Comments for PCS Blog

Comment on It May Be Time To Evaluate Buy vs. Lease by Mark

Mark — Wed, 28 Mar 2012 14:58:16 +0000

Nice article Michelle!

Comment on Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and Credit Reductions by bwillbanks

bwillbanks — Thu, 05 Jan 2012 13:43:19 +0000

Hello Sharliss, thanks for your question.

The legal authority is the IRS. Actually, it is not a surtax, it is a credit reduction that impacts States who have not paid back money they borrowed to pay unemployment benefits. Here’s the excerpt from the article:

“Credit reduction” states are states that did not repay the money they borrowed from the federal government to pay unemployment benefits.

I hope that helps, let me know if you need further clarification.

Bob Willbanks

Comment on Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and Credit Reductions by Sharliss Ferris

Sharliss Ferris — Wed, 04 Jan 2012 23:15:56 +0000

What is the legal authority for this surtax?

Comment on HIRE Act Retention Credit by bwillbanks

bwillbanks — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:24:07 +0000

Thanks for the comment and suggestion! I will look into it for you and we’ll post the result back here next week!

Comment on HIRE Act Retention Credit by Jesse Fink

Jesse Fink — Fri, 30 Sep 2011 20:16:35 +0000

while I understand why PCS does not apply this credit they have the employees coded and so they could provide a report that computes the credit so it can be applied on the employer tax return by the preparer.

Comment on Deadline Set for New 401K Disclosure Rules by bwillbanks

bwillbanks — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 17:01:34 +0000

Thank you for your question. We checked with the Author, Juhl Stoesz, Here’s his reply:

ERISA-governed 403(b) plans are subject to both the ERISA §408(b)(2) service provider disclosure rules and the ERISA §404(a)(5) participant fee disclosure rules. However, neither set of rules apply to non-ERISA 403(b) plans such as governmental or non-electing church plans.

Being that a church sponsoring a 403(b) needs to follow specific procedures under I.R.C. §410(d) in order to affirmatively elect to be subject to ERISA, it is doubtful that the church asking the question has elected to be subject to ERISA.

I hope that this helps. Please let me know if there are any additional questions.

Thank you,

Juhl Stoesz
Associate Counsel

Comment on Deadline Set for New 401K Disclosure Rules by TIM ANDERSON

TIM ANDERSON — Mon, 01 Aug 2011 12:48:16 +0000

SINCE NO MENTION WAS MADE TO THE COUNTERPART PLAN 403B I WILL ASSUME THAT THIS COMPLIANCE/DISCLOSURE DOES NOT APPLY TO NON-PROFIT ORGANIZATIONS LIKE CHURCHES. IF I AM INCORRECT PLEASE EXPAND THE INFORMATION ACCORDINGLY.

Comment on Why SAS 70 Type II is Important by Jon

Jon — Tue, 12 Jul 2011 17:27:14 +0000

SAS 70 is the Statement on Auditing Standards No. 70 which is an auditing statement developed by the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants (AICPA). It is designed for auditors to review the controls established by service organizations. Independent auditors review controls and activities, such as policies and/or procedures established by a service organization, to ensure they are valid and enforced. The data center controls include building access/security, datacenter access/security, data storage, customer information security and change procedures of hardware/software.

Comment on Minnesota Taxability for Non-Tax Dependants by bwillbanks

bwillbanks — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 17:58:14 +0000

Jenelle,

Actually, this is about the employer’s contribution and does not impact the employee premium amount since they are paying for that portion of the insurance themselves. Here’s the language directly from the State of Minnesota website:

UPDATE MARCH 21, 2011: The Minnesota legislature has not yet addressed the taxability of employer provided health insurance and adoption benefits for 2011.

In the absence of such legislation for tax year 2011, Minnesota law includes in the definition of “wages” for purposes of income tax withholding both the fair market value of insurance benefits provided to nondependent adult children of employees and the amount of adoption benefits paid in excess of $12,170 per child.

However, until the Minnesota legislature fully addresses adoption of these provisions and all other changes to the Internal Revenue Code since March 18, 2010, the Department of Revenue will not require employers to withhold taxes from those federally exempt employer provided benefits.

Since employees will be required to include those federally exempt benefits as income on their 2011 Minnesota income tax returns unless Minnesota law is changed, the Department of Revenue encourages employers to share this information with affected employees so the employees can decide whether to elect additional withholding if they are concerned about being sufficiently withheld. Employees can elect additional Minnesota withholding by completing Form W-4MN, Minnesota Employee Withholding Allowances/Exemption Certificate.

- Bob

Comment on Minnesota Taxability for Non-Tax Dependants by Jenelle

Jenelle — Thu, 28 Apr 2011 13:32:17 +0000

Does this apply to the entire premium amount? What if a portion is paid by the employer?

Sounds like this will greatly affect older employees with higher premium payments.