Affordable Care Act:
Frequently Asked Questions and Defined Terms for Employers
Original publication: May 2013
Update: June 2014
Prepared for:
General Information
Q-1:
What is the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”)?
A-1:
The ACA was enacted into law on March 23, 2010, with the primary goals of ensuring that affordable
health insurance coverage is available to all Americans and lowering the overall cost of health care in
the U.S. The key ACA provisions that affect employers and their workforce include:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
An “individual mandate” that requires individuals to obtain health insurance coverage or pay a
penalty tax beginning in 2014.
The creation of “Exchanges” (also referred to as the “Health Insurance Marketplace”) to help provide
individuals with accessible and affordable (Q&A-39) health insurance coverage.
Government-provided premium tax credits and cost sharing subsidies for certain eligible individuals
who purchase health care coverage through an Exchange, including employees whose employer
fails to offer affordable health care coverage that meets a minimum value standard (Q&A-42)
beginning in 2014.
The optional state expansion of Medicaid for individuals up to 138% of the federal poverty level.
An “employer mandate” that requires “large employers” to offer their full-time employees affordable
health care coverage or potentially pay an excise tax penalty (referred to as the “employer shared
responsibility excise tax”) beginning in 2015.
Employer filings and information reporting beginning in 2016 for information dating from January 1,
2015.
Other taxes and fees imposed on health insurance plans.
Q-2:
When is the ACA effective?
A-2:
While certain provisions became effective earlier, key provisions of the ACA for individuals became
effective January 1, 2014. Key provisions affecting employers were delayed to January 1, 2015 in order
to give employers and the government more time to plan for implementation. The Administration issued
final regulations regarding the employer shared responsibility excise tax and the information reporting
1
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
requirements. Employers now have all of the necessary regulatory guidance to implement the rules
affecting employers that go into effect in 2015.
Q-3:
Which government agencies oversee and enforce the ACA?
A-3:
Three Federal government agencies are responsible for enforcing the ACA: (1) the Department of
Health and Human Services (specifically, the Center for Consumer Information & Insurance Oversight),
(2) the Department of Treasury (specifically, the Internal Revenue Service), and (3) the Department of
Labor (specifically, the Employee Benefits Security Administration).
The Individual Mandate
Q-4:
What is the ACA’s “individual mandate”?
A-4:
Beginning in 2014, all individuals, with a few exceptions, are required to maintain “minimum essential
coverage” (MEC) for themselves and their families. The requirement to obtain MEC – the so-called
“individual mandate” – was the subject of the U.S. Supreme Court’s review of the ACA, which the Court
determined to be constitutional under Congress’ power to tax. Consequently, individuals who fail to
purchase health insurance that is MEC will be subject to a tax penalty for each month they do not obtain
such coverage. The individual mandate was not delayed.
Q-5:
What is minimum essential coverage (MEC)?
A-5:
MEC includes government coverage, such as Medicare or Medicaid, individual coverage, and most
employer-sponsored coverage. If the individual is employed and the employer offers group health
coverage, the individual mandate can be satisfied by enrolling in the employer’s health care plan.
Q-6:
Is my business required to offer health care coverage to my employees?
A-6:
The ACA does not require any business to offer health care coverage to its employees. However, if
your business is considered a “large employer,” you may be subject to an excise tax beginning in 2015 if
you fail to offer affordable coverage that meets a minimum value requirement. (See Q&A-20 and
Q&As–37, 38)
Q-7:
Are all individuals without MEC subject to the individual mandate excise tax?
A-7:
No, there are a number of exemptions. For example, family members of an employee who is offered
affordable self-only (employee only) coverage will not incur individual mandate tax penalties if the
employee's premium share for family coverage exceeds 8% of household income and the family
members do not enroll in the coverage.
2
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Q-8:
What is the amount of the individual mandate excise tax with respect to an individual who fails to obtain
MEC?
