Discussion:S Corp Health Insurance No FICA on 'Wages'?

From TaxAlmanac, A Free Online Resource for Tax Professionals
Note: You are using this website at your own risk, subject to our Disclaimer and Website Use and Contribution Terms.

From TaxAlmanac

(Difference between revisions)
Jump to: navigation, search
Revision as of 22:47, 10 December 2007
Ksnoopytax (Talk | contribs)
(Announcement 92-)
← Previous diff
Revision as of 15:30, 5 November 2009
Southparkcpa (Talk | contribs)
(I have a client)
Next diff →
Line 57: Line 57:
If the requirements for the exclusion under section 3121(a)(2)(8) are satisfied, amounts paid by an S corporation for accident and health insurance covering a 2%-shareholder-employee are not wages for social security and Medicare tax purposes, even though the amounts must be included in wages for income tax withholding purposes on the 2%-shareholder-employee's Form W-2. On the other hand, if the requirements for an exclusion are not satisfied, amounts paid by an S corporation for accident and health insurance covering a 2%-shareholder-employee must be included in wages for social security and Medicare tax purposes, as well as for income tax withholding purposes, and reported in the appropriate boxes on the 2%- shareholder-employee's Form W-2. If the requirements for the exclusion under section 3121(a)(2)(8) are satisfied, amounts paid by an S corporation for accident and health insurance covering a 2%-shareholder-employee are not wages for social security and Medicare tax purposes, even though the amounts must be included in wages for income tax withholding purposes on the 2%-shareholder-employee's Form W-2. On the other hand, if the requirements for an exclusion are not satisfied, amounts paid by an S corporation for accident and health insurance covering a 2%-shareholder-employee must be included in wages for social security and Medicare tax purposes, as well as for income tax withholding purposes, and reported in the appropriate boxes on the 2%- shareholder-employee's Form W-2.
 +
 +}}
 +
 +{{ForumReplyPost|UserID=Southparkcpa|Date=5 November 2009|Text=I have a client in his late 50's with an S Corp. He does ALMOST NO work but has 2 employees. He takes only distributions and pays his health insurance of $12,000 annually, NO other WAGES. There is no real "reasonable comp" issue as he does almost no work, has a full time job other than this business etc...
 +
 +I have read all the threads but it seems odd still.
 +
 +To properly handle the W2 scenario , it seems we have 2 different approaches based on postings on this site.
 +
 +1) a W2 with No Fica wages and only wages of $12,000 in box 1 and S Corp health Ins disclosure in box 14?
 +
 +2) I have read all the threads and still it seems odd that he has NO FICA wages as a literal reading would lead you to believe he must have FICA wages of $12,000 to deduct the insurance. If that is the case, his w2 would show $24,000 of wages, $12,000 FICA wages and $12,000 in box 14.
 +
 +The primary difference being he will be subject to FICA tax on 12K. he is fine with that.
 +
 +Any insight would be very appreciative.
}} }}

Revision as of 15:30, 5 November 2009

Discussion Forum Index --> Tax Questions --> S Corp Health Insurance No FICA on 'Wages'?

TaxAssistCPA (talk|edits) said:

25 June 2006
Can anybody provide me with a code or reg citation that states that S Corp. premium paid on a more than 2% shareholder and is subsequently reported in their W-2 is not subject to FICA? After reading all of the discussions on this topic I am convinced that they are not subject to FICA but I would like to find it somewhere in the code to satisfy my boss. Thanks.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

25 June 2006
Publication 15 Page 11

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

25 June 2006
Thank you Dennis for your link to this question. Now, I would like to put this out there just so there is no confusion (or maybe I am the one confused) - Health Insurance paid by an S-Corp for it's > 2% s/h - those amounts should be reported as wages and are subject to FICA and all other tax withholdings.

So what if a > 2% s/h has sufficient stock basis, is not an active participant in the business and just wants what is being paid for health insurance on his behalf treated as a distribution and thus a reduction of his previously taxes earnings/s/h basis?

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

25 June 2006
NOT SUBJECT TO FICA OR FUTA. MUST BE TREATED AS WAGES Sec. 1372

Michaelstar (talk|edits) said:

25 June 2006
Dennis - This ref. states that these fringe benefits are treated the same as guaranteed payments if it was a partnership. GP's are subject to SE tax - so how would these wages not be subject to FICA. I am honestly following this so that I fully understand how this goes down the flow chart. For some reason, I am still reading both site you provide that these are wages subject to fica and futa so please be patient with me and help me along with this and why my thought process is faulty. Thanks.

Dennis (talk|edits) said:

25 June 2006
1372 is the reference that mandates wage treatment. The reference for exemption from FICA and FUTA is Publication 15. (See chart on page 31)

Taxref (talk|edits) said:

26 June 2006
Dennis is correct. The entity referred to in the OP is an S corporation, not a partnership. Publication 15 (formerly Circular E)is clear on the proper treatment for S corporation owners.

Riley2 (talk|edits) said:

27 June 2006
TaxAssist, the code section is Sec. 3121(a)(2). The exemption is not automatic. The payments must be made under a plan or system covering employees in general or specific classes of employees (and their dependents). Also, see Announcement 92-16.

