Discussion:Employer voluntarily pays employees medical expenses.
From TaxAlmanac
| Revision as of 14:33, 3 October 2008 RoyDaleOne (Talk | contribs) (I doubt it was t) ← Previous diff |
Revision as of 15:17, 3 October 2008 Taxtamer (Talk | contribs) (RoyDale is right) Next diff → |
||
| Line 22: | Line 22: | ||
| }} | }} | ||
| + | |||
| + | {{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Taxtamer|Date=3 October 2008|Text=RoyDale is right. There must be a written plan in place, and a self-insured plan (which this would be) cannot be discriminatory - can't just pick one employee it would apply to. Bottom line, either non-deductible gift, or additional (taxable) compensation to employee.}} | ||
Revision as of 15:17, 3 October 2008
Discussion Forum Index --> Basic Tax Questions --> Employer voluntarily pays employees medical expenses.
Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> Employer voluntarily pays employees medical expenses.
| 3 October 2008 | |
| Hi Everyone;
I have a client who has part-time employees to reduce insurance benefits. An employee of my client did not have medical insurance, but incurred medical bills. My client (my client's company) paid medical bills on behalf of the part-time employee out of kindness. I believe this may have to be included as part of the employees salary in order for my client to take the deduction? Of course, my client would like to take it as a chartiable deduction, but he can't do this since the client is not an IRS approved charity :) I was wondering if anyone knew of a way my client could take a deduction without making his poor employee owe taxes? Thank you again! Nancy | |
RoyDaleOne (talk|edits) said: | 3 October 2008 |
| I doubt it was totally out of kindness, the employer, surely, wanted an employee who was healthy, productive, one without outside problems that could interfere with the employee's work, such as, needing a full time job to be able to pay off the medical bills and leaving for that reason. Gifts to individuals are non-deductible, as I recall, any my recall may be wrong.
Do a search covering Sec 105 and 106 concerning the need for a plan. Sec 105 and 106 are very liability in there implementation however, I think there must be a plan. See the relevant court cases for what constitutes a plan. | |
| 3 October 2008 | |
| RoyDale is right. There must be a written plan in place, and a self-insured plan (which this would be) cannot be discriminatory - can't just pick one employee it would apply to. Bottom line, either non-deductible gift, or additional (taxable) compensation to employee. | |
