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

        Media Mentions

        Steven Davis Featured in the Environmental Business Journal

        Steven Davis, President of Verrill Strategic Consulting, was recently interviewed and featured in the Environmental Business Journal, Volume 39...
        Blog

        What is a Bonus for Purposes of ERISA?

        An ongoing dispute about a Department of Labor advisory opinion published last September raises a basic but unanswered question under the ERISA: What...
        Media Mentions

        Verrill Recognized by WMTW for Partnership Supporting Hunger Relief in Maine

        Verrill was recently featured in coverage by WMTW News 8 for its role in a collaborative effort to combat food insecurity across southern...
        Press Releases

        33 Verrill Attorneys, Across Four Offices, Recognized in the 2026 Chambers USA Guide

        BOSTON, Massachusetts, PORTLAND, Maine, WESTPORT, Connecticut, and WASHINGTON, D.C. – Verrill has been recognized as a Leading Firm in 14...
        Blog

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...
        Media Mentions

        Lauren Galvin Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on Arbitration and Anti-SLAPP Protections

        Verrill Partner Lauren Galvin was recently featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article highlighting a notable Superior Court decision...
        Blog

        Section 530A Accounts: What Employers Should Consider Before Offering Contributions to “Trump” Accounts

        Section 530A accounts, commonly referred to as Trump accounts, have attracted attention since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in...
        Blog

        Navigating PBM Reform: Regulatory Changes, Market Shifts, and Practical Guidance for ERISA Fiduciaries

        Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) arrangements have long relied on rebates with limited transparency into true drug costs. Recent regulatory and...
        Blog

        DOL’s Proposed Regulation on Selecting Alternative Investments: Broad Implications for 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Fiduciaries

        On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation purporting to implement an executive order to expand access to “alternative...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Attorney Gracie Castle

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to welcome Gracie Castle to the firm’s Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Group as an Associate,...