A-8:
The amount of the excise tax is based on a formula. For each month in which the individual does not
have MEC (and does not meet an exception) the monthly penalty amount is equal to 1/12 of the greater
of (1) the flat dollar amount or (2) the percentage of income amount. For 2014, the flat dollar amount is
$95 and the percentage of income amount is 1% of the individual’s household income in excess of his or
her Federal income tax return filing threshold. The amount of the individual mandate excise tax
increases each year after 2014. In 2015, the flat dollar amount is $325 and the percentage of income
amount is 2% of household income, and increases each year thereafter. In total, however, the annual
excise tax cannot exceed the dollar amount of the national premium for a “bronze level” health plan sold
in the Exchanges for a family of the same size as the individual’s.
State or Federal Health Insurance Exchanges
Q-9:
What is a health insurance Exchange?
A-9:
A health insurance Exchange provides a structured marketplace for the sale and purchase of health
insurance. “State Exchanges” are Exchanges established by a state itself. “Federal-Facilitated
Exchanges” are established by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, often either in partnership
with the state or to supplement in cases where the state opts not to establish an Exchange.
An Exchange’s primary function involves determining individual eligibility and plan enrollment, assisting
consumers and taxpayers, plan management, consumer assistance and accountability, and financial
management. The Exchanges will also determine whether the individual is eligible for an advanced
payment of the premium tax credit to purchase insurance (Q&A 13).
The Exchanges’ open enrollment period was from October 1, 2013 through March 31, 2014 for
enrollment in coverage for 2014; the Exchanges open enrollment period will be November 15, 2014
through February 15, 2015 for enrollment in coverage for 2015. Individuals who fail to enroll in coverage
during the open enrollment period will be eligible to enroll during the year only if they qualify for a special
enrollment period.
Q-10: Who is eligible to participate or purchase health insurance from an Exchange?
A-10:
Generally, all individuals who are U.S. citizens, U.S. nationals, or non-citizen residents who are legally in
the U.S. are eligible to purchase health insurance from the Exchange.
3
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Q-11: Does an individual also have to be eligible for a premium tax credit to purchase health insurance from an
Exchange?
A-11:
No, an individual does not need to be eligible for, nor use, a premium tax credit to purchase health
insurance from an Exchange.
Q-12: What is a “SHOP” Exchange?
A-12:
“SHOP” is an acronym for “Small Business Health Option Program” Exchange. It is an Exchange for
small businesses and has responsibilities similar to an individual Exchange in that it is also responsible
for collecting and verifying information from employers and employees, determining eligibility, and
facilitating enrollment. A small business for these purposes is generally an employer with 100 or fewer
employees, although states have an option before January 1, 2016 to define a small business as having
50 or fewer employees. (Beginning in 2017, each state may allow large employers to participate in
SHOP Exchanges).
Federal Premium Tax Credit and Cost Sharing Subsidies
Q-13: What is the premium tax credit (PTC) and Federal cost sharing subsidy?
A-13:
The PTC is a refundable government tax credit intended to enable low and moderate income taxpayers
to purchase individual health care coverage on an Exchange (see Q&As-9 - 11). Unlike other
government tax credits, from which taxpayers benefit only when they file their federal income tax return,
the PTC is an “advance” credit that an eligible individual can claim in advance of filing his or her return,
and that is paid directly to the taxpayer’s insurer to offset the taxpayer’s cost of coverage.
The cost-sharing subsidy reduces an individual’s out-of-pocket costs for health care deductibles, copayments, co-insurance, and other amounts.
Q-14: Who is eligible for the PTC and cost-sharing subsidy?
A-14:
To be eligible for the PTC, an individual must have “household income” between 100% and 400% of the
federal poverty level; to be eligible for the cost-sharing subsidy, an individual must have “household
income” below 250% of the federal poverty level. Individuals who are eligible to receive MEC from
another source generally will not be eligible for the PTC or the cost sharing subsidy. For example, if an
employee is offered employer-sponsored health care coverage, the employee is eligible to purchase
coverage through an Exchange with the benefit of a PTC (and cost-sharing subsidy, if otherwise eligible)
only if the offer of self-only employer coverage is not affordable or fails to meet the minimum value
requirements. The mere eligibility for affordable self-only employer-sponsored minimum value coverage
will prevent the employee from being eligible for the credit, even if the employee declines to enroll in the
employer plan.
