News & Events

IRS Issues Guidance Regarding Same-Sex Spouses

Submitted By Firm: Vedder Price P.C.

Contact(s): Bruce R. Alper, Gabrielle M. Buckley


Date Published: 9/3/2013

Article Type:

Share This:

Health Care Reform Requires Action Despite Delay of Empoyer Mandate
September 2013

On August 29, 2013, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued widely anticipated guidance regarding the application of the Supreme Court's June 26, 2013 DOMA decision in United States v. Windsor to the taxation and benefits provisions of the Internal Revenue Code. The IRS issued its guidance in the form of Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and two sets of FAQs (one set relating to same-sex spouses and one set relating to domestic partners and individuals in civil unions).

This bulletin summarizes the new IRS guidance about same-sex spouses, and provides an overview of various health care reform provisions requiring employer action this year and next. These Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act requirements are effective even though the IRS is delaying, by one year, enforcement of the law's "employer-shared responsibility" penalties, sometimes referred to as the "play or pay" mandate, and related reporting requirements.

Same-Sex Spouses

General IRS Principles

The key takeaway from this guidance is the IRS's decision to apply uniform rules for Federal income tax and benefits purposes. Thus, same-sex spouses lawfully married under the law of a state or foreign jurisdiction are lawfully married for Federal tax and benefits purposes regardless of where they reside

The guidance is limited specifically to same-sex spouses. Thus, individuals (same sex or opposite sex) who are recognized under state law as registered domestic partners or members of a civil union are not married for Federal tax or benefits purposes.

In addition, this guidance does not affect a state's determination of whether an individual is married for state income tax or other purposes.

Application to Specific Benefits

Taxation of Medical Coverage: Same-sex spouses are eligible to receive the same tax-free medical coverage as are opposite-sex spouses. This is the case for both the value of any employer-provided premium subsidy, and the value of employee premiums that can be paid on a pre-tax basis under the employer's Section 125 cafeteria plan. Medical reimbursements for same-sex spouses under a Section 125 health care flexible spending account are also tax-free.

Refunds of Income Taxes and FICA Taxes: Employees who previously received imputed income because their employer-provided insurance covered their same-sex spouse (or his/her eligible dependent children) under the medical plan may file for tax refunds for any tax years for which the statute of limitations for refunds has not expired (generally 2010 through 2012).

Employers may make adjustments for excess amounts of income taxes withheld from an employee during 2013 if the employer has repaid or reimbursed the employee for the over-withheld income tax before the end of 2013. Employers may not seek refunds for over-withheld employee income taxes for 2012 and prior years. (Only the employee may seek such refunds).

Employers may file for refunds of Social Security taxes and Medicare taxes (collectively, FICA taxes) paid on amounts that otherwise would have been excluded for FICA tax purposes if the same-sex spouses had previously received the same tax-free coverage accorded to opposite-sex spouses. If the employer cannot locate a former employee after reasonable efforts, or if a located former employee does not give the employer permission to seek a refund on his or her behalf, the employer may seek a refund on only the employer's portion of the FICA taxes. The IRS has promised to issue in the near future a special administrative procedure for employers to file claims for refunds or to make adjustments for excess FICA taxes paid on same-sex spouse benefits.

Qualified Plan Death Benefits: Same-sex spouses have the same automatic survivorship rights under tax qualified retirement plans as do opposite-sex spouses.

  • A same-sex spouse must receive a pre-retirement survivor annuity under a defined benefit or money purchase pension plan unless the plan permits the spouse to waive that benefit and the spouse affirmatively waives that benefit.
  • A same-sex spouse must be the sole beneficiary under a 401(k), profit sharing or stock bonus plan unless the plan permits that spouse to waive that right and the spouse affirmatively waives that right.

Effective Date

The IRS guidance is generally effective prospectively from September 16, 2013, although due to the retroactive nature of the Windsor decision, individuals and employers may file for retroactive tax refunds provided that the normal statute of limitations relating to refund claims (generally three years) has not lapsed.

Employee benefit plans are required to be in compliance with Revenue Ruling 2013-17 and its related guidance as of September 16, 2013. Again, due to the retroactive nature of the Windsor decision, the IRS has promised future guidance regarding the application of the Windsor decision and Revenue Ruling 2013-17 to employee benefit plan documents and operations prior to September 16, 2013.

The IRS guidance answers many questions prompted by the Windsor decision but leaves others unanswered. What is clear is that employers in all states, and not just those in states that recognize same-sex marriages, now need to review their employee benefit plan terms and participant communications, as well as their payroll and benefit plan administration practices, in light of this change in Federal law.

Health Care Reform Requires Action

Although enforcement of the employer shared responsibility provisions has been postponed one year, numerous health care reform changes require employer action this year and next.

