§105 — Amounts received under accident and health plans

150 citing cases

(a)Amounts attributable to employer contributions

Except as otherwise provided in this section, amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness shall be included in gross income to the extent such amounts (1) are attributable to contributions by the employer which were not includible in the gross income of the employee, or (2) are paid by the employer.

(b)Amounts expended for medical care

Except in the case of amounts attributable to (and not in excess of) deductions allowed under section 213 (relating to medical, etc., expenses) for any prior taxable year, gross income does not include amounts referred to in subsection (a) if such amounts are paid, directly or indirectly, to the taxpayer to reimburse the taxpayer for expenses incurred by him for the medical care (as defined in section 213(d)) of the taxpayer, his spouse, his dependents (as defined in section 152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof), and any child (as defined in section 152(f)(1)) of the taxpayer who as of the end of the taxable year has not attained age 27. Any child to whom section 152(e) applies shall be treated as a dependent of both parents for purposes of this subsection.

(c)Payments unrelated to absence from work

Gross income does not include amounts referred to in subsection (a) to the extent such amounts—

(1)

constitute payment for the permanent loss or loss of use of a member or function of the body, or the permanent disfigurement, of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section 152, determined without regard to subsections (b)(1), (b)(2), and (d)(1)(B) thereof), and

(2)

are computed with reference to the nature of the injury without regard to the period the employee is absent from work.

(d)Repealed. Pub. L. 98–21, title I, § 122(b), Apr. 20, 1983, 97 Stat. 87]
(e)Accident and health plans

For purposes of this section and section 104—

(1)

amounts received under an accident or health plan for employees, and

(2)

amounts received from a sickness and disability fund for employees maintained under the law of a State or the District of Columbia,

shall be treated as amounts received through accident or health insurance.

(f)Rules for application of section 213

For purposes of section 213(a) (relating to medical, dental, etc., expenses) amounts excluded from gross income under subsection (c) shall not be considered as compensation (by insurance or otherwise) for expenses paid for medical care.

(g)Self-employed individual not considered an employee

For purposes of this section, the term “employee” does not include an individual who is an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1) (relating to self-employed individuals).

(h)Amount paid to highly compensated individuals under a discriminatory self-insured medical expense reimbursement plan
(1)In general

In the case of amounts paid to a highly compensated individual under a self-insured medical reimbursement plan which does not satisfy the requirements of paragraph (2) for a plan year, subsection (b) shall not apply to such amounts to the extent they constitute an excess reimbursement of such highly compensated individual.

(2)Prohibition of discrimination

A self-insured medical reimbursement plan satisfies the requirements of this paragraph only if—

(A)

the plan does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals as to eligibility to participate; and

(B)

the benefits provided under the plan do not discriminate in favor of participants who are highly compensated individuals.

(3)Nondiscriminatory eligibility classifications
(A)In general

A self-insured medical reimbursement plan does not satisfy the requirements of subparagraph (A) of paragraph (2) unless such plan benefits—

(i)

70 percent or more of all employees, or 80 percent or more of all the employees who are eligible to benefit under the plan if 70 percent or more of all employees are eligible to benefit under the plan; or

(ii)

such employees as qualify under a classification set up by the employer and found by the Secretary not to be discriminatory in favor of highly compensated individuals.

(B)Exclusion of certain employees

For purposes of subparagraph (A), there may be excluded from consideration—

(i)

employees who have not completed 3 years of service;

(ii)

employees who have not attained age 25;

(iii)

part-time or seasonal employees;

(iv)

employees not included in the plan who are included in a unit of employees covered by an agreement between employee representatives and one or more employers which the Secretary finds to be a collective bargaining agreement, if accident and health benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers; and

(v)

employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(d)(2)) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of section 861(a)(3)).

(4)Nondiscriminatory benefits

A self-insured medical reimbursement plan does not meet the requirements of subparagraph (B) of paragraph (2) unless all benefits provided for participants who are highly compensated individuals are provided for all other participants.

(5)Highly compensated individual defined

For purposes of this subsection, the term “highly compensated individual” means an individual who is—

(A)

one of the 5 highest paid officers,

(B)

a shareholder who owns (with the application of section 318) more than 10 percent in value of the stock of the employer, or

(C)

among the highest paid 25 percent of all employees (other than employees described in paragraph (3)(B) who are not participants).

(6)Self-insured medical reimbursement plan

The term “self-insured medical reimbursement plan” means a plan of an employer to reimburse employees for expenses referred to in subsection (b) for which reimbursement is not provided under a policy of accident and health insurance.

(7)Excess reimbursement of highly compensated individual

For purposes of this section, the excess reimbursement of a highly compensated individual which is attributable to a self-insured medical reimbursement plan is—

(A)

in the case of a benefit available to highly compensated individuals but not to all other participants (or which otherwise fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (2)(B)), the amount reimbursed under the plan to the employee with respect to such benefit, and

(B)

in the case of benefits (other than benefits described in subparagraph (A)) paid to a highly compensated individual by a plan which fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (2), the total amount reimbursed to the highly compensated individual for the plan year multiplied by a fraction—

(i)

the numerator of which is the total amount reimbursed to all participants who are highly compensated individuals under the plan for the plan year, and

(ii)

the denominator of which is the total amount reimbursed to all employees under the plan for such plan year.

In determining the fraction under subparagraph (B), there shall not be taken into account any reimbursement which is attributable to a benefit described in subparagraph (A).

(8)Certain controlled groups, etc.

All employees who are treated as employed by a single employer under subsection (b), (c), or (m) of section 414 shall be treated as employed by a single employer for purposes of this section.

(9)Regulations

The Secretary shall prescribe such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions of this section.

(10)Time of inclusion

Any amount paid for a plan year that is included in income by reason of this subsection shall be treated as received or accrued in the taxable year of the participant in which the plan year ends.

(i)Sick pay under Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act

Notwithstanding any other provision of law, gross income includes benefits paid under section 2(a) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act for days of sickness; except to the extent such sickness (as determined in accordance with standards prescribed by the Railroad Retirement Board) is the result of on-the-job injury.

(j)Special rule for certain governmental plans
(1)In general

For purposes of subsection (b), amounts paid (directly or indirectly) to a qualified taxpayer from an accident or health plan described in paragraph (2) shall not fail to be excluded from gross income solely because such plan, on or before January 1, 2008, provides for reimbursements of health care expenses of a deceased employee’s beneficiary (other than an individual described in paragraph (3)(B)).

(2)Plan described

An accident or health plan is described in this paragraph if such plan is funded by a medical trust that is established in connection with a public retirement system or established by or on behalf of a State or political subdivision thereof and that—

(A)

has been authorized by a State legislature, or

(B)

has received a favorable ruling from the Internal Revenue Service that the trust’s income is not includible in gross income under section 115 or 501(c)(9).

(3)Qualified taxpayer

For purposes of paragraph (1), with respect to an accident or health plan described in paragraph (2), the term “qualified taxpayer” means a taxpayer who is—

(A)

an employee, or

(B)

the spouse, dependent (as defined for purposes of subsection (b)), or child (as defined for purposes of such subsection) of an employee.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-1Amounts attributable to employer contributions Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    (a) In general. Under section 105(a), amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness must be included in his gross income to the extent that such amounts (1) are attributable to contributions of the employer which were not includible in the gross income of the employee, or (2) are paid by the employer, unless such amounts are excluded therefrom under section 105(b), (c), or (d). For purposes of this section, the term “amounts received by an employee through an accident or health plan” refers to any amounts received through accident or health insurance, and also to any amounts which, under section 105(e), are treated as being so received. See § 1.105-5. In determining the extent to which amounts received for personal injuries or sickness by an employee through an accident or health plan are subject to the provisions of section 105(a), rather than section 104(a)(3), the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section shall apply. A self-employed individual is not an employee for purposes of section 105 and §§ 1.105-1 through 1.105-5. See paragraph (g) of § 1.72-15. Thus, such an individual will not be treated as an employee with respect to benefits described in section 105 received from a plan in which he participates as an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1) at the time he, his spouse, or any of his dependents becomes entitled to receive such benefits.

    (b) Noncontributory plans. All amounts received by employees through an accident or health plan which is financed solely by their employer, either by payment of premiums on an accident or health insurance policy (whether on a group or individual basis), by contributions to a fund which pays accident or health benefits, or by direct payment of the benefits under the plan, are subject to the provisions of section 105(a), except to the extent that they are excludable under section 105(b), (c), or (d). This rule may be illustrated by the following examples:

    (c) Contributory plans. (1) In the case of amounts received by an employee through an accident or health plan which is financed partially by his employer and partially by contributions of the employee, section 105(a) applies to the extent that such amounts are attributable to contributions of the employer which were not includible in the employee's gross income. The portion of such amounts which is attributable to such contributions of the employer shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section in the case of an insured plan, or paragraph (e) of this section in the case of a noninsured plan. As used in this section, the phrase “contributions of the employer” means employer contributions which were not includible in the gross income of the employee. See section 106 for the exclusion from an employee's gross income of employer contributions to accident or health plans.

    (2) A separate determination of the portion of the amounts received under the accident or health plan which is attributable to the contributions of the employer shall be made with respect to each class of employees in any case where the plan provides that some classes of covered employees contribute but others do not, or that the employer will make different contributions for different classes of employees, or that different classes of employees will make different contributions, and where in any such case both the contributions of the employer on account of each such class of employees and the contributions of such class of employees can be ascertained. For example, if employees contribute during the first year of employment but not thereafter, there will have to be a separate determination for first year employees, provided that the amount of the contributions of the employer on account of first-year employees and the contributions of such first-year employees can be ascertained for the required periods to apply the rules of paragraph (d) or (e) of this section. If in such a case the contributions of the employer to the plan on account of first-year employees are not distinguishable from his other contributions to the plan, then the determination shall be made for all employees under the plan, and such determination shall be used by all employees under the plan.

    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of § 1.72-15, if the plan provides accident or health benefits as well as other benefits for the employees, and if the respective contributions made by the employer and the employees to provide the accident or health benefits cannot be ascertained, the determination of the portion of the accident or health benefits received under such plan which is attributable to the contributions of the employer shall be made in accordance with the rules of paragraph (d) or (e) of this section on the basis of the contributions of the employer and of the employees to the entire plan.

    (4) A determination of the portion attributable to the contributions of the employer, once made in accordance with the rules of this section, shall as to such portion be used for all purposes. For example, if an employee receives amounts under a wage continuation plan during the month of January and terminates his services during February, the portion of such amounts which is attributable to the contributions of the employer may be determined in order to provide the employee with such information at the time he is provided his Form W-2. The determination made for such purpose will also be used by the employee to report his income for his taxable year in which such amounts are received, without regard to the experience under the plan for the rest of the year.

