Benefits Law Update
        Practical advice from Verrill attorneys

        IRS Describes Potential Approaches to Employer Shared Responsibility Under Health Care Reform

        May 6, 2011

        Treasury and the IRS have given us a peek at how they may implement the employer shared responsibility provisions of health care reform, set to take effect in 2014. These provisions, commonly known as the “play or pay” mandate, will impose a penalty on applicable large employers that do not provide employee health care benefits satisfying the requirements of the Affordable Care Act.

        Notice 2011-36, issued Tuesday, cannot be considered guidance. Instead, it presents possible approaches for determining who is a full-time employee for purposes of the shared responsibility provisions and solicits comments on those approaches. It also invites input on the application of health care reform’s 90-day limitation on coverage waiting periods.

        Definition of Employer, Employee, and Hours of Service

        The Notice explains that Treasury and the IRS expect to conform the definitions of employer, employee, and hours of service to existing regulatory definitions and rules applicable to employer-provided health and retirement benefits. Thus, “employer” would mean the entity that is the employer of an employee under the common law test, and “employee” would mean a worker who is an employee under the common law test. “Hours of service” for hourly employees would include actual hours worked and hours for which payment is made or due (for vacation, holiday, illness, incapacity, jury duty, and the like). For non-hourly employees, employers could use the hourly employee method, a days-worked equivalency (the employee is credited with eight hours of service for each day worked), or a weeks-worked equivalency (40 hours of service per week for each week worked). An employer could use different methods for determining hours of service for different classes of non-hourly employees and could change the method each calendar year.

        Determining Whether an Employer Is an Applicable Large Employer

        An “applicable large employer” is one that employed an average of 50 or more full-time employees during the preceding year, determined based on the sum of full-time employees and full-time equivalent employees (FTEs). Full-time employees are those averaging 30 hours of service per week (or, as the IRS contemplates, 130 hours per month) with the employer. The number of FTEs is determined by calculating the aggregate number of hours of service (not above 120) for employees who are not full-time for the month and dividing the aggregate number by 120. Special rules apply to seasonal employees, and the IRS contemplates using a complex, six-step process to determine the number of full-time employees. The Notice provides examples to illustrate the process it is considering.

        Potential Methods for Determining Full-Time Employee Status (for calculating the penalty)

        Beginning in 2014 an applicable large employer will pay a penalty for any month that any full-time employee is certified to receive a federal premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction and either (1) the employer does not offer its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer-sponsored plan, or (2) the employer offers its full-time employees (and their dependents) the opportunity to enroll in minimum essential coverage under an eligible employer sponsored plan, but the coverage is unaffordable or does not provide minimum value (within the meaning of the Code) for the full-time employee(s) certified to receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction.

        The penalty under (1) is based on all (excluding the first 30) full-time employees, while the penalty under (2) is based on the number of full-time employees certified to receive a premium tax credit or cost-sharing reduction. Treasury and the IRS recognize that, for purposes of calculating the penalty, having to determine full-time employee status on a monthly basis would be difficult and burdensome. Accordingly, they are considering possible alternatives to monthly determination, one of which would permit applicable large employers to use a look-back/stability period safe harbor, described further in the Notice.

        General Request for Comments

        The Notice requests comments on a variety of other issues related to shared responsibility, as well as on the interpretation and coordination of the Affordable Care Act’s 90-day limitation on waiting periods for health insurance coverage.

        Notice 2011-36 provides a helpful advance look at how the agencies in charge of health care reform intend to implement the particularly complicated (and controversial) employer shared responsibility provisions. Interested parties should take advantage of the opportunity to help shape the regulations to which most employers will become subject. Comments are due by June 17, 2011, and we expect proposed rules in the coming months.

        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

        Blog

        What Employee Benefits Lawyers Do (and How to Make the Best Use of Us)

        What do employee benefits lawyers do all day and how can clients make the best use of them? This post offers an overview of the kinds of things...
        Media Mentions

        Bloomberg Law Quotes Robert Keach on Expanded Access to Small Business Reorganization

        Verrill attorney Bob Keach was recently featured in Bloomberg Law, discussing legislation that would raise debt limits for bankruptcy relief and...
        Blog

        Phil Bartlett to Step Down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission

        On September 15, 2026, Governor Janet Mills announced that Phil Bartlett will step down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC)...
        Published Works

        Jay McCormack and Michael Fee Co-Author AHLA Article on Skin Substitute Enforcement Trends

        Verrill Partners Jay McCormack and Michael Fee co-authored an article for the American Health Law Association's Fraud and Abuse Practice Group...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Health Care & Life Sciences Attorney Elpida Velmahos

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to announce that Elpida Velmahos has joined the firm’s Health Care & Life Sciences Group as an...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Litigation & Trial Attorney Emma Pooler

        PORTLAND, Maine – Verrill is pleased to announce that Emma Pooler has joined the firm’s Litigation & Trial Group as an Associate, resident in...
        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...