Discussion:PEO and the S-Corporation
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> PEO and the S-Corporation
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> PEO and the S-Corporation
23 June 2009 | |
My client, an S-corporation, recently switched to a PEO. I asked the PEO if they would include the health insurance premiums paid on behalf of the greater than 2% shareholder (there is only one) in box 1 of the W-2. Their response is as follows:
"Our company understands that the premiums paid by an S Corp are normally included in the employee’s gross income for a plan the S Corp sponsors & provides. As you are aware, in this normal situation, the S Corp would not include a deduction for health insurance premiums paid on behalf of greater than 2% shareholders on line 18 of their Form 1120S tax return. Rather, they would include such amounts on the shareholders’ W-2 and take a compensation deduction on either line 7 or 8 of Form 1120S. On the shareholders’ individual Form 1040 tax returns, the shareholders would have W-2 compensation income that would be reported on line 7 and then be able to take a self-employed health insurance deduction on line 29. The situation changes in the PEO relationship. We sponsor & provide the plan to eligible worksite employees. The client in turn pays an all-inclusive fee for a variety of human resource services. The client simply doesn’t pay health insurance premiums to us for the greater than 2% shareholders. The full amount of the PEO service fees should be deductible on the Form 1120S. While we don’t see our clients’ tax returns, we believe that it’s a pretty common practice to take that deduction on line 19 of the 1120S. The deduction of the PEO services fees would flow through to the shareholders’ Form 1040 as reduced net income of the S corp. On Form 1040, the shareholders would not have an amount for health insurance premiums added to their W-2 and they would not have a self-employed health insurance deduction. Our position is consistent & based on Internal Revenue Bulletin, 2008-1 & we believe W-2 reporting is not appropriate. We also believe our position is tax neutral to the client and shareholder. In addition, it’s our understanding that the health plan policy must be established by the S Corp or shareholder for a self-employed insurance deduction to be taken (per IRS Publication 535, page 18). Because the health plan is sponsored by Administaff and health insurance premiums are paid by Administaff rather than the S corp, we believe that even if we were to include the value of the premiums in the shareholder’s income, the shareholder’s ability to take a self-employed insurance deduction could be in jeopardy. Since the reporting of amounts on both Form 1120S and Form 1040 are subject to the specific facts and circumstances surrounding the PEO relationship, the client should discuss this matter with their tax advisor." My question is: Do you think the PEO's position is a valid position? Seems like the s/h is missing out on a deduction. |
23 June 2009 | |
I think the bottom line is the same. The Corp is still getting a deduction, it's just not jumping through all the hoops of putting in on the W-2 just to take it off again on page 1 of the 1040. That's not to say there isn't a technical issue with how it is handled but I think you end up where you were headed in the first place. |
June 24, 2009 | |
I don't think a deduction is missing, and I'm sure others will make comments regarding this PEO's (Professional Employer Organization) policy.
In some cases, reporting the shareholder's medical insurance as a benefit does not result in the same tax consequences as reporting the premiums on the W2. Case in point -- EIC. As far as I know, there is no adjustment to earned income for EIC purposes for any medical insurance that might be included. (If I'm wrong on that, please let me know.) Granted this probably does not apply to a whole lot of taxpayers, but it might allow someone to get the EIC when they are technically not supposed to. |
24 June 2009 | |
The SE health insurance deduction is limited to FICA/Medicare wages from the S corporation, which in this case is zero. |
June 24, 2009 | |
But if I understand correctly, they're not missing out on a deduction. It is simply being reported on a different line. |
25 June 2009 | |
The PEO is totally wrong about this. The premium must be included in the box 1 of the W-2. See Internal Revenue Code § 414(n)(3)(C). |
June 25, 2009 | |
Thank you for making that point so clearly Riley. I looked at 414(n)(3)(C), and it refers to a bunch of other sections, none of which appear to talk about health insurance premiums being reported as wages for > 2% SH/employees. I don't doubt you; I am just having a difficult time following each section with references to other sections. |
25 June 2009 | |
So if I understand what is being said, the s-corp. gets the HI deduction, although it included in management fees or something like that and the >2% s/h does not have the increase in box 1 of the W-2 nor does he get the HI premium deduction on page 1 of the 1040. Technically though the PEO should include the calculated amount of HI in box 1. Is that about it?