    (d) Insured plans—(1) Individual policies. If an amount is received from an insurance company by an employee under an individual policy of accident or health insurance purchased by contributions of the employer and the employee, the portion of the amount received which is attributable to the employer's contributions shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount received as the portion of the premiums paid by the employer for the current policy year bears to the total premiums paid by the employer and the employee for that year. This rule may be illustrated by the following example:

    (2) Group policies. If the accident or health coverage is provided under or is a part of a group insurance policy purchased by contributions of the employer and of the employees, and the net premiums for such coverage for a period of at least three policy years are known at the beginning of the calendar year, the portion of any amount received by an employee which is attributable to the contributions of the employer for such coverage shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount received as the portion of the net premiums contributed by the employer for the last three policy years which are known at the beginning of the calendar year, bears to the total of the net premiums contributed by the employer and all employees for such policy years. If the net premiums for such coverage for a period of at least three policy years are not known at the beginning of the calendar year but are known for at least one policy year, such determination shall be made by using the net premiums for such coverage which are known at the beginning of the calendar year. If the net premiums for such coverage are not known at the beginning of the calendar year for even one policy year, such determination shall be made by using either (i) a reasonable estimate of the net premiums for the first policy year, or (ii) if the net premiums for a policy year are ascertained during the calendar year, by using such net premiums. These rules may be illustrated by the following example:

    (e) Noninsured plans. If the accident or health benefits are a part of a noninsured plan to which the employer and the employees contribute, and such plan has been in effect for at least three years before the beginning of the calendar year, the portion of the amount received which is attributable to the employer's contributions shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount received as the contributions of the employer for the period of three calendar years next preceding the year of receipt bear to the total contributions of the employer and all the employees for such period. If, at the beginning of the calendar year of receipt, such plan has not been in effect for three years but has been in effect for at least one year, such determination shall be based upon the contributions made during the 1-year or 2-year period during which the plan has been in effect. If such plan has not been in effect for one full year at the beginning of the calendar year of receipt, such determination may be based upon the portion of the year of receipt preceding the time when the determination is made, or such determination may be made periodically (such as monthly or quarterly) and used throughout the succeeding period. For example, if an employee terminates his services on April 15, 1955, and 1955 is the first year the plan has been in effect, such determination may be based upon the contributions of the employer and the employees during the period beginning with January 1 and ending with April 15, or during the month of March, or during the quarter consisting of January, February, and March.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-1(a)In general. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    In general. Under section 105(a), amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness must be included in his gross income to the extent that such amounts (1) are attributable to contributions of the employer which were not includible in the gross income of the employee, or (2) are paid by the employer, unless such amounts are excluded therefrom under section 105(b), (c), or (d). For purposes of this section, the term “amounts received by an employee through an accident or health plan” refers to any amounts received through accident or health insurance, and also to any amounts which, under section 105(e), are treated as being so received. See § 1.105-5. In determining the extent to which amounts received for personal injuries or sickness by an employee through an accident or health plan are subject to the provisions of section 105(a), rather than section 104(a)(3), the provisions of paragraphs (b), (c), (d), and (e) of this section shall apply. A self-employed individual is not an employee for purposes of section 105 and §§ 1.105-1 through 1.105-5. See paragraph (g) of § 1.72-15. Thus, such an individual will not be treated as an employee with respect to benefits described in section 105 received from a plan in which he participates as an employee within the meaning of section 401(c)(1) at the time he, his spouse, or any of his dependents becomes entitled to receive such benefits.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-1(b)Noncontributory plans. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Noncontributory plans. All amounts received by employees through an accident or health plan which is financed solely by their employer, either by payment of premiums on an accident or health insurance policy (whether on a group or individual basis), by contributions to a fund which pays accident or health benefits, or by direct payment of the benefits under the plan, are subject to the provisions of section 105(a), except to the extent that they are excludable under section 105(b), (c), or (d). This rule may be illustrated by the following examples:

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-1(c)Contributory plans. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Contributory plans. (1) In the case of amounts received by an employee through an accident or health plan which is financed partially by his employer and partially by contributions of the employee, section 105(a) applies to the extent that such amounts are attributable to contributions of the employer which were not includible in the employee's gross income. The portion of such amounts which is attributable to such contributions of the employer shall be determined in accordance with paragraph (d) of this section in the case of an insured plan, or paragraph (e) of this section in the case of a noninsured plan. As used in this section, the phrase “contributions of the employer” means employer contributions which were not includible in the gross income of the employee. See section 106 for the exclusion from an employee's gross income of employer contributions to accident or health plans.

    (2) A separate determination of the portion of the amounts received under the accident or health plan which is attributable to the contributions of the employer shall be made with respect to each class of employees in any case where the plan provides that some classes of covered employees contribute but others do not, or that the employer will make different contributions for different classes of employees, or that different classes of employees will make different contributions, and where in any such case both the contributions of the employer on account of each such class of employees and the contributions of such class of employees can be ascertained. For example, if employees contribute during the first year of employment but not thereafter, there will have to be a separate determination for first year employees, provided that the amount of the contributions of the employer on account of first-year employees and the contributions of such first-year employees can be ascertained for the required periods to apply the rules of paragraph (d) or (e) of this section. If in such a case the contributions of the employer to the plan on account of first-year employees are not distinguishable from his other contributions to the plan, then the determination shall be made for all employees under the plan, and such determination shall be used by all employees under the plan.

    (3) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of § 1.72-15, if the plan provides accident or health benefits as well as other benefits for the employees, and if the respective contributions made by the employer and the employees to provide the accident or health benefits cannot be ascertained, the determination of the portion of the accident or health benefits received under such plan which is attributable to the contributions of the employer shall be made in accordance with the rules of paragraph (d) or (e) of this section on the basis of the contributions of the employer and of the employees to the entire plan.

    (4) A determination of the portion attributable to the contributions of the employer, once made in accordance with the rules of this section, shall as to such portion be used for all purposes. For example, if an employee receives amounts under a wage continuation plan during the month of January and terminates his services during February, the portion of such amounts which is attributable to the contributions of the employer may be determined in order to provide the employee with such information at the time he is provided his Form W-2. The determination made for such purpose will also be used by the employee to report his income for his taxable year in which such amounts are received, without regard to the experience under the plan for the rest of the year.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-1(d)Insured plans—(1) Individual policies. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Insured plans—(1) Individual policies. If an amount is received from an insurance company by an employee under an individual policy of accident or health insurance purchased by contributions of the employer and the employee, the portion of the amount received which is attributable to the employer's contributions shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount received as the portion of the premiums paid by the employer for the current policy year bears to the total premiums paid by the employer and the employee for that year. This rule may be illustrated by the following example:

    (2) Group policies. If the accident or health coverage is provided under or is a part of a group insurance policy purchased by contributions of the employer and of the employees, and the net premiums for such coverage for a period of at least three policy years are known at the beginning of the calendar year, the portion of any amount received by an employee which is attributable to the contributions of the employer for such coverage shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount received as the portion of the net premiums contributed by the employer for the last three policy years which are known at the beginning of the calendar year, bears to the total of the net premiums contributed by the employer and all employees for such policy years. If the net premiums for such coverage for a period of at least three policy years are not known at the beginning of the calendar year but are known for at least one policy year, such determination shall be made by using the net premiums for such coverage which are known at the beginning of the calendar year. If the net premiums for such coverage are not known at the beginning of the calendar year for even one policy year, such determination shall be made by using either (i) a reasonable estimate of the net premiums for the first policy year, or (ii) if the net premiums for a policy year are ascertained during the calendar year, by using such net premiums. These rules may be illustrated by the following example:

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-1(e)Noninsured plans. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Noninsured plans. If the accident or health benefits are a part of a noninsured plan to which the employer and the employees contribute, and such plan has been in effect for at least three years before the beginning of the calendar year, the portion of the amount received which is attributable to the employer's contributions shall be an amount which bears the same ratio to the amount received as the contributions of the employer for the period of three calendar years next preceding the year of receipt bear to the total contributions of the employer and all the employees for such period. If, at the beginning of the calendar year of receipt, such plan has not been in effect for three years but has been in effect for at least one year, such determination shall be based upon the contributions made during the 1-year or 2-year period during which the plan has been in effect. If such plan has not been in effect for one full year at the beginning of the calendar year of receipt, such determination may be based upon the portion of the year of receipt preceding the time when the determination is made, or such determination may be made periodically (such as monthly or quarterly) and used throughout the succeeding period. For example, if an employee terminates his services on April 15, 1955, and 1955 is the first year the plan has been in effect, such determination may be based upon the contributions of the employer and the employees during the period beginning with January 1 and ending with April 15, or during the month of March, or during the quarter consisting of January, February, and March.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11Self-insured medical reimbursement plan Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    (a) In general. Under section 105(a), amounts received by an employee through a self-insured medical reimbursement plan which are attributable to contributions of the employer, or are paid by the employer, are included in the employee's gross income unless such amounts are excludable under section 105(b). For amounts reimbursed to a highly compensated individual to be fully excludable from such individual's gross income under section 105(b), the plan must satisfy the requirements of section 105(h) and this section. Section 105(h) is not satisfied if the plan discriminates in favor of highly compensated individuals as to eligibility to participate or benefits. All or a portion of the reimbursements or payments on behalf of such individuals under a discriminatory plan are not excludable from gross income under section 105(b). However, benefits paid to participants who are not highly compensated individuals may be excluded from gross income if the requirements of section 105(b) are satisfied, even if the plan is discriminatory.

    (b) Self-insured medical reimbursement plan—(1) General rule—(i) Definition. A self-insured medical reimbursement plan is a separate written plan for the benefit of employees which provides for reimbursement of employee medical expenses referred to in section 105(b). A plan or arrangement is self-insured unless reimbursement is provided under an individual or group policy of accident or health insurance issued by a licensed insurance company or under an arrangement in the nature of a prepaid health care plan that is regulated under federal or state law in a manner similar to the regulation of insurance companies. Thus, for example, a plan of a health maintenance organization, established under the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, would qualify as a prepaid health care plan. In addition, this section applies to a self-insured medical reimbursement plan, determined in accordance with the rules of this section, maintained by an employee organization described in section 501(c)(9).

    (ii) Shifting of risk. A plan underwritten by a policy of insurance or a prepaid health care plan that does not involve the shifting of risk to an unrelated third party is considered self-insured for purposes of this section. Accordingly, a cost-plus policy or a policy which in effect merely provides administrative or bookkeeping services is considered self-insured for purposes of this section. However, a plan is not considered self-insured merely because one factor the insurer uses in determining the premium is the employer's prior claims experience.

