled MTB for years now and his froth is as strong as ever. Get stoked on his story and passion in this Discovery Canada piece.
Posted by sspomer on 12/6/2017 8:01 AM


text:
I'm a single quiet responsible ex-professional, long-time vegan. My first retirement toy was going to be an RV or a boat. A nice Class B popped up, so I'm hitting the road.
My professional career was spent as a software engineer, and part-time pet dog trainer. Happy to chat about either.
I'm just getting started.
Class B, 2003 Leisure Travel Free Spirit, based on the Mercedes Sprinter, 22' + cargo carrier on hitch, running B100 biodiesel. It just got a fresh wash, compounding, and wax.


text:
A feast from the East: mouthwatering Middle Eastern recipes from Bethany Kehdy
The Middle East is a cradle of lavish feasting, epitomised in its jewelled tables. Eating is both a necessity and a social ritual, and while most cookbooks understandably focus on the mezze ritual, it's merely one side of the table.
In the Middle East, there is a basic split between what is served in the home and what is served outside of it. The nucleus of the culinary repertoire of the Middle East is the home kitchen.
While a restaurant mezze table may be a procession of small plates, with no distinct main or principal dish, to be nibbled at leisure while drinking arak (raki) or wine, the anatomy of an everyday, home-style meal shares many of the same dishes but woven around, say, a stew and rice.
The key to any jewelled table is to provide an array of condiments and sides, always a salad and more often than not a platter of rice. A basic home meal will include a grain and vegetarian or meat stew, pickles, and a yogurt. Also on the table are bread, olives and/or raw vegetables.
A more formal feast for company may star appetisers, or muqabilat, to be followed by two main dishes, usually a stew, stuffed vegetables or meat. The muqabilat remain on the table throughout the meal, all part of the decoration. Only once the dessert – which is typically coffee, fruit or pastry – has been served are the main dishes cleared away.
A Middle Eastern host is always ready to welcome guests and unannounced visitors; the table is always large enough for extra diners. In turn, a guest should always expect to be urged towards several helpings. The feast seems never to cease.
The Jewelled Table by Bethany Kehdy is published by Hardie Grant (£25). To order your copy for £20 call 0844 871 1514 or visit books.telegraph.co.uk
Sticky Badhinjan fingers
Six to eight as part of a multi-course menu
- 8 long and thin (Thai or Japanese) aubergines, sliced in half lengthways
- 1 tbsp flaky sea salt
- 80ml argan oil, plus 1 tbsp if needed
- 1 tsp caraway seeds, toasted and lightly crushed
- 15g piece ginger, peeled and chopped
- 1-2 fresh red chillies, thinly sliced
- 1 garlic clove, thinly sliced
- 2 tbsp soy sauce
- 2 tbsp date syrup or pomegranate molasses
- 2 tbsp verjuice or cider vinegar
- 1 tbsp nigella seeds
- 1 tbsp sesame seeds, toasted
- 1 handful coriander, roughly chopped
- Full-fat Greek yogurt, to serve
- Salt the aubergines and leave to sit in a colander for five minutes. Heat the oil in a large non-stick frying pan over medium heat. Add the aubergines and fry, shaking the pan to prevent sticking, for four or five minutes until they start to brown.
- Pour in 75ml water, partially cover with a lid and simmer until the liquid has evaporated and the aubergines are completely soft.
- Reduce the heat to low and add the caraway seeds, ginger, chillies, garlic and a tablespoon of oil if needed. Cook for a further minute or two, then pour in the soy sauce, date syrup and verjuice, and boil for two or three minutes to reduce the liquid to a sticky sauce.
- Transfer to a serving plate and sprinkle over the nigella seeds, sesame seeds, chopped coriander and some freshly ground black pepper.
- Serve immediately with yogurt on the side.
Smoked cod tajen with clementine and bronzed onion tahini
The tajen here is the name of the shallow pan traditionally used to prepare the dish. I like to use a shallow baking dish that I can transfer directly to the table to serve.
