Benefits Law Update
        Practical advice from Verrill attorneys

        HSA Contributions: Making Sense of the Moving Parts

        May 22, 2012

        As we have noted, high-deductible health plans (HDHPs) with a Health Savings Account (HSA) feature are growing in popularity. Our last post on HDHP/HSA arrangements explored some of the general eligibility questions we are asked most frequently. Today we address common questions about HSA contributions.

        1. Are contributions limited by the number of months an employee is HSA-eligible, or is an employee entitled to the full contribution limit for being HSA-eligible for just part of the year? HSA contributions generally may be made for months in which an individual is HSA-eligible, and the individual’s annual HSA contributions may not exceed the sum of the “monthly limitations” (the annual contribution limit divided by 12) for all months in the calendar year in which the individual actually is HSA-eligible. Said another way, an employee’s yearly contribution limit is prorated based on the period the employee is actually HSA-eligible. That is the general rule, often called the “general monthly contribution rule.” By contrast, under the “full-contribution rule” described below an individual may be treated as HSA-eligible for the entire year and entitled to make contributions up to the annual maximum HSA contribution limit if the employee becomes covered by an HDHP in a month other than January and is HSA-eligible on December 1 of that year.

        2. How do you determine the maximum contribution amount in the case of a non-calendar year plan?Suppose an employer operates its group health plan on an October 1 to September 30 plan year, corresponding to the health insurance policy renewal, and is implementing an HDHP/HSA arrangement effective October 1, 2012. The “full-contribution rule” allows a full year’s worth of HSA contributions, even for someone who is HSA eligible for only a portion of the year. Under the full-contribution rule, an individual who becomes covered under an HDHP in a month other than January and who is an HSA-eligible individual on December 1 of that year is treated as having been an eligible individual during every month of that year, and will be allowed to make and receive contributions for those months during that year before the individual actually enrolled in an HDHP. An individual who makes contributions in reliance upon the full-contribution rule must remain HSA eligible during a 13-month testing period (i.e, until December 31 of the following year) to avoid income tax and a 10% penalty tax on the additional contributions. The penalty does not apply if the individual becomes ineligible due to death or disability, but does apply to individuals 65 or older. As discussed in our first HSA post, any individual who has an overlap of participation in a medical flexible spending account or a health reimbursement account and HDHP coverage will not be an eligible individual and will not be able to make any contributions for the calendar year in which the individual first elects HDHP coverage. In our example, such an employee would not be able to make or receive HSA contributions in 2012, but would be able to make and receive contributions in 2013.

        Note that the full-contribution rule can only increase the amount that an individual would otherwise be able to contribute under the general monthly contribution rule. In other words, an individual to whom the full-contribution rule applies (i.e., an individual who is HSA eligible on December 1) would be able to contribute to his or her HSA for that year the greater of (i) the amount determined under the general monthly contribution rule, or (ii) the amount determined under the full-contribution rule based upon his or her HDHP coverage (i.e., self-only or family) on December 1 of that year. Practically speaking, this rule would likely only affect individuals who switch from family to self-only coverage late in the calendar year.

        3. If an employer has a non-calendar year health insurance renewal (or plan year), is an employee who switches from HDHD to non-HDHP coverage during open enrollment entitled to the full contribution limit even though he or she is covered under the HDHP only part of the year? Picking up our earlier example, suppose an employer operates its group health plan on an October 1 to September 30 plan year, such that an employee who switches from HDHP to non-HDHP coverage during open enrollment would be covered under the HDHP for 9/12 of the year. An individual who ceases to be an eligible individual during a year (and does not become eligible again on December 1 of that year) may contribute to his or her HSA only for the months of the year in which he or she was an eligible individual. In our example, for 2012 an employee with single coverage would be entitled to contribute $2325, or 9/12 x $3100; an employee with family coverage would be entitled to contribute $4687.50 (9/12 x $6250).

        4. What is the contribution limit for an employee who terminates coverage mid-year? An employee who terminates HDHP coverage before December 1 would only be entitled to prorated contributions based on the period the employee is HSA-eligible (again, the so-called “general monthly contribution rule”).