    (iii) Captive insurance company. A plan underwritten by a policy of insurance issued by a captive insurance company is not considered self-insured for purposes of this section if for the plan year the premiums paid by companies unrelated to the captive insurance company equal or exceed 50 percent of the total premiums received and the policy of insurance is similar to policies sold to such unrelated companies.

    (2) Other rules. The rules of this section apply to a self-insured portion of an employer's medical plan or arrangement even if the plan is in part underwritten by insurance. For example, if an employer's medical plan reimburses employees for benefits not covered under the insured portion of an overall plan, or for deductible amounts under the insured portions, such reimbursement is subject to the rules of this section. However, a plan which reimburses employees for premiums paid under an insured plan is not subject to this section. In addition, medical expense reimbursements not described in the plan are not paid pursuant to a plan for the benefit of employees, and therefore are not excludable from gross income under section 105(b). Such reimbursements will not affect the determination of whether or not a plan is discriminatory.

    (c) Prohibited discrimination—(1) In general. A self-insured medical reimbursement plan does not satisfy the requirements of section 105(h) and this paragraph for a plan year unless the plan satisfies subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph. However, a plan does not fail to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph merely because benefits under the plan are offset by benefits paid under a self-insured or insured plan of the employer or another employer, or by benefits paid under Medicare or other Federal or State law or similar foreign law. A self-insured plan may take into account the benefits provided under another plan only to the extent that the type of benefit subject to reimbursement is the same under both plans. For example, an amount reimbursed to an employee for a hospital expense under a medical plan maintained by the employer of the employee's spouse may be offset against the self-insured benefit where the self-insured plan covering the employee provides the same type of hospital benefit.

    (2) Eligibility to participate—(i) Percentage test. A plan satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph if it benefits—

    (A) Seventy percent or more of all employees, or

    (B) Eighty percent or more of all the employees who are eligible to benefit under the plan if 70 percent or more of all employees are eligible to benefit under the plan.

    (ii) Classification test. A plan satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph if it benefits such employees as qualify under a classification of employees set up by the employer which is found by the Internal Revenue Service not to be discriminatory in favor of highly compensated individuals. In general, this determination will be made based upon the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the same standards as are applied under section 410(b)(1)(B) (relating to qualified pension, profit-sharing and stock bonus plans), without regard to the special rules in section 401(a)(5) concerning eligibility to participate.

    (iii) Exclusion of certain employees. Under section 105(h)(3), for purposes of this subparagraph (2), there may be excluded from consideration:

    (A) Employees who have not completed 3 years of service prior to the beginning of the plan year. For purposes of this section years of service may be determined by any method that is reasonable and consistent. A determination made in the same manner as (and not requiring service in excess of how) a year of service is determined under section 410(a)(3) shall be deemed to be reasonable. For purposes of the 3-year rule, all of an employee's years of service with the employer prior to a separation from service are not taken into account. For purposes of the 3-year rule, an employee's years of service prior to age 25, as a part-time or seasonal employee, as a member of a collective bargaining unit, or as a nonresident alien, as each is described in this subdivision, are not excluded by reason of being so described from counting towards satisfaction of the rule. In addition, if the employer is a predecessor employer (determined in a manner consistent with section 414(a)), service for such predecessor is treated as service for the employer.

    (B) Employees who have not attained age 25 prior to the beginning of the plan year.

    (C) Part-time employees whose customary weekly employment is less than 35 hours, if other employees in similar work with the same employer (or, if no employees of the employer are in similar work, in similar work in the same industry and location) have substantially more hours, and seasonal employees whose customary annual employment is less than 9 months, if other employees in similar work with the same employer (or, if no employees of the employer are in similar work, in similar work in the same industry and location) have substantially more months. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any employee whose customary weekly employment is less than 25 hours or any employee whose customary annual employment is less than 7 months may be considered as a part-time or seasonal employee.

    (D) Employees who are included in a unit of employees covered by an agreement between employee representatives and one or more employers which the Commissioner finds to be a collective bargaining agreement, if accident and health benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers. For purposes of determining whether such bargaining occurred, it is not material that such employees are not covered by another medical plan or that the plan was not considered in such bargaining.

    (E) Employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(b) and the regulations thereunder) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of section 861(a)(3) and the regulations thereunder).

    (3) Nondiscriminatory benefits—(i) In general. In general, benefits subject to reimbursement under a plan must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals. Plan benefits will not satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph unless all the benefits provided for participants who are highly compensated individuals are provided for all other participants. In addition, all the benefits available for the dependents of employees who are highly compensated individuals must also be available on the same basis for the dependents of all other employees who are participants. A plan that provides optional benefits to participants will be treated as providing a single benefit with respect to the benefits covered by the option provided that (A) all eligible participants may elect any of the benefits covered by the option and (B) there are either no required employee contributions or the required employee contributions are the same amount. This test is applied to the benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan rather than the actual benefit payments or claims under the plan. The presence or absence of such discrimination will be determined by considering the type of benefit subject to reimbursement provided highly compensated individuals, as well as the amount of the benefit subject to reimbursement. A plan may establish a maximum limit for the amount of reimbursement which may be paid a participant for any single benefit, or combination of benefits. However, any maximum limit attributable to employer contributions must be uniform for all participants and for all dependents of employees who are participants and may not be modified by reason of a participant's age or years of service. In addition, if a plan covers employees who are highly compensated individuals, and the type or the amount of benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan are in proportion to employee compensation, the plan discriminates as to benefits.

    (ii) Discriminatory operation. Not only must a plan not discriminate on its face in providing benefits in favor of highly compensated individuals, the plan also must not discriminate in favor of such employees in actual operation. The determination of whether plan benefits discriminate in operation in favor of highly compensated individuals is made on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. A plan is not considered discriminatory merely because highly compensated individuals participating in the plan utilize a broad range of plan benefits to a greater extent than do other employees participating in the plan. In addition, if a plan (or a particular benefit provided by a plan) is terminated, the termination would cause the plan benefits to be discriminatory if the duration of the plan (or benefit) has the effect of discriminating in favor of highly compensated individuals. Accordingly, the prohibited discrimination may occur where the duration of a particular benefit coincides with the period during which a highly compensated individual utilizes the benefit.

    (iii) Retired employees. To the extent that an employer provides benefits under a self-insured medical reimbursement plan to a retired employee that would otherwise be excludible from gross income under section 105(b), determined without regard to section 105(h), such benefits shall not be considered a discriminatory benefit under this paragraph (c). The preceding sentence shall not apply to a retired employee who was a highly compensated individual unless the type, and the dollar limitations, of benefits provided retired employees who were highly compensated individuals are the same for all other retired participants. If this subdivision applies to a retired participant, that individual is not considered an employee for purposes of determining the highest paid 25 percent of all employees under paragraph (d) of this section solely by reason of receiving such plan benefits.

    (4) Multiple plans, etc.—(i) General rule. An employer may designate two or more plans as constituting a single plan that is intended to satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2) and paragraph (c) of this section, in which case all plans so designated shall be considered as a single plan in determining whether the requirements of such section are satisfied by each of the separate plans. A determination that the combination of plans so designated does not satisfy such requirements does not preclude a determination that one or more of such plans, considered separately, satisfies such requirements. A single plan document may be utilized by an employer for two or more separate plans provided that the employer designates the plans that are to be considered separately and the applicable provisions of each separate plan.

    (ii) Other rules. If the designated combined plan discriminates as to eligibility to participate or benefits, the amount of excess reimbursement will be determined under the rules of section 105(h)(7) and paragraph (e) of this section by taking into account all reimbursements made under the combined plan.

    (iii) H.M.O. participants. For purposes of section 105(h)(2)(A) and paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a self-insured plan will be deemed to benefit an employee who has enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) that is offered on an optional basis by the employer in lieu of coverage under the self-insured plan if, with respect to that employee, the employer's contributions to the HMO plan equal or exceed those that would be made to the self-insured plan, and if the HMO plan is designated in accordance with subdivision (i) with the self-insured plan as a single plan. For purposes of section 105(h) and this section, except as provided in the preceding sentence, employees covered by, and benefits under, the HMO plan are not treated as part of the self-insured plan.

    (d) Highly compensated individuals defined. For purposes of section 105(h) and this section, the term “highly compensated individual” means an individual who is—

    (1) One of the 5 highest paid officers,

    (2) A shareholder who owns (with the application of section 318) more than 10 percent in value of the stock of the employer, or

    (3) Among the highest paid 25 percent of all employees (including the 5 highest paid officers, but not including employees excludable under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section who are not participants in any self-insured medical reimbursement plan of the employer, whether or not designated as a single plan under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, or in a health maintenance organization plan).

    The status of an employee as an officer or stockholder is determined with respect to a particular benefit on the basis of the employee's officer status or stock ownership at the time during the plan year at which the benefit is provided. In calculating the highest paid 25 percent of all employees, the number of employees included will be rounded to the next highest number. For example, if there are 5 employees, the top two are in the highest paid 25 percent. The level of an employee's compensation is determined on the basis of the employee's compensation for the plan year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, fiscal year plans may determine employee compensation on the basis of the calendar year ending within the plan year.

    (e) Excess reimbursement of highly compensated individual—(1) In general. For purposes of section 105(h) and this section, a reimbursement paid to a highly compensated individual is an excess reimbursement if it is paid pursuant to a plan that fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) for the plan year. The amount reimbursed to a highly compensated individual which constitutes an excess reimbursement is not excludable from such individual's gross income under section 105(b).

    (2) Discriminatory benefit. In the case of a benefit available to highly compensated individuals but not to all other participants (or which otherwise discriminates in favor of highly compensated individuals as opposed to other participants), the amount of excess reimbursement equals the total amount reimbursed to the highly compensated individual with respect to the benefit.

    (3) Discriminatory coverage. In the case of benefits (other than discriminatory benefits described in subparagraph (2)) paid to a highly compensated individual under a plan which fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) relating to nondiscrimination in eligibility to participate, the amount of excess reimbursement is determined by multiplying the total amount reimbursed to the individual by a fraction. The numerator of the fraction is the total amount reimbursed during that plan year to all highly compensated individuals. The denominator of the fraction is the total amount reimbursed during that plan year to all participants. In computing the fraction and the total amount reimbursed to the individual, discriminatory benefits described in subparagraph (2) are not taken into account. Accordingly, any amount which is included in income by reason of the benefit's not being available to all other participants will not be taken into account.