4
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Note that if an employee is offered affordable self-only health care coverage by his or her employer, the
employee and any of the employee’s family members who are offered coverage by the employer will not
be eligible for premium tax credits to purchase Exchange coverage, regardless of the employee
premium cost amount for family coverage under the employer’s plan.
Q-15: What happens if an individual receives an advanced payment of the PTC but it is later determined that
the amount of the PTC exceeds the tax credit to which the individual was entitled?
A-15:
If the advance payment of the PTC exceeds the permitted tax credit, the individual will be liable for an
additional tax equal to the excess. In certain cases when the advance payment of the PTC exceeds the
allowable tax credit, the amount owed by the individual may be capped.
Q-16: How will the Exchange know if a business has offered a particular employee affordable, minimum value
coverage under a company group health plan, making the employee ineligible for the PTC?
A-16:
The Exchange or other entity administrating the PTC program will generally have received information
regarding an employee’s household income from the IRS. The employee is required to provide the
Exchange with information about the offer of employer-sponsored coverage, the cost of the coverage
and whether the coverage meets the minimum value standard. It is important that all large employers
provide their employees with the necessary information regarding the employers’ sponsored health care
plan, so that the Exchanges can make a decision whether an employee is eligible for an advanced
payment of the PTC. The ACA also amended the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) to require employers
to disclose certain information to their employees on the employers’ health plan coverage options.
The Department of Health and Human Services has published a template that employers may complete
to satisfy the FLSA obligation, which includes the information employees will need to provide the
Exchanges. Going forward, employers must provide this information at the time of hiring the employee.
Q-17: Will the Exchanges notify businesses if they determine that an employee is eligible to purchase
coverage through the Exchange with the advance payment of the PTC?
A-17:
Regulations state that the Exchanges are to notify an employer when they make the determination that
its employee is eligible to purchase coverage through the Exchange with an advance payment of the
PTC. An employer will have 90 days to appeal the notice if the employer believes that the Exchange
has authorized the advanced payment of the PTC in error, such as may be the case if the employer is
offering affordable self-only coverage (that also meets the minimum value requirements). An employer
will have an interest in responding to the notice with an appeal for at least two reasons. First, the
employer may want to ensure that the employee will not become subject to an additional income tax
liability at the end of the year equal to the amount by which the advance payment of the PTC exceeded
the allowable PTC (or some lesser capped amount). Second, beginning in 2015, the employer may want
5
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
to mitigate the possibility that the IRS may erroneously assess the employer with an excise tax, should a
notice be received when the employer believes it has offered MEC that meets the affordability and
minimum value standards. (See Q&A-19 and Q&As–37,38 regarding the Employer Shared
Responsibility excise tax). Because the employer shared responsibility excise tax was delayed until
2015, the Exchanges have not found an urgent need to issue the notices this year and have done so
only in rare circumstances. For the Exchanges’ open enrollment period beginning November 15, 2014
for 2015 coverage, it is expected that the Exchanges will be providing employer notices.
Q-18: What impact do the ACA’s Medicaid expansion rules have on a company’s workforce and their ability to
obtain a PTC?
A-18:
The ACA expanded adults’ eligibility for Medicaid. Under the ACA, some working adults may be eligible
for Medicaid if their household income is as high as 138% of the federal poverty level. However, each
state has a choice whether to expand Medicaid to this higher threshold. Lower wage employees’
eligibility for Medicaid will depend in part on the states in which a company does business and the
employees reside, and whether those states are choosing to expand Medicaid. If an employee is eligible
for Medicaid, the employee is not eligible for a PTC. The expansion of Medicaid is not delayed.
Employer Shared Responsibility Excise Tax
Q-19: What is the “employer shared responsibility excise tax” under the ACA?
A-19:
The employer shared responsibility excise tax is sometimes referred to as the “employer mandate” or
the “play or pay” provision. The requirements related to this excise tax are effective January 1, 2015.