What Was Postponed?

The IRS announced two months ago that it was delaying, by one year, enforcement of the employer "shared responsibility" penalties, sometimes referred to as the "play or pay" mandate. The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) imposes a $2,000 per year per full-time employee penalty if a covered employer fails to offer minimum essential coverage to substantially all full-time employees (and their dependents). Even if an employer offers coverage to substantially all full-time employees, defined generally as those who work an average of at least 30 hours per week, it is still potentially subject to a penalty of $3,000 per year for each full-time employee who is not offered coverage that provides minimum value and satisfies the law's affordability standard. Government enforcement of these penalties, which were scheduled to become effective January 1, 2014, for employer's with calendar year plans, have been postponed by one year.

Also postponed until 2015 are certain penalty-related reporting provisions. One provision requires insurers and self-funded employer plans to report to the IRS information about the health insurance coverage they provide and the individuals to whom they provide that coverage. The other provision requires reporting by employers about the health insurance coverage they offer to their full-time employees. Regulations implementing these reporting requirements are expected to be published shortly.

Changes Effective Later this Year and Next

The announced postponement was welcomed by most employers. Nevertheless, there remain numerous PPACA requirements that become effective later this year and next that demand attention. These include the following:

Notice of Exchange Coverage: A notice concerning Exchange coverage must be distributed by all employers to all current employees by October 1, 2013, and thereafter to new hires within 14 days of their start date. See our bulletin, Employer Notices about PPACA Insurance Exchanges, for additional information.

New SBC Requirements: Summaries of benefits and coverage, also known as SBCs, must be updated to include two additional items: Does the plan provide "minimum essential coverage"? Does the coverage meet the law's "minimum value" actuarial standard? This is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014, and therefore must be included with the open enrollment materials distributed this fall for calendar-year plans.

Defining "Full-Time Employees": October 2013 marks the start of the 12-month standard measurement period that most employers electing to utilize the look-back measurement period for variable hour and seasonal employees are expected to use in determining the eligibility of such employees for coverage effective January 1, 2015. Employees who complete at least 1,560 hours of service (an average of at least 30 hours per week) during the 12-month standard measurement period ending in October 2014 will be offered an opportunity to enroll for coverage as part of that fall’s open enrollment process.

Wellness Programs: Final wellness program regulations published in June 2013 are effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. These new regulations will require, in certain instances, modifications in the design and operation of existing wellness programs. Also effective beginning in 2014, the maximum incentive amount that may be offered under health-contingent wellness programs is increased to 30 percent of the cost of coverage (or 50 percent in the case of tobacco wellness programs).

Additional Changes: In addition, the following benefit and coverage mandates are effective January 1, 2014, for calendar year plans:

  • Eligibility waiting periods may not be longer than 90 days. Guidance issued makes clear that providing for coverage effective the first day of the month following an employee’s completion of 90 days of service is not permitted.
  • Essential health benefits may not be subject to annual dollar limits.
  • Pre-existing condition exclusions are prohibited for both adults and children (having been prohibited for children under 19 since 2011).
  • Coverage of adult children to age 26 is required regardless of the child’s eligibility for other coverage.

Extra Requirements for Non-Grandfathered Plans: Plans which are no longer grandfathered under PPACA are subject to the following extra requirements for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014:

  • Routine costs for individuals participating in clinical trials must be covered.
  • Obesity screening and counseling for adults must be covered.
  • Annual out-of-pocket maximums are limited to the maximums applicable to high-deductible health plans. The 2014 limits are $6,350 for individuals and $12,700 for families. An exception authorized by the Department of Labor allows plans with major medical and prescription drug benefits administered by separate claims administrators an additional year to aggregate claims in applying the maximums.

Reinsurance Fee: A reinsurance fee will become payable on a quarterly basis beginning January 15, 2014. The fee is payable by insurers and third-party administrators which, in turn, are expected to pass the cost along to plan sponsors. The fee is set at $63 per covered person for 2014. The fee funds a reinsurance program to help cover costs for high-risk individuals purchasing Exchange coverage.

PCORI Fee: The reinsurance fee is different than another PPACA per covered person fee: the $1 per covered person Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI) fee. This fee was payable by July 31, 2013 (for 2012) by insurers and by employers of self-funded plans. The PCORI fee increases to $2 per covered person for 2013.

Additional 2013 Changes: Other 2013 changes include W-2 reporting of the value of employer-provided insurance coverage, capping of health care flexible spending account contributions at $2,500 per year, additional preventive services for women without cost sharing (for plans that are not grandfathered), a 0.9 percent increase in the employee share of Medicare taxes on wages exceeding $200,000, and the elimination of the Medicare Part D retiree drug subsidy deduction.