    (4) Examples. The provisions of this paragraph are illustrated by the following examples:

    (f) Certain controlled groups. For purposes of applying the provisions of section 105(h) and this section, all employees who are treated as employed by a single employer under section 414 (b) and (c), and the regulations thereunder (relating to special rules for qualified pension, profit-sharing and stock bonus plans), shall be treated as employed by a single employer.

    (g) Exception for medical diagnostic procedures—(1) In general. For purposes of applying section 105(h) and this section, reimbursements paid under a plan for medical diagnostic procedures for an employee, but not a dependent, are not considered to be a part of a plan described in this section. The medical diagnostic procedures include routine medical examinations, blood tests, and X-rays. Such procedures do not include expenses incurred for the treatment, cure or testing of a known illness or disability, or treatment or testing for a physical injury, complaint or specific symptom of a bodily malfunction. For example, a routine dental examination with X-rays is a medical diagnostic procedure, but X-rays and treatment for a specific complaint are not. In addition, such procedures do not include any activity undertaken for exercise, fitness, nutrition, recreation, or the general improvement of health unless they are for medical care as defined in section 213(e). The diagnostic procedures must be performed at a facility which provides no services (directly or indirectly) other than medical, and ancillary, services. For purposes of the preceding sentence, physical proximity between a medical facility and nonmedical facilities will not for that reason alone cause the medical facility not to qualify. For example, an employee's annual physical examination conducted at the employee's personal physician's office is not considered a part of the medical reimbursement plan and therefore is not subject to the nondiscrimination requirements. Accordingly, the amount reimbursed may be excludable from the employee's income if the requirements of section 105(b) are satisfied.

    (2) Transportation, etc. expenses. Transportation expenses primarily for an allowable diagnostic procedure are included within the exception described in this paragraph, but only to the extent they are ordinary and necessary. Transportation undertaken merely for the general improvement of health, or in connection with a vacation, is not within the scope of this exception, nor are any incidental expenses for food or lodging; therefore, amounts reimbursed for such expenses may be excess reimbursements under paragraph (e).

    (h) Time of inclusion. Excess reimbursments (determined under paragraph (e)) paid to a highly compensated individual for a plan year will be considered as received in the taxable year of the individual in which (or with which) the plan year ends. The particular plan year to which reimbursements relate shall be determined under the plan provisions. In the absence of plan provisions reimbursements shall be attributed to the plan year in which payment is made. For example, under a calendar year plan an excess reimbursement paid to A in 1981 on account of an expense incurred and subject to reimbursement for the 1980 plan year under the terms of the plan will be considered as received in 1980 by A.

    (i) Self-insured contributory plan. A medical plan subject to this section may provide for employer and employee contributions. See § 1.105-1(c). The tax treatment of reimbursements attributable to employee contributions is determined under section 104(a)(3). The tax treatment of reimbursements attributable to employer contributions is determined under section 105. The amount of reimbursements which are attributable to contributions of the employer shall be determined in accordance with § 1.105-1(e).

    (j) Effective date. Section 105(h) and this section are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1979 and for amounts reimbursed after December 31, 1979. In determining plan discrimination and the taxability of excess reimbursements made for a plan year beginning in 1979 and ending in 1980, a plan's eligibility and benefit requirements as well as actual reimbursements made in the plan year during 1979, will not be taken into account. In addition, this section does not apply to expenses which are incurred in 1979 and paid in 1980.

    (k) Special rules—(1) Relation to cafeteria plans. If a self-insured medical reimbursement plan is included in a cafeteria plan as described in section 125, the rules of this section will determine the status of a benefit as a taxable or nontaxable benefit, and the rules of section 125 will determine whether an employee is taxed as though he elected all available taxable benefits (including taxable benefits under a discriminatory medical reimbursement plan). This rule is illustrated by the following example:

    (2) Benefit subject to reimbursement. For purposes of this section, a benefit subject to reimbursement is a benefit described in the plan under which a claim for reimbursement or for a payment directly to the health service provider may be filed by a plan participant. It does not refer to actual claims or benefit reimbursements paid under a plan.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(a)In general. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    In general. Under section 105(a), amounts received by an employee through a self-insured medical reimbursement plan which are attributable to contributions of the employer, or are paid by the employer, are included in the employee's gross income unless such amounts are excludable under section 105(b). For amounts reimbursed to a highly compensated individual to be fully excludable from such individual's gross income under section 105(b), the plan must satisfy the requirements of section 105(h) and this section. Section 105(h) is not satisfied if the plan discriminates in favor of highly compensated individuals as to eligibility to participate or benefits. All or a portion of the reimbursements or payments on behalf of such individuals under a discriminatory plan are not excludable from gross income under section 105(b). However, benefits paid to participants who are not highly compensated individuals may be excluded from gross income if the requirements of section 105(b) are satisfied, even if the plan is discriminatory.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(b)Self-insured medical reimbursement plan—(1) General rule—(i) Definition. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Self-insured medical reimbursement plan—(1) General rule—(i) Definition. A self-insured medical reimbursement plan is a separate written plan for the benefit of employees which provides for reimbursement of employee medical expenses referred to in section 105(b). A plan or arrangement is self-insured unless reimbursement is provided under an individual or group policy of accident or health insurance issued by a licensed insurance company or under an arrangement in the nature of a prepaid health care plan that is regulated under federal or state law in a manner similar to the regulation of insurance companies. Thus, for example, a plan of a health maintenance organization, established under the Health Maintenance Organization Act of 1973, would qualify as a prepaid health care plan. In addition, this section applies to a self-insured medical reimbursement plan, determined in accordance with the rules of this section, maintained by an employee organization described in section 501(c)(9).

    (ii) Shifting of risk. A plan underwritten by a policy of insurance or a prepaid health care plan that does not involve the shifting of risk to an unrelated third party is considered self-insured for purposes of this section. Accordingly, a cost-plus policy or a policy which in effect merely provides administrative or bookkeeping services is considered self-insured for purposes of this section. However, a plan is not considered self-insured merely because one factor the insurer uses in determining the premium is the employer's prior claims experience.

    (iii) Captive insurance company. A plan underwritten by a policy of insurance issued by a captive insurance company is not considered self-insured for purposes of this section if for the plan year the premiums paid by companies unrelated to the captive insurance company equal or exceed 50 percent of the total premiums received and the policy of insurance is similar to policies sold to such unrelated companies.

    (2) Other rules. The rules of this section apply to a self-insured portion of an employer's medical plan or arrangement even if the plan is in part underwritten by insurance. For example, if an employer's medical plan reimburses employees for benefits not covered under the insured portion of an overall plan, or for deductible amounts under the insured portions, such reimbursement is subject to the rules of this section. However, a plan which reimburses employees for premiums paid under an insured plan is not subject to this section. In addition, medical expense reimbursements not described in the plan are not paid pursuant to a plan for the benefit of employees, and therefore are not excludable from gross income under section 105(b). Such reimbursements will not affect the determination of whether or not a plan is discriminatory.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(c)Prohibited discrimination—(1) In general. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Prohibited discrimination—(1) In general. A self-insured medical reimbursement plan does not satisfy the requirements of section 105(h) and this paragraph for a plan year unless the plan satisfies subparagraphs (2) and (3) of this paragraph. However, a plan does not fail to satisfy the requirements of this paragraph merely because benefits under the plan are offset by benefits paid under a self-insured or insured plan of the employer or another employer, or by benefits paid under Medicare or other Federal or State law or similar foreign law. A self-insured plan may take into account the benefits provided under another plan only to the extent that the type of benefit subject to reimbursement is the same under both plans. For example, an amount reimbursed to an employee for a hospital expense under a medical plan maintained by the employer of the employee's spouse may be offset against the self-insured benefit where the self-insured plan covering the employee provides the same type of hospital benefit.

    (2) Eligibility to participate—(i) Percentage test. A plan satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph if it benefits—

    (A) Seventy percent or more of all employees, or

    (B) Eighty percent or more of all the employees who are eligible to benefit under the plan if 70 percent or more of all employees are eligible to benefit under the plan.

    (ii) Classification test. A plan satisfies the requirements of this subparagraph if it benefits such employees as qualify under a classification of employees set up by the employer which is found by the Internal Revenue Service not to be discriminatory in favor of highly compensated individuals. In general, this determination will be made based upon the facts and circumstances of each case, applying the same standards as are applied under section 410(b)(1)(B) (relating to qualified pension, profit-sharing and stock bonus plans), without regard to the special rules in section 401(a)(5) concerning eligibility to participate.

    (iii) Exclusion of certain employees. Under section 105(h)(3), for purposes of this subparagraph (2), there may be excluded from consideration:

    (A) Employees who have not completed 3 years of service prior to the beginning of the plan year. For purposes of this section years of service may be determined by any method that is reasonable and consistent. A determination made in the same manner as (and not requiring service in excess of how) a year of service is determined under section 410(a)(3) shall be deemed to be reasonable. For purposes of the 3-year rule, all of an employee's years of service with the employer prior to a separation from service are not taken into account. For purposes of the 3-year rule, an employee's years of service prior to age 25, as a part-time or seasonal employee, as a member of a collective bargaining unit, or as a nonresident alien, as each is described in this subdivision, are not excluded by reason of being so described from counting towards satisfaction of the rule. In addition, if the employer is a predecessor employer (determined in a manner consistent with section 414(a)), service for such predecessor is treated as service for the employer.

    (B) Employees who have not attained age 25 prior to the beginning of the plan year.

    (C) Part-time employees whose customary weekly employment is less than 35 hours, if other employees in similar work with the same employer (or, if no employees of the employer are in similar work, in similar work in the same industry and location) have substantially more hours, and seasonal employees whose customary annual employment is less than 9 months, if other employees in similar work with the same employer (or, if no employees of the employer are in similar work, in similar work in the same industry and location) have substantially more months. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, any employee whose customary weekly employment is less than 25 hours or any employee whose customary annual employment is less than 7 months may be considered as a part-time or seasonal employee.

    (D) Employees who are included in a unit of employees covered by an agreement between employee representatives and one or more employers which the Commissioner finds to be a collective bargaining agreement, if accident and health benefits were the subject of good faith bargaining between such employee representatives and such employer or employers. For purposes of determining whether such bargaining occurred, it is not material that such employees are not covered by another medical plan or that the plan was not considered in such bargaining.

    (E) Employees who are nonresident aliens and who receive no earned income (within the meaning of section 911(b) and the regulations thereunder) from the employer which constitutes income from sources within the United States (within the meaning of section 861(a)(3) and the regulations thereunder).