DEANER (talk|edits) said:

17 July 2006
A colleague of mine and I have debated the treatment of 2% S Corp health insurance payments extensively. We always ask, why not just treat them as a draw, which means more S corp income on the K-1, then just deduct this premium on the front of the 1040?

Aside from maybe pension benefits based on an 2% S Corp employee's gross wage, why does the above not accomplish the same thing as putting the premium on the W-2 and deducting the premium on the front of the 1040? I don't think an auditor would give one hoot one way or the other.

Isn't the bottom line the same either way? Remember, no FICA or FUTA.

What does the "W-2 way" do that the "draw way" doesn't do?

Riley2 (talk|edits) said:

17 July 2006
I agree that if the employee owns 100% of the S corporation and the requirements of section 3121(a)(2)(B) are satisfied, there would be little difference between treating the premiums as distributions and treating them as taxable wages (other than the fact the employer may be subject to reduced retirement plan deductions and reduced Sec. 199 deductions).

JR1 (talk|edits) said:

July 17, 2006
That's what I do Deaner, for my solely owned S's..

PVVCPA (talk|edits) said:

6 December 2007
Sec 3121(a)(2) states that these benefits are not subject to FICA provided that the plan covers all employees or covers a "class of employees".

What limitations are placed on identifying a "class of employees"? Would "all employees who are also greater than 2% shareholders" qualify as a 'class of employees'?

In effect, can the plan discriminate and only offer health insurance coverage to the shareholders and still exlude these "wages" from FICA?

Kendrick (talk|edits) said:

10 December 2007
Yeah, where can I find information on "class of employees" and how I can handle this for a client . . .

SunGod (talk|edits) said:

10 December 2007
Rev Rul. 91-26 exempts health insurance income from FICA.

PVVCPA (talk|edits) said:

10 December 2007
SunGod, this Rev Rul only deals with the issue of income taxes not FICA. Regardless, Sec. 3121(a)(2) takes precedence over a ruling.

Ksnoopytax (talk|edits) said:

10 December 2007
Announcement 92-16

In response to taxpayer questions, this Internal Revenue Service announcement is intended to clarify the social security and Medicare tax treatment of accident and health insurance premiums paid by an S corporation on behalf of 2%-shareholder-employees.

On April 15, 1991, the Service published Revenue Ruling 91-26, 1991-1 C.B. 184, regarding employer-provided accident and health insurance for S corporations and 2%-shareholder-employees. Revenue Ruling 91-26 indicates that amounts paid by an S corporation for accident and health insurance covering a 2%-shareholder-employee must be reported as wages on his or her Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement.

Revenue Ruling 91-26 does not directly address the treatment of the amounts for such purposes. The Service has been asked whether these amounts are wages for purposes of social security and Medicare taxes. The facts presented in the ruling are insufficient to ascertain whether tax would be imposed in these circumstances. A basic analysis is provided below to assist taxpayers.

Like other employees of an S corporation, 2%-shareholder employees are subject to social security and Medicare taxes on “wages” paid to them by the corporation. The term “wages” generally includes fringe benefits provided in cash or in kind to an employee. However, under section 3121(a) of the Code certain payments are expressly excluded from “wages” for purposes of social security and Medicare taxes.

Section 3121(a)(2)(8) excludes from wages certain amounts paid by an employer to or on behalf of an employee (including amounts paid by an employer for insurance, annuities, or into a fund) for medical and hospitalization expenses in connection with sickness or accident disability. For this exclusion to apply, the payments must be made under a plan or system for employees and their dependents generally or for a class (or classes) of employees and their dependents. Thus, whether amounts of this type are actually subject to social security or Medicare tax depends on whether in the particular case the taxpayer satisfies the requirements for the exclusion.

If the requirements for the exclusion under section 3121(a)(2)(8) are satisfied, amounts paid by an S corporation for accident and health insurance covering a 2%-shareholder-employee are not wages for social security and Medicare tax purposes, even though the amounts must be included in wages for income tax withholding purposes on the 2%-shareholder-employee's Form W-2. On the other hand, if the requirements for an exclusion are not satisfied, amounts paid by an S corporation for accident and health insurance covering a 2%-shareholder-employee must be included in wages for social security and Medicare tax purposes, as well as for income tax withholding purposes, and reported in the appropriate boxes on the 2%- shareholder-employee's Form W-2.

Southparkcpa (talk|edits) said:

5 November 2009
I have a client in his late 50's with an S Corp. He does ALMOST NO work but has 2 employees. He takes only distributions and pays his health insurance of $12,000 annually, NO other WAGES. There is no real "reasonable comp" issue as he does almost no work, has a full time job other than this business etc...

I have read all the threads but it seems odd still.

To properly handle the W2 scenario , it seems we have 2 different approaches based on postings on this site.

1) a W2 with No Fica wages and only wages of $12,000 in box 1 and S Corp health Ins disclosure in box 14?

2) I have read all the threads and still it seems odd that he has NO FICA wages as a literal reading would lead you to believe he must have FICA wages of $12,000 to deduct the insurance. If that is the case, his w2 would show $24,000 of wages, $12,000 FICA wages and $12,000 in box 14.

The primary difference being he will be subject to FICA tax on 12K. he is fine with that.

Any insight would be very appreciative.