If you have any questions regarding this bulletin, you may contact Thomas G. Hancuch, Philip L. Mowery, Kelly A. Starr or any Vedder Price attorney with whom you have worked.

Find an Employment Lawyer

View or print a complete ELA member list »

Client Successes

Altra Industrial Motion Inc.

Altra Industrial Motion Inc. has multiple locations in the U.S., as well as Central America, Europe, and Asia. The Employment Law Alliance has proved to be a great asset in assisting us in dealing with employment issues and matters in such diverse venues as Mexico, Australia, and Spain. We have obtained excellent results using the ELA network for matters ranging from a multi-state review of employment policies to assisting with individual employment issues in a variety of foreign jurisdictions.

In one instance, we were faced with an employment dispute with a former associate in Mexico that had the potential for substantial economic exposure. The matter had been pending for over a year, and we were not confident in the employment advice we had been receiving. I obtained a referral to the ELA counsel in Mexico, who was able to obtain a favorable resolution of the dispute in only a few days. Based on our experiences with the ELA, we would not hesitate to use its many resources for future employment law needs.

American University in Bulgaria

In my career I have been a practicing attorney, counsel to the Governor of Maine, and CEO of a major public utility. I have worked with many lawyers in many settings. When the American University in Bulgaria needed help with employment litigation in federal court in Syracuse, New York, we turned to Pierce Atwood, the ELA member we knew and trusted in Maine, for a referral. We were extremely pleased with the responsiveness and high quality of service we received from Bond Schoeneck & King, the ELA's firm in upstate New York. I would not hesitate to recommend the ELA to any employer.

David T. Flanagan
Member of Board of Trustees 

Arcata Associates

I really enjoyed the Conducting an Effective Internal Investigation in the United States webinar.  We are in the midst of a rather delicate employee relations issue in California right now and the discussion helped me tremendously.  It also reinforced things that you tend to forget if you don't do these investigations frequently.  So, many, many thanks to the Employment Law Alliance for putting that webinar together.  It was extremely beneficial.

Lynn Clayton
Vice President, Human Resources

Barrett Business Services, Inc.

I recently participated in the ELA-sponsored webinar on the Employee Free Choice Act.  I was most impressed with that presentation.  It was extremely helpful and very worthwhile.  I have also been utilizing the ELA's online Global Employer Handbook.  This compliance tool is absolutely terrific. 

I am familiar with several other products that purport to provide up-to- date employment law information and I believe that this resource is superior to other similar compliance manuals.  I am delighted that the ELA provides this free to its members' clients.

Boyd Coffee Company

Employment Law Alliance (ELA) has provided Boyd Coffee Company with a highly valued connection to resources, important information and learning. With complex operations and employees working in approximately 20 states, we are continually striving to keep abreast of specific state laws, many of which vary from state to state. We have participated in the ELA web seminars and have found the content very useful. We appreciate the ease, cost effectiveness and quality of the content and presenters offered by these web seminars.  The Global Employer Handbook has provided our company with a very helpful overview of legal issues in the various states in which we operate, and the network of attorneys has helped us manage issues that have arisen in states other than where our Roastery and corporate headquarters are located in Portland, Oregon.

Capgemini Outsourcing Services GmbH

As an international operating outsourcing and consulting supplier Capgemini has used firms of the Employment Law Alliance in Central Europe. We were always highly satisfied with the quality of employment law advice and the responsiveness. I can really recommend the ELA lawyers.

Hirschfeld Kraemer

As an employment lawyer based in San Francisco, I work closely with high tech clients with operations around the globe. Last year, one of my clients needed to implement a workforce reduction in a dozen countries simultaneously. And they gave me 48 hours to accomplish this. I don't know how I could have pulled this off without the resources of the ELA. I don't know of any single law firm that could have made this happen. My client received all of the help they needed in a timely fashion and on a cost effective basis.

Stephen J. Hirschfeld

Hollywood Entertainment Corporation

As the Vice President for Litigation & Associate General Counsel for my company, I need to ensure that we have a team of top-notch employment lawyers in place in every jurisdiction where we do business. And I want to be confident that those lawyers know our business so they don't have to reinvent the wheel when a new legal matter arises. With more than 3400 stores and 35,000 employees operating in all 50 U.S. states and across Canada, we rely on the ELA to partner with us to help accomplish our objectives. I have been delighted with the consistent high quality of the work performed by ELA lawyers. I encourage other in-house counsel to use their services, as well.