- 80ml olive oil
- 2 onions, thinly sliced
- 1 garlic head, peeled and finely chopped
- 1 tbsp ground turmeric
- 1 tbsp ground cumin
- 1 tbsp ground ginger
- ½ tbsp ground black pepper
- ½ tsp white pepper
- ½ tbsp dried tarragon
- 250ml tahini
- Juice of 1 grapefruit
- Juice of 1 lemon
- 1-2 clementines or 1 orange, peeled and roughly chopped
- 240ml white wine
- 750g lightly smoked cod, haddock or halibut fillets
- 2 tbsp flaked almonds, lightly toasted
- 2 tbsp pine nuts, lightly toasted
- Fresh tarragon or coriander, finely chopped, to serve
- Lemon wedges, to serve
- Preheat the oven to 180C/Gas 4. Grease an ovenproof dish with two tablespoons of the oil.
- Place a frying pan over medium-high heat, add the remaining oil and cook the onions for four or five minutes, until lightly browned. Add the garlic, spices and dried tarragon, reduce the heat to medium-low, cover and cook for a further two or three minutes.
- Meanwhile, whisk together the tahini, grapefruit and lemon juices with about 250ml water. You want the mixture to be a thick and pourable consistency, but not runny.
- Once the onions have sweated down, add the clementines, increase the heat to high and let them brown along the edges for about a minute. Pour over the wine, and allow to simmer and evaporate for about a minute or two. Season with salt and pepper. Whisk in the tahini mixture and cook for a further two or three minutes until the mixture has thickened and looks like it will nicely enrobe the fish. Set aside.
- Arrange the cod fillets in the greased dish and season with salt and pepper, then roast for 10 to 12 minutes or until cooked through and opaque.
- Pour the warm tahini sauce over the fish and grill on high for another two to three minutes. Sprinkle with the toasted almonds, pine nuts and fresh tarragon or coriander. Serve immediately with lemon wedges on the side.
Pumpkin and pomelo borani with coconut tarator
I adore coconut, which is an ingredient of the Persian/central Asian kitchen, and especially love it with pumpkin. A tarator is a dressing. Though this one is less typical, the classic is a combination of tahini, garlic and lemon juice – a traditional salad dressing.
Four to six as part of a multi-course menu
- 1.5kg mixed squash and pumpkin, preferably heirloom, cut into 2cm wedges
- 2 tbsp olive oil
- 1 pomelo or grapefruit, peeled, deseeded and divided into large chunks
- 1 red chilli, thinly sliced
- 2-3 tbsp dried chickpeas or cooked chickpeas
- 3-4 tbsp shredded coconut 1 tbsp mint, roughly chopped
- 1 tbsp coriander, roughly chopped
For the coconut and pomelo tarator
- 100ml coconut milk
- 2 garlic cloves, finely chopped
- 3-4 tbsp honey, plus extra to taste
- 2 tbsp pomelo or grapefruit juice
- Preheat the oven to 200C/Gas 6.
- Put the squash and pumpkin on a baking sheet. Sprinkle with salt and pepper and drizzle with the oil. Bake for 30 to 35 minutes, until tender.
- Meanwhile, make the tarator. Whisk together the coconut milk, garlic, honey, pomelo juice and salt and pepper. Taste and adjust seasoning, adding more honey if you would like it sweeter.
- Once the pumpkin is tender and cooked through, remove from the oven and transfer to a serving platter along with the chunks of pomelo.
- Drizzle over the tarator and sprinkle over the chilli, the chickpeas, the shredded coconut and the herbs, and season with freshly ground pepper. Serve warm.
Beetroot mutabal with apple, walnuts and anchovy oil
This is what usually gets passed off as "beetroot hummus" when, essentially, it is a mutabal. Although there is tahini in it, if there are no chickpeas it's not a hummus!