This employer shared responsibility excise tax applies to any “large employer” and essentially has two
prongs:
 First, if a large employer does not offer MEC to at least 95% (70% in 2015) of its full-time employees
and their dependents, and at least one full-time employee receives a PTC (which is discussed in
Q&As-13, 18), then the employer will face a monthly excise tax equal to $167 (up to $2,000 annually)
multiplied by the total number of full-time employees, minus the first 30 full-time employees (minus
the first 80 full-time employees in 2015).

Second, if a large employer does offer MEC to full-time employees and their dependents, but the
coverage is “unaffordable” or does not provide a “minimum value,” the employer may face a monthly
excise tax equal to $250 (up to $3,000 annually) multiplied by the number of full time employees
receiving a PTC. This excise tax can never be greater than the annual $2000 per employee excise
tax described above.
6
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
An employer’s status as a “large employer” is determined on a “controlled group” basis with other related
companies (See Q&A-22). However, for purposes of determining the liability for, and assessment of,
the two potential excise taxes, the standards apply separately to each member employer of the
controlled group comprising the large employer. Each member employer is liable for its own assessed
excise tax and is not liable for the excise tax assessed on any other member employer in the controlled
group.
Q-20: Who is a “large employer”?
A-20:
A large employer is an employer with an average of 50 or more (100 or more for 2015) full-time
equivalent employees. See Q&A-22 for a discussion how the determination of a large employer is
made.
Q-21: Who is the “employer” subject to the employer shared responsibility excise tax?
A-21:
The ACA and the regulatory guidance provides that the “common law employer” is responsible for
offering its employees affordable coverage that meets the minimum value requirement or liable for the
excise tax if any full-time employees purchase coverage on an Exchange with the benefit of a PTC. In
many circumstances, it will be readily apparent which business is the common law employer. In other
circumstances, however, the determination of the common law employer is made under the Internal
Revenue Code standard, which weighs the facts and circumstances relating to who controls the
employment relationship.
A staffing firm often will be considered the common law employer. Some of the factors to determine
whether the staffing firm or the client is the common law employer include:
(i)
Responsibility to recruit, screen, hire, fire, and reassign the workers;
(ii)
Responsibility for the payment of the workers’ wages and benefits and withholding
and payment of the employment taxes;
(iii)
Right to control and direct how the workers perform their work (even if actual control
is not exercised).
Q-22: How does an employer determine if its business is a “large employer”?
A-22:
There are several steps to making this determination:

For purposes of determining who is a large employer, the employer is determined on a “controlled
group” basis. This means that companies within the same parent-subsidiary or brother-sister group
of companies (whether or not the companies are incorporated), as well as companies within the
same “affiliated service group,” may have to be treated as a single employer. Because the
ownership structures of related companies are often complex, especially for large companies, this
7
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
first step alone may be surprisingly challenging. These common control rules also apply to entities
organized as partnerships, LLCs, and unincorporated businesses.

The next step is to determine whether the employer had an average of 50 or more full-time
equivalent employees during the preceding calendar year. (For 2015, employers with fewer than
100 full-time equivalent employees are not subject to the employer shared responsibility excise tax
requirements.) To make the determination whether the employer had in the preceding calendar
year an average of 50 or more full-time equivalent employees (100 or more full-time equivalent
employees for the 2015 transition year), in the preceding calendar year, one must:
1. Count the number of employees (including seasonal workers) who worked an average
of at least 30 hours per week per month (“full-time employees”) in each month of the
preceding calendar year.
2. Convert the non-full-time employees (including seasonal workers) into full-time
equivalent employees by aggregating the number of hours worked by the non-full-time
employees (including seasonal workers) and dividing by 120.
3. Add the number of full-time employees and full-time equivalent employees for each of
the 12 months of the preceding calendar year and divide by 12. This is the number of
full-time equivalent employees.