    (3) Nondiscriminatory benefits—(i) In general. In general, benefits subject to reimbursement under a plan must not discriminate in favor of highly compensated individuals. Plan benefits will not satisfy the requirements of this subparagraph unless all the benefits provided for participants who are highly compensated individuals are provided for all other participants. In addition, all the benefits available for the dependents of employees who are highly compensated individuals must also be available on the same basis for the dependents of all other employees who are participants. A plan that provides optional benefits to participants will be treated as providing a single benefit with respect to the benefits covered by the option provided that (A) all eligible participants may elect any of the benefits covered by the option and (B) there are either no required employee contributions or the required employee contributions are the same amount. This test is applied to the benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan rather than the actual benefit payments or claims under the plan. The presence or absence of such discrimination will be determined by considering the type of benefit subject to reimbursement provided highly compensated individuals, as well as the amount of the benefit subject to reimbursement. A plan may establish a maximum limit for the amount of reimbursement which may be paid a participant for any single benefit, or combination of benefits. However, any maximum limit attributable to employer contributions must be uniform for all participants and for all dependents of employees who are participants and may not be modified by reason of a participant's age or years of service. In addition, if a plan covers employees who are highly compensated individuals, and the type or the amount of benefits subject to reimbursement under the plan are in proportion to employee compensation, the plan discriminates as to benefits.

    (ii) Discriminatory operation. Not only must a plan not discriminate on its face in providing benefits in favor of highly compensated individuals, the plan also must not discriminate in favor of such employees in actual operation. The determination of whether plan benefits discriminate in operation in favor of highly compensated individuals is made on the basis of the facts and circumstances of each case. A plan is not considered discriminatory merely because highly compensated individuals participating in the plan utilize a broad range of plan benefits to a greater extent than do other employees participating in the plan. In addition, if a plan (or a particular benefit provided by a plan) is terminated, the termination would cause the plan benefits to be discriminatory if the duration of the plan (or benefit) has the effect of discriminating in favor of highly compensated individuals. Accordingly, the prohibited discrimination may occur where the duration of a particular benefit coincides with the period during which a highly compensated individual utilizes the benefit.

    (iii) Retired employees. To the extent that an employer provides benefits under a self-insured medical reimbursement plan to a retired employee that would otherwise be excludible from gross income under section 105(b), determined without regard to section 105(h), such benefits shall not be considered a discriminatory benefit under this paragraph (c). The preceding sentence shall not apply to a retired employee who was a highly compensated individual unless the type, and the dollar limitations, of benefits provided retired employees who were highly compensated individuals are the same for all other retired participants. If this subdivision applies to a retired participant, that individual is not considered an employee for purposes of determining the highest paid 25 percent of all employees under paragraph (d) of this section solely by reason of receiving such plan benefits.

    (4) Multiple plans, etc.—(i) General rule. An employer may designate two or more plans as constituting a single plan that is intended to satisfy the requirements of section 105(h)(2) and paragraph (c) of this section, in which case all plans so designated shall be considered as a single plan in determining whether the requirements of such section are satisfied by each of the separate plans. A determination that the combination of plans so designated does not satisfy such requirements does not preclude a determination that one or more of such plans, considered separately, satisfies such requirements. A single plan document may be utilized by an employer for two or more separate plans provided that the employer designates the plans that are to be considered separately and the applicable provisions of each separate plan.

    (ii) Other rules. If the designated combined plan discriminates as to eligibility to participate or benefits, the amount of excess reimbursement will be determined under the rules of section 105(h)(7) and paragraph (e) of this section by taking into account all reimbursements made under the combined plan.

    (iii) H.M.O. participants. For purposes of section 105(h)(2)(A) and paragraph (c)(2) of this section, a self-insured plan will be deemed to benefit an employee who has enrolled in a health maintenance organization (HMO) that is offered on an optional basis by the employer in lieu of coverage under the self-insured plan if, with respect to that employee, the employer's contributions to the HMO plan equal or exceed those that would be made to the self-insured plan, and if the HMO plan is designated in accordance with subdivision (i) with the self-insured plan as a single plan. For purposes of section 105(h) and this section, except as provided in the preceding sentence, employees covered by, and benefits under, the HMO plan are not treated as part of the self-insured plan.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(d)Highly compensated individuals defined. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Highly compensated individuals defined. For purposes of section 105(h) and this section, the term “highly compensated individual” means an individual who is—

    (1) One of the 5 highest paid officers,

    (2) A shareholder who owns (with the application of section 318) more than 10 percent in value of the stock of the employer, or

    (3) Among the highest paid 25 percent of all employees (including the 5 highest paid officers, but not including employees excludable under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section who are not participants in any self-insured medical reimbursement plan of the employer, whether or not designated as a single plan under paragraph (c)(4) of this section, or in a health maintenance organization plan).

    The status of an employee as an officer or stockholder is determined with respect to a particular benefit on the basis of the employee's officer status or stock ownership at the time during the plan year at which the benefit is provided. In calculating the highest paid 25 percent of all employees, the number of employees included will be rounded to the next highest number. For example, if there are 5 employees, the top two are in the highest paid 25 percent. The level of an employee's compensation is determined on the basis of the employee's compensation for the plan year. For purposes of the preceding sentence, fiscal year plans may determine employee compensation on the basis of the calendar year ending within the plan year.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(e)Excess reimbursement of highly compensated individual—(1) In general. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Excess reimbursement of highly compensated individual—(1) In general. For purposes of section 105(h) and this section, a reimbursement paid to a highly compensated individual is an excess reimbursement if it is paid pursuant to a plan that fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) or (c)(3) for the plan year. The amount reimbursed to a highly compensated individual which constitutes an excess reimbursement is not excludable from such individual's gross income under section 105(b).

    (2) Discriminatory benefit. In the case of a benefit available to highly compensated individuals but not to all other participants (or which otherwise discriminates in favor of highly compensated individuals as opposed to other participants), the amount of excess reimbursement equals the total amount reimbursed to the highly compensated individual with respect to the benefit.

    (3) Discriminatory coverage. In the case of benefits (other than discriminatory benefits described in subparagraph (2)) paid to a highly compensated individual under a plan which fails to satisfy the requirements of paragraph (c)(2) relating to nondiscrimination in eligibility to participate, the amount of excess reimbursement is determined by multiplying the total amount reimbursed to the individual by a fraction. The numerator of the fraction is the total amount reimbursed during that plan year to all highly compensated individuals. The denominator of the fraction is the total amount reimbursed during that plan year to all participants. In computing the fraction and the total amount reimbursed to the individual, discriminatory benefits described in subparagraph (2) are not taken into account. Accordingly, any amount which is included in income by reason of the benefit's not being available to all other participants will not be taken into account.

    (4) Examples. The provisions of this paragraph are illustrated by the following examples:

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(f)Certain controlled groups. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Certain controlled groups. For purposes of applying the provisions of section 105(h) and this section, all employees who are treated as employed by a single employer under section 414 (b) and (c), and the regulations thereunder (relating to special rules for qualified pension, profit-sharing and stock bonus plans), shall be treated as employed by a single employer.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(g)Exception for medical diagnostic procedures—(1) In general. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Exception for medical diagnostic procedures—(1) In general. For purposes of applying section 105(h) and this section, reimbursements paid under a plan for medical diagnostic procedures for an employee, but not a dependent, are not considered to be a part of a plan described in this section. The medical diagnostic procedures include routine medical examinations, blood tests, and X-rays. Such procedures do not include expenses incurred for the treatment, cure or testing of a known illness or disability, or treatment or testing for a physical injury, complaint or specific symptom of a bodily malfunction. For example, a routine dental examination with X-rays is a medical diagnostic procedure, but X-rays and treatment for a specific complaint are not. In addition, such procedures do not include any activity undertaken for exercise, fitness, nutrition, recreation, or the general improvement of health unless they are for medical care as defined in section 213(e). The diagnostic procedures must be performed at a facility which provides no services (directly or indirectly) other than medical, and ancillary, services. For purposes of the preceding sentence, physical proximity between a medical facility and nonmedical facilities will not for that reason alone cause the medical facility not to qualify. For example, an employee's annual physical examination conducted at the employee's personal physician's office is not considered a part of the medical reimbursement plan and therefore is not subject to the nondiscrimination requirements. Accordingly, the amount reimbursed may be excludable from the employee's income if the requirements of section 105(b) are satisfied.

    (2) Transportation, etc. expenses. Transportation expenses primarily for an allowable diagnostic procedure are included within the exception described in this paragraph, but only to the extent they are ordinary and necessary. Transportation undertaken merely for the general improvement of health, or in connection with a vacation, is not within the scope of this exception, nor are any incidental expenses for food or lodging; therefore, amounts reimbursed for such expenses may be excess reimbursements under paragraph (e).

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(h)Time of inclusion. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Time of inclusion. Excess reimbursments (determined under paragraph (e)) paid to a highly compensated individual for a plan year will be considered as received in the taxable year of the individual in which (or with which) the plan year ends. The particular plan year to which reimbursements relate shall be determined under the plan provisions. In the absence of plan provisions reimbursements shall be attributed to the plan year in which payment is made. For example, under a calendar year plan an excess reimbursement paid to A in 1981 on account of an expense incurred and subject to reimbursement for the 1980 plan year under the terms of the plan will be considered as received in 1980 by A.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(i)Self-insured contributory plan. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Self-insured contributory plan. A medical plan subject to this section may provide for employer and employee contributions. See § 1.105-1(c). The tax treatment of reimbursements attributable to employee contributions is determined under section 104(a)(3). The tax treatment of reimbursements attributable to employer contributions is determined under section 105. The amount of reimbursements which are attributable to contributions of the employer shall be determined in accordance with § 1.105-1(e).