Six to eight as part of a multi-course menu
- 400g (3-4 small) beetroot, unpeeled and washed
- 1 green apple
- 2 tbsp walnuts, roughly chopped
- Zest and juice of 1 grapefruit
- 60-75ml tahini
- ½ tsp ground cumin
- 1 garlic clove, finely chopped
- 1-2 tbsp soft labneh or full-fat Greek yogurt (optional)
- Flatbreads, to serve
For the anchovy oil
- 125ml olive oil
- 1 anchovy, tinned in oil
- Fill a large saucepan with salted water, add the beetroot and bring to the boil over high heat. Reduce the heat and simmer, covered, for 30 to 45 minutes, or until tender when pierced with a knife. Remove from the heat, drain, roughly chop and set the beets aside in a mixing bowl.
- Meanwhile, make the anchovy oil. Place a frying pan over medium heat, add the oil and anchovy, and heat through, until the anchovy is beginning to brown and sizzle. Transfer to a small food blender and blitz. Set aside.
- Core and cut the apples into matchsticks and toss with the walnuts in a mixing bowl. Add the grapefruit zest and one or two tablespoons of its juice.
- Add the tahini, cumin, and garlic – and labneh if using – to the bowl with the beetroot. Using a hand blender, blitz to a purée, adding the remaining grapefruit juice to form a spreadable consistency. Season to taste with salt and pepper.
- Transfer the beetroot mixture to two shallow serving bowls or one large one, and create a shallow well in the middle. Fill with the apple and walnut mixture. Drizzle over the anchovy oil and serve immediately.
- Alternatively, if making in advance, place in the fridge and bring back to room temperature before serving. Serve with flatbreads.
Orange blossom chicken salad
Eight as part of a multi-course menu
- 275g shredded cooked chicken
- 2 celery stalks, finely sliced
- ½ red onion, finely chopped
- 2 tbsp dried barberries or currants
- 1 handful walnuts, finely chopped
- 1 small cucumber, diced
- 15-20 black olives, pitted and finely chopped
- 8 heaped tbsp soft labneh
- The seeds of ½ pomegranate, plus extra for sprinkling
- 2 tbsp mustard
- 2 tbsp white wine vinegar
- Splash of orange blossom water
- 1-2 Lebanese flatbreads
- Olive oil, for greasing
- In a mixing bowl, combine all of the ingredients, apart from the flatbreads and oil.
- Serve as a salad or use to fill flatbreads, rolled like burritos and grilled on an oiled baking tray until they are crisp.
Carrot and caraway mutabal with cashew and date browned butter
Six to eight as part of a multi-course meal
- 500g carrots, peeled and roughly chopped
- ½ tsp caraway seeds
- 2-3 tbsp tahini
- Juice of 1 lemon
- Flatbreads or pita crisps, to serve
For the topping
- 75g butter
- 45g raw unsalted cashews
- 60g pitted dates, finely chopped
- A pinch of ground cinnamon
- 2 tbsp shredded coconut
- Fill a large pan with salted water and add the carrots. Bring to the boil over a high heat and cook for 10 minutes, or until very tender. Drain well.
- Heat a small frying pan and toast the caraway seeds until aromatic. Remove from the heat and set aside.
- In a food processor or using a hand blender, blitz the carrots with the caraway seeds. Add the tahini and lemon juice, and season to taste with salt.
- Divide the carrot mutabal between two serving bowls. Using a spoon, make a well in the centre. Set aside while you make the topping.
- Melt the butter in a small frying pan over medium heat, until bubbling, then add the cashews and toss to coat.
- Fry for a minute or two, tossing often, until the cashews are light golden brown in colour and the butter nicely browned. Remove from the heat, add the dates and cinnamon and stir well.
- Spoon half the mixture into the well of each serving bowl, drizzling over the browned butter. Sprinkle with the coconut and serve immediately with flatbreads or pita crisps.


text:
Click Edit and create your own amazing websiteRead MoreEdit this site
Graphic design studios, independent designers, and other creative professionals
Elegant and easy to use, this template is the ideal way to tell your unique story: upload media of your projects, add details about what makes your designs special, and share your creative vision with the world. Let your portfolio shine and get your business online today!
Price: Free