Discussion:Fun with SEHI
From TaxAlmanac
Discussion Forum Index --> Advanced Tax Questions --> Fun with SEHI
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Fun with SEHI
| 1 February 2008 | |
| Spouse of SCorp 2.5% shareholder works in business (shareholder does not). Attribution would seem to require health insurance added to his w-2 not subject to FICA. Does the $40/week he pays qualify for SEHI and is it subject to FICA? (was handled as a payroll deduction and considered gross wages subject | |
| 1 February 2008 | |
| Found some interesting (although non-citable) stuff.
Premiums for health insurance paid by an S corporation on behalf of a more than 2% shareholder, to the extent of W-2 wages received from the S corporation, are deductible on the corporate return, but the shareholder must include the amount of the premiums in income on the shareholder's Form 1040. (Constructive rules of ownership apply.) The income should be included on the shareholder's Form W-2 as taxable wages. Those wages, though, are not subject to FICA or FUTA as regular wages are. If the amount of the premium is not included on the shareholder's Form W-2, it should be reported as Other Income on Line 21 of the shareholder's Form 1040. By Jacki Morin, Revenue Agent Bangor, Maine [1] | |
| 1 February 2008 | |
| If you record this as DR Cash, CR Other income the entire amount of the health insurance gets reported on line 21 (or W-2) and netted as SEHI. On the other hand if CR insurance...? Nobody? | |
| February 2, 2008 | |
| Dennis, I'm not sure why you would want to debit cash. Cash has not changed hands, correct? I think if anything you would reclassify the health insurance to salaries and wages so that the amount ties to the W2. | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| Cash has changed hands This guy is paying $40 per week as an after tax payroll deduction because he has family coverage. Basically what I am asking is what do you guys think goes on the w-2...full cost of insurance or just what corp pays? | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| Boy, is this confusing! Dennis, could you clarify this a bit? Is this an individual/family policy that this employee and his 2.5% SH wife have personally? Or, is it a policy in the S corp that covers him/SH and other employees? Is the $40/week coming from his net pay? Something just isn't flowing here. BTW, I've seen the Line 21 Other Income done (and done it) in the past, but this cite is from 2002 and is it specific to fishermen? | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| Just what the Corporation pays.
Any payroll deduction that pays the insurance, correctly handled, is not provided by the Corporation, therefore, the rules you mention do not apply to that portion of the insurance cost. If, the Corporation pays a portion of the insurance up and beyond the amount of the payroll withholding than that portion is what is subject to the rules. | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| Corp has a plan covering all employees. There are two. Father and son-in-law. Father owns 97.5% Daughter owns 2.5% Daughter has nothing to do with the company. The $40 per week son-in-law pays would seem to be SEHI by attribution (He pays and when the company pays the premium he is effectively reimbursed, no?) and I am uncomfortable advising my spouse to tell her boss to put the net amount on the W-2. (Because I will suffer mightily if wrong) Preference would be for the W-2 entry to match the SEHI deduction. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| What the son-in-law pays is not SEHI because the Corp did
not pay the preminum. If the Corp takes money from son-in-law for HI and in turn pays the premium how does that reimburse the son-in-law for the amount he paid? My advise is hire a professional to take care of this if you don't know how. | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| Heavens to Murgatroyd. I have become a non-professional. So much for the award system. Point of fact, when corp is reimbursed for personal use of auto the entry is specifically other income on corp return. If caf plan were allowable, corp would take entire premium as expense. When company takes the money and returns it in the form of a payment on behalf this is not effective reimbursement? Son-in-law is self-employed by attribution and is paying for health insurance under a company plan. Anyone else vote for Schedule A deduction only? | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| Would seem to me that if 2.5% made the payments to the insurance company, and S Corp reimbursed him you would have something similar to Example D in Notice 2008-1. Reading the four examples, this one does not fit nicely into any of them. | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| If it fit, David, I wouldn't be asking.♫ You should at least vote. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| I would vote for SEHI based on the substance, if not the form. | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| Ah yes, Form. If this was a sole shareholder I would be comfortable with CR APIC (feels better than loan). | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| 1. If a partner performs services in the capacity of a partner and the partnership pays accident and health insurance premiums for current year coverage on behalf of such partner without regard to partnership income, what is the Federal income tax treatment of the premium payments?