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(j)Effective date. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Effective date. Section 105(h) and this section are effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 1979 and for amounts reimbursed after December 31, 1979. In determining plan discrimination and the taxability of excess reimbursements made for a plan year beginning in 1979 and ending in 1980, a plan's eligibility and benefit requirements as well as actual reimbursements made in the plan year during 1979, will not be taken into account. In addition, this section does not apply to expenses which are incurred in 1979 and paid in 1980.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-11(k)Special rules—(1) Relation to cafeteria plans. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Special rules—(1) Relation to cafeteria plans. If a self-insured medical reimbursement plan is included in a cafeteria plan as described in section 125, the rules of this section will determine the status of a benefit as a taxable or nontaxable benefit, and the rules of section 125 will determine whether an employee is taxed as though he elected all available taxable benefits (including taxable benefits under a discriminatory medical reimbursement plan). This rule is illustrated by the following example:

    (2) Benefit subject to reimbursement. For purposes of this section, a benefit subject to reimbursement is a benefit described in the plan under which a claim for reimbursement or for a payment directly to the health service provider may be filed by a plan participant. It does not refer to actual claims or benefit reimbursements paid under a plan.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-2Amounts expended for medical care Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Section 105(b) provides an exclusion from gross income with respect to the amounts referred to in section 105(a) (see § 1.105-1) which are paid, directly or indirectly, to the taxpayer to reimburse him for expenses incurred for the medical care (as defined in section 213(e)) of the taxpayer, his spouse, and his dependents (as defined in section 152). However, the exclusion does not apply to amounts which are attributable to (and not in excess of) deductions allowed under section 213 (relating to medical, etc., expenses) for any prior taxable year. See section 213 and the regulations thereunder. Section 105(b) applies only to amounts which are paid specifically to reimburse the taxpayer for expenses incurred by him for the prescribed medical care. Thus, section 105(b) does not apply to amounts which the taxpayer would be entitled to receive irrespective of whether or not he incurs expenses for medical care. For example, if under a wage continuation plan the taxpayer is entitled to regular wages during a period of absence from work due to sickness or injury, amounts received under such plan are not excludable from his gross income under section 105(b) even though the taxpayer may have incurred medical expenses during the period of illness. Such amounts may, however, be excludable from his gross income under section 105(d). See § 1.105-4. If the amounts are paid to the taxpayer solely to reimburse him for expenses which he incurred for the prescribed medical care, section 105(b) is applicable even though such amounts are paid without proof of the amount of the actual expenses incurred by the taxpayer, but section 105(b) is not applicable to the extent that such amounts exceed the amount of the actual expenses for such medical care. If the taxpayer incurs an obligation for medical care, payment to the obligee in discharge of such obligation shall constitute indirect payment to the taxpayer as reimbursement for medical care. Similarly, payment to or on behalf of the taxpayer's spouse or dependents shall constitute indirect payment to the taxpayer.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-3Payments unrelated to absence from work Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Section 105(c) provides an exclusion from gross income with respect to the amounts referred to in section 105(a) to the extent that such amounts (a) constitute payments for the permanent loss or permanent loss of use of a member or function of the body, or the permanent disfigurement, of the taxpayer, his spouse, or a dependent (as defined in section 152), and (b) are computed with reference to the nature of the injury without regard to the period the employee is absent from work. Loss of use or disfigurement shall be considered permanent when it may reasonably be expected to continue for the life of the individual. For purposes of section 105(c), loss or loss of use of a member or function of the body includes the loss or loss of use of an appendage of the body, the loss of an eye, the loss of substantially all of the vision of an eye, and the loss of substantially all of the hearing in one or both ears. The term “disfigurement” shall be given a reasonable interpretation in the light of all the particular facts and circumstances. Section 105(c) does not apply if the amount of the benefits is determined by reference to the period the employee is absent from work. For example, if an employee is absent from work as a result of the loss of an arm, and under the accident and health plan established by his employer, he is to receive $125 a week so long as he is absent from work for a period not in excess of 52 weeks, section 105(c) is not applicable to such payments. See, however, section 105(d) and § 1.105-4. However, for purposes of section 105(c), it is immaterial whether an amount is paid in a lump sum or in installments. Section 105(c) does not apply to amounts which are treated as workmen's compensation under paragraph (b) of § 1.104-1, or to amounts paid by reason of the death of the employee (see section 101).

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-5Accident and health plans Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    (a) In general. Sections 104(a)(3) and 105 (b), (c), and (d) exclude from gross income certain amounts received through accident or health insurance. Section 105(e) provides that for purposes of sections 104 and 105 amounts received through an accident or health plan for employees, and amounts received from a sickness and disability fund for employees maintained under the law of a State, a Territory, or the District of Columbia, shall be treated as amounts received through accident or health insurance. In general, an accident or health plan is an arrangement for the payment of amounts to employees in the event of personal injuries or sickness. A plan may cover one or more employees, and there may be different plans for different employees or classes of employees. An accident or health plan may be either insured or noninsured, and it is not necessary that the plan be in writing or that the employee's rights to benefits under the plan be enforceable. However, if the employee's rights are not enforceable, an amount will be deemed to be received under a plan only if, on the date the employee became sick or injured, the employee was covered by a plan (or a program, policy, or custom having the effect of a plan) providing for the payment of amounts to the employee in the event of personal injuries or sickness, and notice or knowledge of such plan was reasonably available to the employee. It is immaterial who makes payment of the benefits provided by the plan. For example, payment may be made by the employer, a welfare fund, a State sickness or disability benefits fund, an association of employers or employees, or by an insurance company.

    (b) Self-employed individuals. Under section 105(g), a self-employed individual is not treated as an employee for purposes of section 105. Therefore, for example, benefits paid under an accident or health plan as referred to in section 105(e) to or on behalf of an individual who is self-employed in the business with respect to which the plan is established will not be treated as received through accident and health insurance for purposes of sections 104(a)(3) and 105.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-5(a)In general. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    In general. Sections 104(a)(3) and 105 (b), (c), and (d) exclude from gross income certain amounts received through accident or health insurance. Section 105(e) provides that for purposes of sections 104 and 105 amounts received through an accident or health plan for employees, and amounts received from a sickness and disability fund for employees maintained under the law of a State, a Territory, or the District of Columbia, shall be treated as amounts received through accident or health insurance. In general, an accident or health plan is an arrangement for the payment of amounts to employees in the event of personal injuries or sickness. A plan may cover one or more employees, and there may be different plans for different employees or classes of employees. An accident or health plan may be either insured or noninsured, and it is not necessary that the plan be in writing or that the employee's rights to benefits under the plan be enforceable. However, if the employee's rights are not enforceable, an amount will be deemed to be received under a plan only if, on the date the employee became sick or injured, the employee was covered by a plan (or a program, policy, or custom having the effect of a plan) providing for the payment of amounts to the employee in the event of personal injuries or sickness, and notice or knowledge of such plan was reasonably available to the employee. It is immaterial who makes payment of the benefits provided by the plan. For example, payment may be made by the employer, a welfare fund, a State sickness or disability benefits fund, an association of employers or employees, or by an insurance company.

  • Treas. Reg. §1.105-5(b)Self-employed individuals. Show full text ▾ Collapse ▴

    Self-employed individuals. Under section 105(g), a self-employed individual is not treated as an employee for purposes of section 105. Therefore, for example, benefits paid under an accident or health plan as referred to in section 105(e) to or on behalf of an individual who is self-employed in the business with respect to which the plan is established will not be treated as received through accident and health insurance for purposes of sections 104(a)(3) and 105.

150 Citing Cases

5 meets the requirement of section 105(c), then it is excludable from gross income. Specifically, section 105(a), “Amounts Attributable to Employer Contributions,” provides as follows: Except as otherwise provided in this section, amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance for personal injuries or sickness shall be included in gross income to the extent such amounts (1) are attributable to contributions by the employer which were not includible in the gross income of th

The Opinion quotes section 45 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, as that section was amended by section 105 128(b) and (c) of the Revenue Act of 1943.

1982-338 (affirming the existence and qualification of an accident and health reimbursement plan under section 105, despite it not being written).

Like other ASIG policies, Barnhorst’s policy was titled “Disability Income Insurance Policy” and ostensibly provided benefits to him if he became totally or partially disabled, which would make any payout excludable under section 105 as being from an employer-funded accident or health plan.

Like other ASIG policies, Barnhorst’s policy was titled “Disability Income Insurance Policy” and ostensibly provided benefits to him if he became totally or partially disabled, which would make any payout excludable under section 105 as being from an employer-funded accident or health plan.

Like other ASIG policies, Barnhorst’s policy was titled “Disability Income Insurance Policy” and ostensibly provided benefits to him if he became totally or partially disabled, which would make any payout excludable under section 105 as being from an employer-funded accident or health plan.

Like other ASIG policies, Barnhorst’s policy was titled “Disability Income Insurance Policy” and ostensibly provided benefits to him if he became totally or partially disabled, which would make any payout excludable under section 105 as being from an employer-funded accident or health plan.

Like other ASIG policies, Barnhorst’s policy was titled “Disability Income Insurance Policy” and ostensibly provided benefits to him if he became totally or partially disabled, which would make any payout excludable under section 105 as being from an employer-funded accident or health plan.

§ 105-286(a) (2006). Haywood County, however, had chosen to reappraise the properties every four years, beginning in 2002. See FAQs Taxes--PropertyReappraisal, Haywood County, NC, https:// www.haywoodcountync.gov/Faq.aspx?TID=31 (last visited Sept. 2, 2020). Therefore, the values on the 2008 tax records actually show the appraised value as ofJanuar

ing, 292 U.S. 435, - 16 - [*16] 442 (1934)). But a corporation is disregarded ifit is not "a viable business entity." N. Ind. Pub. Serv. Co. v. Commissioner, 115 F.3d 506, 511 (7th Cir. 1997) (quoting Bass v. Commissioner, 50 T.C. 595, 600 (1968)), § 105 T.C. 341 (1995). To qualify as a viable business entity, a corporation "must have been formed for a substantial business purpose or actually engage in substantive business activity." M; see Moline Props., Inc. v. Commissioner, 319 U.S. 436, 438-

Warren C. Sapp & Jamiko Sapp, Petitioners T.C. Memo. 2020-159 · 2020

§ 105-286(a) (2006). Haywood County, however, had chosen to reappraise the properties every four years, beginning in 2002. See FAQs Taxes--PropertyReappraisal, Haywood County, NC, https:// www.haywoodcountync.gov/Faq.aspx?TID=31 (last visited Sept. 2, 2020). Therefore, the values on the 2008 tax records actually show the appraised value as ofJanuar

It did not have a written dental or health plan for 2005 that met the requirements of section 105, which would exclude reimbursement ofan employee's medical - 92 - [*92] expenses from the employee's income and allows the employer to deduct the payments.

Applying the foregoing principles to the facts ofthis case, we conclude that the $43,868 in LTD benefits petitioner received in 2011, which are taxable income to her pursuant to section 105(a) and (c), must be recognized by her for that year under the claim-of-right doctrine.

It did not have a written dental or health plan for 2005 that met the requirements of section 105, which would exclude reimbursement ofan employee's medical - 92 - [*92] expenses from the employee's income and allows the employer to deduct the payments.

It did not have a written dental or health plan for 2005 that met the requirements of section 105, which would exclude reimbursement ofan employee's medical - 92 - [*92] expenses from the employee's income and allows the employer to deduct the payments.

It did not have a written dental or health plan for 2005 that met the requirements of section 105, which would exclude reimbursement ofan employee's medical - 92 - [*92] expenses from the employee's income and allows the employer to deduct the payments.