Ingram Micro

Ingram Micro is the world's largest technology distributor, providing sales, marketing, and logistics services for the IT industry around the globe. With over 13,000 employees working throughout the U.S. and in 35 international countries, we need employment lawyers who we can count on to ensure global legal compliance. Our experience with many multi-state and multi-national law firms is that their employment law services are not always a high priority for them, and many do not have experts in many of their offices. The ELA has assembled an excellent team of highly skilled employment lawyers, wherever and whenever I need them, and they have proven to be an invaluable resource to our company.

Konami Gaming

Our company, Konami Gaming, Inc., is growing rapidly in a very diverse and highly regulated industry. We are aggressively entering new markets outside the domestic U.S., including Canada and South America. I have had the recent opportunity to utilize the services provided by the ELA. The legal advice was both responsive and professional. Most of all, the entire process was seamless since our Nevada attorney coordinated the services and legal advice requested. I look forward to working with the ELA in the future, as it serves as a great resource to the legal community.

Jennifer Martinez
Vice President, Human Resources

Nikkiso Cryo, Inc.

Until recently, I was unaware of the ELA's existence. We have subsidiaries and affiliates throughout the United States, as well as in Asia, the Middle East and Europe. When a recent legal issue arose in Texas, our long-time Nevada counsel, who is a member of the ELA, suggested that this matter be handled by his ELA colleague in Dallas. We are very pleased with the quality and timeliness of services provided by that firm, and we are excited to now have the ELA as an important asset to help us address employment law issues worldwide.

Palm, Inc.

The ELA network has been immensely important to our company in helping us address an array of human resources challenges around the world. I strongly encourage H.R. executives who have employees located in many different jurisdictions to utilize the ELA's unparalleled expertise and geographic coverage.

Stacy Murphy
Former Senior Director of Human Resources

Rich Products

As the General Counsel for a company with 6,500 employees operating across the U.S. and in eight countries, it is critical that I have top quality lawyers on the ground where we do business. The ELA is an indispensable resource. It has taken the guesswork out of finding the best employment counsel wherever we have a problem.

Jill K. Bond
Senior Vice President/General Counsel, Shared Services and Benefits

Ricoh Americas Corporation

We have direct sales and service offices all over the U.S., but have not necessarily had the need in the past for assistance with legal work in every state where we have a business presence. From time to time, we suddenly find ourselves facing a legal issue in a state where we have no outside counsel relationship. It has been a real benefit to know that the ELA has assembled such an impressive team of experts throughout the U.S. and overseas.

A few years ago, we faced a very tough discrimination lawsuit in Mississippi. We had never had to retain a lawyer there before. I was absolutely delighted with the Mississippi ELA firm. We received an excellent result. They will no doubt handle all of our employment law matters in Mississippi in the future. I have also obtained the assistance of several other ELA firms around the U.S. and have received the same outstanding service. The ELA is a tremendous resource for our company.

Roberts-Gordon LLC

Our affiliated companies have used the Employment Law Alliance in connection with numerous acquisitions, and have always been extremely pleased with our ability to obtain the highest quality legal advice on due diligence issues from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. We have found the Employment Law Alliance firms to be not only first rate with respect to their legal advice but also responsive and timely in assisting us with federal and state law issues critical to our due diligence efforts. We consider the Employment Law Alliance to be an important part of our team.

Rockwell Collins, Inc.

We have partnered with many ELA firms on the development and execution of case management strategies with very positive results. We have been very pleased with the legal advice and counsel provided by the law firms we have utilized who are affiliated with the Employment Law Alliance. The ELA firms we have worked with are customer focused, responsive, and thorough in their approach to handling labor and employment law matters.

Elizabeth Daly
Assistant General Counsel


Sanmina-SCI has facilities strategically located in key regions throughout the world. Our customers expect that we will provide them with the highest quality and most sophisticated services in the marketplace. We have that same expectation for the lawyers with whom we do business. With operations in 17 countries, we need to be certain that we have a team of lawyers working together to address our employment law needs worldwide. The ELA has delivered exactly what it promised-- seamless and consistent high quality services delivered in each locale around the globe. It has quickly become a key asset for our human resources department.


We own, manage, and franchise hotels throughout the U.S. and in more than 90 countries. With more than 145,000 employees worldwide, ensuring that we comply with the complex web of local labor and employment laws in every one of these jurisdictions is a daunting task. The Employment Law Alliance has served as an important resource for us and we have benefited greatly from its expertise and long reach. When a legal dispute or issue has arisen in some far-flung place, Employment Law Alliance lawyers have always provided responsive, practical, and cost-effective assistance.

Wilmington Trust Corporation

Wilmington Trust has used the ELA to locate firms in California, Washington State, Georgia, and Europe. Our experience with the ELA lawyers with whom we have worked has always been one of complete satisfaction and prompt, practical advice.

Michael A. DiGregorio
General Counsel