S Corporation are treated as partnerships for this purpose. The amount paid by, whomever, is not paid by the partnership. Payroll withholdings per the first post are not amounts paid by the partnership. Any excess amount paid above the $40 paid by whomever would be SEHI. | |
Death&Taxes (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| In 2008-1, IRS stresses that the plan be established by the S Corp either by having it originate the plan, or by having it make the payments for the plan set up by the shareholder [Examples B-C-D]. Only in example A where the shareholder buys the insurance and pays the premium does it fail to be SEHI. In Dennis' case, the S Corp established the plan, mainly for the 97.5% shareholder. This is why I say that while the form of what is happening here might not agree with 2008-1, the substance says this is a plan established by the S Corp. | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| Don't bother arguing with anonymous Roy, David. If I could get the journal entry the problem would be solved. Has to be the same for all cases. Partner/Shareholder/Sole Proprietor. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| No arguing, just my view point, however, while not on point but very close see:
Cotler v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 2007-283 (9/19/07), "The court agreed that Richard reimbursed the firm by subtracting the amounts of the insurance premiums from his loan to the firm. The firm was nothing more than a conduit with respect to its payment of the disability premiums, the court concluded." | |
| 2 February 2008 | |
| You seem to be contradicting yourself. Point of the case was that Richard paid the premium, hence dbl not taxable. Point of w-2 inclusion is that shareholder paid the premium, hence SEHI. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 2 February 2008 |
| Please do me a favor and explain what it is you would to know in very plain language, because it is very obvious to me that I can not grasp what you are asking. I am sorry that I am so stupid. | |
| 3 February 2008 | |
| OK guys. Last time. Forget the Notice. It's functionally irrelevant to the problem. Two 50% partners, one married with kids the other single. They want to pay health insurance and keep the money even, so partner with kids puts the difference in. Is anyone saying married partner is limited to SEHI on the lower amount? If not, what is the journal entry? | |
Michaelstar (talk|edits) said: | 3 February 2008 |
| Dennis - I am going to assume that this is still an S-Corp as you originally started. Yes, the gross HI is reported as wages for both and it is not subject to FICA as you have determined. No, I do not believe that the married partner's SEHI would be limited to the lower amount as the gross HI would be reported as wages for each. The HI reported as wages would be deductible as SEHI.
In order for the $$ for the 50% s/holders to remain equal, the difference (amount greater than the equal share) would need to be w/held from the married w/kids s/holders wages. This way, no loan from/to - we have a thing about those phantom loans.... No different than if 1 s/h claimed M-0 and the other claimed S-9 for w/holdings on taxes. What do you think? | |
| February 3, 2008 | |
| Let's see if I understand this correctly.
Ins. prem. for family = $5,500 per year reimbursed portion ($500) net deduction to corp = $10,000
Now, I think the question remains, is there a way for this married shareholder to deduct the $500 as SEHI? Is my understanding correct, Dennis? | |
| 3 February 2008 | |
| He is paying it all. But think partner not corp because the treatment has to be consistent and the position is easier to see. Basic premise of SEHI is that entity is not the payer, but partner through income recognition. | |
Michaelstar (talk|edits) said: | 3 February 2008 |
| Well, then the single partner would end up with the difference being paid directly to them as a GP which of course would then be taxable to the single partner. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 3 February 2008 |
| Debit Cash $500.00
Credit Insurance Expense $500.00 | |
| 3 February 2008 | |
| $30,000 income. $5000 single coverage $10,000 family.
Cr insurance means your SEHI is determined not by what you pay, but what your partner pays. Suppose, as Michael suggests, instead of married partner putting in, single partner takes out. GP for each is $10K. | |
Michaelstar (talk|edits) said: | 3 February 2008 |
| Dennis, being that this is a partnership, I agree. Your condition is that the money remain equal. If the Married partner requires $10k and chooses to use this for deductible SEHI, then the single partner should not be financially impacted.
My aje would be: dr - Health insurance $10k, (married partner) Health insurance $5k (single partner)
GP $5k - (single partner)
cr - cash - $20k with $5k cash going direct to the single partner and the other $15 k going to the insurance companies.
| |
| February 3, 2008 | |
| Okay, I think I understand now. I agree it is better to have the single partner take more money out to keep the relationship equal. | |
| 3 February 2008 | |
| What continues to bother me about this, is that however this goes down...cash in cr income, cash in cr insurance, cash out dr single partner, there is neither an effect on amount taxable to single partner or the combined amount of money and benefits he gets. The only thing that changes is married partner's SEHI. Note that by definition the partnership should produce the same result as two sole proprietors in a joint venture filing separate Schedule C's. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 3 February 2008 |
| Note that by definition the partnership should produce the same result as two sole proprietors in a joint venture filing separate Schedule C's.
Are the two sole proprietors going to "balance" the amount of expense for the insurance like your partnership? I would guess not, therefore, the definition would not happen. | |
| 3 February 2008 | |
| Perhaps an accounting course might help Roy. Of course they are. Married sole proprietor pays insurance, single sole proprietor keeps cash. | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 3 February 2008 |
| Well a Fire Commissioner I am not..... | |
Michaelstar (talk|edits) said: | 3 February 2008 |
| Dennis, Both partners will in effect be reporting $10k in income and/or benefits. The single partner will receive benefits (which he/she will be able to deduct as SEHI) and cash equal to $10k and the married partner receives $10k in taxable benefits (which he/she will be able to deduct as SEHI). This way the cash out of the partnership stays equal which was what you wanted to happen.
I do not see why your wanting to credit insurance expense. Credit cash to pay for the insurance, debit insurance (partners)/GP for the cash out to pay the insurance and GP. The insurance expense will not be reported as insurance expense on the 1065 but as a form of GP to the partner which will be the 1065 expense of the partnership. Edit - we're talking the same thing right?? One thing that is unfortunate when reporting this as a partner through a partnership or a sole prop who files a Schedule C is that this SEHI is subject to SE tax where if reported as wages in an S-Corp is not subject to FICA which is the equivalent of SE tax. | |