Riley2...thanks for your help, although I'm like Natalie and don't see which code section under 414(n)(3)(C) is the one you are referring to. I did see sec 106, Contributions by Employer to Accident and Health Plans listed. But the only plans this section referred to were Archer MSA, Contribtions to Flexible Spending Arrangements and HSAs. These are not the health plans my client has. So not sure that 414 applies. Did I miss something? Thank you so much for the feedback! You are awesome. |
27 June 2009 | |
Internal Revenue Code § 414(n)(3)(C) basically says that certain fringe benefits provided by the leasing company are treated as being provided by the service recipient (in this case the S corporation). Specifically, Internal Revenue Code § 106 benefits (health insurance premiums) provided by the leasing company are treated as being provided by the service recipient (in this case the S corporation).
Why is this significant? Internal Revenue Code § 106 basically says that 106 benefits provided to employees (as defined elsewhere) are excludible from gross income. Unfortunately, an employee of an S corporation is not really an employee at all if he and his family own more than 2% of the stock in the S corporation. Thus, an S corporation shareholder is taxable on Sec. 106 benefits provided by the leasing company. This means that the premiums should be included in box 1 of the W-2. That was easy. Now, for the difficult part. Internal Revenue Code § 162(l) limits the SE health insurance deduction to the amount of the shareholder’s FICA/Medicare wages from the S corporation. In this case, the shareholder’s FICA/Medicare wages from the S corporation are zero, forcing the shareholder to deduct his health insurance premiums on Schedule A. |
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 27 June 2009 |
I didn't see where there isn't a W-2, already, that reports a cash salary that's been paid to the shareholder/employee as FICA/Medicare wages. |
19 January 2011 | |
I really wish these PEOs would go away. I have a similar but different situation in that the PEO did not provide the plan but the S corp continued to reimburse the shareholders even after the PEO 'acquired' the employees. Riley cites where the premiums should be included when the PEO is providing the coverage even though the SH loses the SEHI deduction. But in this case the PEO is not providing coverage but is insisting that the premiums will be included on the SH's W-2 but will not respond to the question I posed whether they would be in only Box 1 or also in Boxes 3 and 5. My client is contacting them for clarification as they won't speak to me anymore (because I ask too many questions that should be directed to my tax advisor. Ha, ha....). Any thoughts on this? Thank you. |
20 January 2011 | |
LJACPA, my client's situation is the same except they will not include it on the W2 since the client is not an officer of the PEO. It looks like my client can only include on schedule A. |
January 20, 2011 | |
Riley is right 99.99999999999999991% of the time. Three posts up answers your question. |
20 January 2011 | |
Jeff, I followed what he said and understand that the benefits would be included in the W-2 but not deductible as SEHI because of no FICA wages on the premiums included in box 1. However, not sure if you saw that my situation (as well as ACS41, I believe) is that the PEO is not the provider. Thus, we've gone from a clearly Notice 2008-1 situation to one I'm not sure what to do with. That is, the S corporation continued to reimburse the shareholders for their premiums even after the PEO came into the picture. I may easily not be seeing this in Riley's post; does this make a difference? Thanks. |
January 20, 2011 | |
I dunno, Lynne...but based on what Riley wrote, without wages paid by the S corp, no deduction for the insurance. So it would be properly booked as a s/h distribution and only deductible on Sch. A the way I read it. I don't even see that you'd include it on a W2...indeed a very confusing situation. |
Actionbsns (talk|edits) said: | 10 February 2011 |
JR, are you suggesting that the health insurance portion of the leasing company's fee, paid for the 2% shareholder, should be reclassified from, say "Leasing Expense", to s/h distribution? That hasn't popped up in this discussion yet. It kind of makes sense though. |
Harry Boscoe (talk|edits) said: | 10 February 2011 |
I am sure that referring to the health insurance as a benefit to the *shareholder* [rather than the employee/officer/service provider/treated-as-working-partner is really skating on thin ice. If one shareholder gets coverage, and another shareholder doesn't, there's goes .. there goes .. there goes something ... |
14 February 2011 | |
As CFO of a PEO I have come across this a few times. Since its a coemployment agreement, the HI rules apply the same as if the taxpayer reported p/r under their FEIN regardless if the HI is purchased through PEO or a la carte. My PEO reports > than 2% S/H HI premiums paid in box 1 only so its correct going to Uncle Sam. This increase in gross wage is not charged to client so he/she is not double dipping. It would then obviously go through the 1040 rules on its deductablility there. Again its coemployment so his/her wages even though under PEO FEIN would be theirs. Do the same reporting for box 12 of W2 for ER paid HSA contributions. Its a reporting thing not a billing thing. |