It did not have a written dental or health plan for 2005 that met the requirements of section 105, which would exclude reimbursement ofan employee's medical - 92 - [*92] expenses from the employee's income and allows the employer to deduct the payments.

Exclusion From Income Under Section 105 Section 105 governs amounts received under accident and health plans.

Marnie argues that the policy meets this variable-paymentrequirement because it did distinguish partial, total, and catastrophic injuries and because it also distinguished different types ofcatastrophic disabilities. But the policy did so only superficially. Provision 2.4(d) includes in its definition of"catastrophic disability" any totally disabling condition not included in provisions 2.4(a)-(c) that "qualifies for the exclusion under Section 105(c) ofthe Internal Revenue Code." - 20 - [*20]

section 105(a) (2000)." Il Because the bankruptcy court did not issue an order under 11 U.S.C. sec. 105, we held that the IRS action against the LLC was not stayed as a result ofits member's bankruptcy. IÅ Likewise, in Amber Rebar's bankruptcy, the court did not issue a stay under 11 U.S.C. sec. 105. Instead; the only stay applicable to the corporate debtor was the automatic stay provided for under 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a). Therefore, because 11 U.S.C. sec. 362(a) does not apply to petitioner, resp

conveyance, * * * several ofthem when considered together may afford the basis to infer fraud." Johnson v. Dowell, 592 So. 2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992). Respondent contends that factors (a), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), and (j) ofFUFTA sec. 105(2) are present. We do not need to determine whether the 2005, 2006, and 2007 transfers were actually fraudulent because they were constructively fraudulent. Thus, we address only whetherthe 2003 and 2004 transfers were actually fraudulent. F

conveyance, * * * several ofthem when considered together may afford the basis to infer fraud." Johnson v. Dowell, 592 So. 2d 1194, 1197 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1992). Respondent contends that factors (a), (c), (d), (e), (g), (h), (i), and (j) ofFUFTA sec. 105(2) are present. We do not need to determine whether the 2005, 2006, and 2007 transfers were actually fraudulent because they were constructively fraudulent. Thus, we address only whetherthe 2003 and 2004 transfers were actually fraudulent. F

ses on certain dispositions ofcapital assets, which ifsold at a gain, would produce capital gains "15 Id. at 170, 1981-2 C.B. t 480. Congress made relatively inor changes to section 1234A in the Technical Corrections Act of 1982, Pub. L. o. 97-448, sec. 105(e), 96 Stat. at 2387, and in the Deficit Reduction Act of 198 , Pub. L. No. 98-369, sec. 102(e)(4), 98 Stat. at 624, and a major change in the T xpayer ReliefAct of 1997 (TRA 1997), Pub. L. No. 105-34, sec. 1003(a)(1), 111 Stat. at 909-910. B

Roger W. & Sharon L. Zardo, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2011-7 · 2011

UFCW Pension' Plan disability retirement benefi s under section 104 (a) (1) , section 104 (a) (2) , or section 105 (c) 1. , The Benefits Are Not Excludable Under Section 104 (a) (1) . S ction 104 (a) (1) provides that gross income does not includ "amounts received under sworkmen' s compensation -acts as compensation for personal injuries or sickness" . The section 104 (a) 1) exclusion does not apply to benefits paid pursuant to a privat contractual relationship.

Dursky v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 2011-29 · 2011

§ 105 states that amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance for pe sonal injuries or sicknéss shall be included in gr ss income to the extent such amounts (1) are attrib- utåd -to contributions by the employer which were anot inŠludible in the gross income of the employee or (2 are paid by the employer . [Ms . ] Du

§ 105 states that amounts received by an employee through accident or health insurance for pe sonal injuries or sicknéss shall be included in gr ss income to the extent such amounts (1) are attrib- utåd -to contributions by the employer which were anot inŠludible in the gross income of the employee or (2 are paid by the employer . [Ms . ] Du

Thomas M. & Donna Gentile, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2010-254 · 2010

The issues for decision are: (1) Whether a disability lump-sum settlement payment is excludable from petitioners' gross income pursuant to section 105(c) for the 2005 tax year; and (2) whether petitioners are liable for a section 6662 accuracy-related penalty.1 FINDINGS OF FACT Some of the facts have been stipulated.

Amy Ruth Jeffries, Transferee, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2010-172 · 2010

Consequently, we hold that we are not barred from proceeding with the instant case .

Hamilton v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 2009-271 · 2009

Indeed , petitioner has failed to prove that any of five disputed adjustments involves receipts qualifying for exclusion from income under either section 105 (b) or (c), and he - .has also failed to,prove that the receipts would be excludable because of disability under any other provision of the .,Internal° Revenue Code .

8 - and 105 . Sec . 1.72-15(b), Income Tax Begs . Thus, generally speaking, "the framework established under section 72 applies where no exclusion is available under section 104 or 105 ." Wright v . Commissioner, T .C . Memo . 2005-5 . We turn therefore to the exclusions provided by sections, 104 and 105 . Section 104(a), in relevant part, excludes from gross income certain amounts received as compensation for injuries or sickness described in paragraphs (1) through (4) .3 Section 105(a) include

-We read nothing in the statute or in its history that reveals that Congress intended to overrule that firmly established law by-enacting sections 512(a)-(5)(B) and 1058(b)(3) .

The issue for decision is whether disability pension benefits are excludable from petitioners' gross income pursuant to section 105(c) for taxable years 2002 and 2003 .

Darwin J. & Peggy L. Albers, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2007-144 · 2007

§ 105 or the plan provided by Darwin Albers [the AgriPlan/AgriBiz medical reimbursement plan] that prohibits the employer from paying the medical expense directly to the provider rather than reimbursing the employee . In fact, I .R .C . § 105(b) explicitly provides that expenses can be paid, `directly or indirectly,' to the employee to reimburse th

Ralph E. & Erika C. Frahm, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2007-351 · 2007

] As we understand respondent's position, respondent is arguing that if an employer maintains a health plan described in section 105 that covers one or more employees, such employee(s)' spouse(s), and such employee(s)' dependents, only the payments that the employer makes for the medical expenses of the em- ployee(s), and not the payments that the employer makes for the medical expenses of the employee(s)' spouse(s) and dependents, constitute payments made pursuant t

Accordingly, petitioners are not entitled to exclude under section 104(a)(3) the remaining portion - 16 - of the ordinary disability retirement benefits received from the ERS in taxable year 2000.12 Section 105 provides two exceptions to includability even for amounts attributable to employer contributions or payments that were not includable in an employee’s gross income. Section 105(b) provides an exclusion for amounts paid by an employer to the taxpayer to reimburse the taxpayer for expenses

Prior to 1984, disability payments received by a taxpayer who retired due to a permanent disability were excluded from gross income pursuant to section 105(d).

Any amounts received as accident or health benefits and not attributable to contributions of the employee are includable in gross income except to the extent excludable under section 105(b) or (c). Sec. 1.72-15(d), Income Tax Regs. As previously noted, we have concluded that section 105 does not apply in this case.

ry 13, 2005. Ps excluded a portion of H’s disability benefits from gross income for the 1999 and 2000 taxable years. R determined that Ps were required to include in gross income an additional portion of H’s benefits. Held: Ps are not entitled under sec. 105, 104(a)(3), or 72, I.R.C., to exclude from gross income disability retirement benefits in an amount greater than permitted by R. Held, further, R is not precluded from making adjustments to Ps’ gross income by reason of R’s decision not to a

curity benefits are included in the 1 In this case, petitioners’ modified adjusted gross income equals their adjusted gross income. See sec. 86(b)(2). 2 Prior to 1984, certain disability benefits were excludable from an employee’s gross income under sec. 105. However, this section was repealed, and “since 1984 Social Security disability benefits have been treated in the same manner as other Social Security benefits.” Maki v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-209. 3 In the case of a lump-sum payment

Section 86(e) provides that, if the election is made, the amount included in gross income for the taxable year of receipt must not exceed the sum of the increases in gross income for those previous taxable years that would result from taking into account the 3 Before 1984, certain disability benefits were excludable from an e

In this case, ignoring adjustments not relevant here, petitioner’s modified adjusted gross income equals his adjusted gross income. See sec. 86(b)(2). 3 Prior to 1984, certain disability benefits were excludable from an employee’s gross income under section 105. However, this section was repealed, and “since 1984 Social Security disability benefits have been treated in the same manner as other Social Security benefits.” Maki v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1996-209. - 6 - the base amount and the adj

Petitioners argue, however, that the pension distributions are amounts received through accident or health insurance that are excludable from income under section 105(c). Petitioners argue further that if the pension distributions are excluded, the Social Security payments are not taxable under section 86 because their joint income is less than $32,000. Because the Court decides this case without regard to the burden of proof, section 7491 is inapplicable.

104(a)(3)); see also sec.

Commissioner, supra, does not apply the current statute and, therefore, is distinguishable from the present case.

Flahertys Arden Bowl, Inc., Petitioner 115 T.C. No. 19 · 2000

(ii) to the extent necessary for the continued enforcement of subsections 4975(a) and (b) * * *; and (iii) exemptions with respect to transactions that are exempted by subsection 404(c) of ERISA from the provisions of part 4 of Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA * * * Section 102 of the 1978 Plan also provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall still have responsibility to audit qualified retirement plans and to enforce the section 4975 excise tax as provided in section 105 of the 1978 Plan.

Baldwin v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 2000-306 · 2000

accident and health plan” as defined in section 105(e), and has further failed to establish that the payments she received from Healthcare are “amounts received by an employee” pursuant to section 105(a), the issue can be decided based solely on the language of the relevant statute, and we shall therefore allow petitioner to argue her reliance on section 105 in her brief.

ith respect to transactions that are exempted by subsection 404(c) of ERISA from the provisions of part 4 of Subtitle B of Title I of ERISA * * * Section 102 of the 1978 Plan also provides that the Secretary of the Treasury shall still have responsibility to audit qualified retirement plans and to enforce the section 4975 excise tax as provided in section 105 of the 1978 Plan.

Jon L. & Esther J. Stolte, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1999-271 · 1999

e facts of this case are materially distinguishable from those in Hines, and we hold the impairment petitioner suffers in his hands, legs, and feet due to polyneuropathy is tantamount to the loss of a member or a body function within the meaning of section 105.(c). Unlike the taxpayer's heart in Hines, petitioner's arms, legs, and feet have not functioned normally since he began chemotherapy. Petitioner's hands and legs fail him frequently and unexpectedly, and he can barely hold objects or stan

Chernik v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1999-313 · 1999

1.105-1(a), Income Tax Regs. Only section 105(c) is relevant here. Section 106 "works in conjunction with section 104(a)(3) and section 105(a)" by excluding from an employee's gross income the cost of employer-provided coverage under an accident or health plan. Rabideau v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1997-230; see sec. 1.106-1, Income T

Baizer v. Commissioner T.C. Memo. 1998-36 · 1998

In granting authority to the DOL, Reorganization Plan section 102(a) provides: Except as otherwise provided in Section 105 of this Plan, all authority of the Secretary of the Treasury to issue the following described documents 11 Reorganization Plan sec.

