View Single Post
  #38  
Old 02-01-2013, 12:49 PM
md2000 md2000 is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 13,730
My guess - none of the articles, none of the IRS press releases, and probably not even the IRS themselves have figured out what the real rules are.

The ruling was imply to make it so that if Dick and Jane got married, or Jane had triplets, or the other Dick in the household got laid off, the employer was not suddenly hit with an unforseen penalty.

The obvious cheat is simple - $0 for the employee's coverage, $(the roof) for any dependants. Nobody signs up their dependants, they use the exchange, but the employer does not get penalized. The employer no longer has to voucher for what the employee's in-house plan would cost. Drive as many employees as possible to choose the exchange while avoiding fines.

I bet nobody in the IRS wants to stick their neck out to make a decision on this so - is an employee getting the subsidy if the cost structure is such that the employer aviods a fine? Leave it to the politicians to decide the issue when the noise gets louder.

The various articles most likely quote those with an agenda putting their own interpretation on ambiguity.