        5. Can we/should we limit the monthly contribution amounts allowed by employees to ensure that employees do not exceed contribution limits and to minimize potential adverse tax consequences?It is not permissible for an employer to limit employee monthly contribution amounts, except to the extent of not allowing an employee to make pre-tax contributions from wages for any month in which the employee is not HSA-eligible.

        6. How are contributions of/for participating employees who have spouses or dependents receiving Social Security and/or Medicare/Medicaid benefits handled? As discussed in our first HSA post, individuals enrolled in Medicare are not eligible to make or receive HSA contributions. An employee who is not enrolled in Medicare but has a spouse or dependent receiving Social Security/Medicare benefits may receive contributions up to the statutory limit for family coverage, provided the employee elects family HDHP coverage. In other words, other coverage of dependent children or spouses does not affect the individual’s contribution limit, except that if the spouse is not otherwise eligible to contribute, no part of the HSA contribution may be allocated to the spouse under the allocation rules. HSA funds can be used, on a tax-free basis, for the qualified medical expenses of spouses and dependents receiving Social Security/Medicare benefits. Note that the HSA rules were not amended by health care reform to allow medical expenses of nondependent children under age 27 to be reimbursed tax-free from a parent’s HSA. In other words, the old tax dependency rules apply for purposes of using HSA funds, though nondependent under-27 children may still be covered under the HDHP.

        Benefits Law Update

        Verrill’s Benefits Law Update blog delivers timely insights and practical guidance on the ever-evolving landscape of employee benefits and executive compensation. Our blog provides up-to-date analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics, including timely updates on developments in law affecting employee benefit plans and executive compensation arrangements.

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Published Works

        Four Verrill Attorneys Co-Author Massachusetts Trends and Developments Chapter for Chambers and Partners Child Relocation 2026 Guide

        Verrill attorneys Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff, and Mariah G. Tappan co-authored the “Trends and Developments” chapter...
        Blog

        A New Protected Class in Maine: Holders of Final Protection Orders

        In the lead-up to Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, employers may be taking a closer look at how their policies and practices respond to...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Verrill Secures SJC Victory for Boston Legacy FC in White Stadium Litigation

        Verrill has secured a significant appellate victory for Boston Legacy FC in the litigation challenging the redevelopment of White Stadium in...
        Blog

        Hurry Up and Wait

        This is the third in a series of Verrill blog posts on Maine’s packaging extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) law[1]. In July we reported...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses First Brands Chapter 11 Case in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the rejection of First Brands Group's Chapter 11 plan and the...
        Media Mentions

        Cybersecurity and AI Governance: Scott Anderson Featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

        Verrill Managing Partner Scott Anderson was recently featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly discussing how law firms can build attorney buy-in for...
        Blog

        Section 530A Account Update: ERISA Status of Trump Accounts

        The Department of Labor has issued important guidance addressing whether employer programs that permit contributions to Section 530A accounts (and...
        Press Releases

        97 Verrill Attorneys Recognized by Best Lawyers® 2027, Including Four Named Lawyers of the Year

        AUGUSTA, Maine, BANGOR, Maine, BOSTON, Mass., PORTLAND, Maine, and WESTPORT, Conn., (August 20, 2026) – Verrill is proud to announce that 97...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        SEC’s Proposed “Reg Crypto”: What Founders Need to Know

        Startup founders and emerging-growth companies have a number of options for raising capital under the federal securities laws, including Regulation D...
        Blog

        After 45 Years, the IRS Speaks on DCAP Nondiscrimination Testing – And It’s Good News

        Employers that provide a Dependent Care Assistance Program will be pleased to learn that for the first time in 45 years, the IRS has issued guidance...
        Media Mentions

        U.S. Courts Highlights Annabel Rodriguez’s Journey from Fellow to Mentor

        Verrill attorney Annabel Rodriguez was featured in a recent U.S. Courts article titled “From Fellows to Mentors: Alumni Share Lasting Lessons from...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses Bankruptcy Auction Strategy in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach spoke with Law360 article examining the complex bankruptcy auction process that resulted in the sale of 23 summer...