In accordance with the foregoing, we hold that the automatic stay was terminated as of January 21, 1997, the date that the bankruptcy court issued its order dismissing petitioner's case.

Guerra v. Commissioner 110 T.C. 271 · 1998

105 (1994), which permits the bankruptcy court to issue any order necessary to carry out title 11). In accordance with the foregoing, we hold that the automatic stay was terminated as of January 21, 1997, the date that the bankruptcy court issued its order dismissing petitioner’s case. Further, we hold that the automatic stay was not revived w

David A. & Nancy J. Hepburn, Petitioner 109 T.C. No. 22 · 1997

105-253(b) (1991).] North Carolina law also provides procedures for assessing and collecting tax from a taxpayer. N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 105- 241.1(a) (1991) requires the Secretary of the Department of Revenue to send written notice to the taxpayer of the kind and amount of tax due, and N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 105-241.1(c) (1991) provides that the

Stephen P. & Jutta A. Maranto, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1997-122 · 1997

A plan maintained pursuant to section 105 is a "specified fringe benefit plan".

105-253(b) (1991).] North Carolina law also provides procedures for assessing and collecting tax from a taxpayer. N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 105- 241.1(a) (1991) requires the Secretary of the Department of Revenue to send written notice to the taxpayer of the kind and amount of tax due, and N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 105-241.1(c) (1991) provides that the

Merkel v. Commissioner 109 T.C. 463 · 1997

105-253(b) (1991).] North Carolina law also provides procedures for assessing and collecting tax from a taxpayer. N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 105-241.1(a) (1991) requires the secretary of the Department of Revenue to send written notice to the taxpayer of the kind and amount of tax due, and N.C. Gen. Stat. sec. 105-241.1(c) (1991) provides that the t

Kirk A. & Ida R. Crandall, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1996-463 · 1996

Section 105 provides that, in general, amounts received by an employee, through an accident or health plan for employees, for personal injuries or sickness must be included in gross income to the extent such amounts (1) are attributable to - 4 - contributions by the employer that were not includable in the gross income of the employee, or (2) are

Thus, in order to come within the scope of section 105, petitioners must show by "clear indicia" that the deferred compensation plan in question was intended to serve the dual purpose of providing accident or health benefits as well as retirement benefits.

Lawrence L. & Kathleen J. Kelter, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1996-405 · 1996

were disability payments excludable from gross - 5 - income pursuant to section 105(c) and (e). Alternatively, petitioners claim that, because of the determination letter, respondent is precluded from challenging the qualification of the Plan under section 105. Respondent challenges the qualification of the Plan as an accident and health plan for employees under section 105(e), claims that the plan distributions were not computed with reference to the nature of the injury under section 105(c)(2)

Esmat A. & Sylvia G. Zaklama, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1995-587 · 1995

section 105 (1988), which permits the bankruptcy court to issue any order necessary to carry out title 11). Consequently, we will proceed in these cases consistent with the view that the automatic stay was terminated on March 21, 1995. In this regard, the Court's orders dated July 26, 1995, - 10 - directing petitioners to show cause why the stay o

Chan Q. & Quynh Kieu, Petitioner 105 T.C. No. 26 · 1995

section 105 (1988), which permits the bankruptcy court to issue any order necessary to carry out title 11). In sum, we shall proceed in this case consistent with the view that the automatic stay was terminated on November 1, 1994, and was not reinstated by virtue of the bankruptcy court's order entered January 23, 1995. In this regard, it follows t

Esmat & Sylvia Zaklama, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 1995-587 · 1995

section 105 (1988), which permits the bankruptcy court to issue any order necessary to carry out title 11). Consequently, we will proceed in these cases consistent with the view that the automatic stay was terminated on March 21, 1995. In this regard, the Court's orders dated July 26, 1995, directing petitioners to show cause why the stay of these

Kent Maerki & Kathleen Turner, Petitioners T.C. Memo. 1995-460 · 1995

Section 105 provides for the exclusion of employer-paid medical expenses if certain conditions are met. However, even if some type of plan did exist, petitioners have not established (or even argued) that it would meet the conditions of section 105. We sustain respondent's disallowance of the claimed medical expenses. Petitioner testified that the

Kieu v. Commissioner 105 T.C. 387 · 1995

section 105 (1988), which permits the bankruptcy court to issue any order necessary to carry out title 11). In sum, we shall proceed in this case consistent with the view that the automatic stay was terminated on November 1, 1994, and was not reinstated by virtue of the bankruptcy court’s order entered January 23, 1995. In this regard, it follows t

Will L. & Rachel A. Thomas, Petitioner T.C. Memo. 2001-120 · 2001
Allison v. Commissioner 97 T.C. 544 · 1991
Moody v. Commissioner 95 T.C. 655 · 1990
Estate of Smith v. Commissioner 94 T.C. 872 · 1990
Gordon v. Commissioner 88 T.C. 630 · 1987
Rivera v. Commissioner 89 T.C. 343 · 1987
Estate of Harmon v. Commissioner 84 T.C. 329 · 1985
DeMars v. Commissioner 79 T.C. 247 · 1982
Alonso v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 577 · 1982
Ruggere v. Commissioner 78 T.C. 979 · 1982
Zuanich v. Commissioner 77 T.C. 428 · 1981
Petty v. Commissioner 77 T.C. 482 · 1981
Keller v. Commissioner 77 T.C. 1014 · 1981
Dyer v. Commissioner 71 T.C. 560 · 1979
Woodford v. Commissioner 71 T.C. 991 · 1979
Jones v. Commissioner 71 T.C. 128 · 1978
Brownholtz v. Commissioner 71 T.C. 332 · 1978
Greer v. Commissioner 70 T.C. 294 · 1978
DePaolis v. Commissioner 69 T.C. 283 · 1977
Laverty v. Commissioner 61 T.C. 160 · 1973
Cleary v. Commissioner 60 T.C. 133 · 1973
American Foundry v. Commissioner 59 T.C. 231 · 1972
Miller v. Commissioner 52 T.C. 752 · 1969
Larkin v. Commissioner 48 T.C. 629 · 1967
Conroy v. Commissioner 41 T.C. 685 · 1964
Poro v. Commissioner 39 T.C. 641 · 1963
Cohen v. Commissioner 41 T.C. 181 · 1963
Lang v. Commissioner 41 T.C. 352 · 1963
Graves v. Commissioner 37 T.C. 133 · 1961
Estate of Kaufman v. Commissioner 35 T.C. 663 · 1961
Winter v. Commissioner 36 T.C. 14 · 1961
Trappey v. Commissioner 34 T.C. 407 · 1960
Federbush v. Commissioner 34 T.C. 740 · 1960
Bryan v. Commissioner 32 T.C. 104 · 1959
Stout v. Commissioner 31 T.C. 1199 · 1959
Weinroth v. Commissioner 33 T.C. 58 · 1959
Estate of Boyd v. Commissioner 28 T.C. 564 · 1957
J. Ungar, Inc. v. Commissioner 26 T.C. 331 · 1956
Vendig v. Commissioner 22 T.C. 1127 · 1954
Langston v. Dallas Commodity Co · Cir.
In Re Schaefer Salt Recovery, Inc. 542 F.3d 90 · Cir.
Kovacs v. United States 614 F.3d 666 · Cir.
United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Flores-Galarza 318 F.3d 323 · Cir.
United States v. Luciano Pascacio-Rodriguez 749 F.3d 353 · Cir.
U.S. Bank National Ass'n v. Verizon Communications, Inc. 761 F.3d 409 · Cir.
U.S. Bank National Association v. Verizon Communic · Cir.
United States v. Prescription Home Health Care, Inc. (In Re Prescription Home Health Care, Inc.) 316 F.3d 542 · Cir.
Coleman v. Community Trust Bank 426 F.3d 719 · Cir.
Class Five Nevada v. Dow Corning Corp. (In Re Dow Corning Corp.) 280 F.3d 648 · Cir.
Nancy Ellen Kovacs v. United States · Cir.
Knight v. International Longshoremen's Ass'n 457 F.3d 331 · Cir.
Steven C.R. Brown v. James C. Luker · Cir.
In Re: Schaefer Salt · Cir.
Wright v. Commissioner 809 F.3d 877 · Cir.
Leathers v. Leathers 856 F.3d 729 · Cir.
Nadine Pellegrino v. TSA 937 F.3d 164 · Cir.
Kenney v. Helix TCS 939 F.3d 1106 · Cir.
JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. v. Larry Winget 942 F.3d 748 · Cir.
Bayer Corp. v. MascoTech, Inc. (In re Autostyle Plastics, Inc.) 269 F.3d 726 · Cir.
In Re: James Curtis Palmer, Debtor. James Curtis Palmer v. United States of America, Internal Revenue Service 219 F.3d 580 · Cir.
In Re: Autostyle Plastics, Inc., Debtor. Bayer Corporation v. Mascotech, Inc. Citicorp Venture Capital, Ltd. And the Treasurer of the State of Michigan, as Custodian of Several State Retirement Systems 269 F.3d 726 · Cir.
In Re: Robert G. Zepecki, Debtor. Steven C.R. Brown v. James C. Luker 277 F.3d 1041 · Cir.
Walter Dean v. National Production Workers Un 46 F.4th 535 · Cir.
Dotson v. Griesa 398 F.3d 156 · Cir.
In Re Molly Jane Coleman, Debtor. Roger Coleman, and Molly Jane Coleman, Debtor-Appellant v. Community Trust Bank, D/B/A Pikeville National Bank & Trust, and Internal Revenue Service, and United States Trustee, Trustee. In Re Molly Jane Coleman, Debtor. Roger Coleman, and Molly Jane Coleman, Debtor-Appellee v. Community Trust Bank, D/B/A Pikeville National Bank & Trust, and Internal Revenue Service, and United States Trustee, Trustee 426 F.3d 719 · Cir.
Harchar v. United States (In Re Harchar) 694 F.3d 639 · Cir.
Dotson v. Griesa 398 F.3d 156 · Cir.
Connors v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue 277 F. App'x 122 · Cir.
Louis N. Delloso v. 72 F.4th 532 · Cir.

New cases, delivered.

Get notified when new Tax Court opinions drop.