If the average in steps 1 through 3 results in 50 or more, then the employer is a large employer
subject to the employer shared responsibility excise tax requirements. There is a further exception,
however, for seasonal workers. Under these rules, a business is not a “large employer” if it exceeds
50 full-time employees not more than 120 days or four calendar months during a calendar year, and
the employees in excess of the 50 during that period were seasonal workers.
Q-23: Would a business or franchise with 25 employees not be considered a “large employer”?
A-23:
Maybe. As indicated in Q&A-22, whether you are a large employer is determined on a “controlled
group” basis. This means that for purposes of determining your large employer status, you will have to
count the number of full-time employees in your own individual business/division/franchise as well as
other businesses that are considered part of the same controlled group or affiliated service group. The
controlled group rules are complex but, in general, they do not allow a business to break up its
operations into separate legal entities (all with a number of full time equivalent employees below the
threshold) to avoid the application of the large employer rules.
Q-24: Who is considered a “full-time” employee?
8
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
A-24:
Any employee who works at least an average of 30 hours a week per month (or 130 hours per calendar
month) will be considered a full-time employee under the ACA. If a large employer does not offer its fulltime employees (and their dependents) coverage, or if the coverage offered is not affordable and having
minimum value, the employer may be subject to an excise tax (see Q&A-19 and Q&As-37, 38). For
most large employers, identifying their full-time employees will be critical to determining how to address
the potential for an assessed excise tax. Employers with large populations of workers who do not
perform services on fixed schedules – such as variable hour employees and seasonal employees –
face particular challenges. It is possible for workers in these categories to be full-time employees in one
month but not in another depending upon their actual work schedules during the year.
Q-25:
How are an employee’s “hours of service” determined for purposes of identifying the employee’s fulltime status?
A-25:
An “hour of service” is defined to include each hour for which an employee is paid, or entitled to
payment, for the performance of services for the employer. This includes hours of pay where no duties
are performed due to vacation, holiday, illness, incapacity/disability, layoff, jury duty, military duty, or
leave of absence.
Certain hours of service do not count for purposes of determining an employee’s full-time status. Hours
that do not count include:



Hours of service for employees working outside of the US that do not generate US source
income;
Hours of service to the extent that service was performed as part of a Federal Work Study
program; and
Hours of service for bona fide volunteers.
Q-26:
How does one determine the “hours of service” for employees who are not “paid by the hour”?
A-26:
For employees paid on a non-hourly basis, an employer may calculate hours of service by using one of
the following methods:
1. Counting the actual hours of service and any hours not worked (paid sick days, for example) for
which the employee is entitled to be paid.
2. Using a days-worked equivalency under which you must credit an employee with eight hours for
each day in which the employee credited with at least one hour of service.
3. Using a weeks–worked equivalency under which you must credit the employee with 40 hours for
each week in which the employee is credited with at least one hour of service.
An employer is not permitted to use the days-worked or weeks-worked equivalencies if the result would
substantially understate the hours worked. For example, an employer may not use the days-worked
9
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
equivalency for an employee who generally works three 10-hour days per week because it would
substantially understate the employee’s hours of service per week.
Q-27: What are the methods for identifying full-time employees?
A-27:
There are two basic methods to determine an employee’s full-time status: (a) the monthly measurement
method, and (b) the look-back measurement method. The rules under both methods can be complex in
certain fact patterns and they require significant coordination of payroll information across the different
employers in a controlled group and consistency among the different categories of employees within a
controlled group.
The monthly measurement method, which tracks employees’ service hours on a month-by-month basis
is, in essence, the default rule under section 4980H. The look-back measurement method may be used
by employers to determine the full-time status of new variable hour, seasonal, and part-time employees.
Employers with a workforce that includes both variable hour and fixed schedule hourly employees will
have a key decision to make as to which method to adopt. The two methodologies may present
planning opportunities, but they also present recordkeeping and associated technology configuration
requirements. The application of the rules is highly fact-specific and without detailed review may contain
potential traps for the unprepared. The following questions highlight some of the key operational
challenges the rules present.
Q-28: How does an employer determine an employee’s full-time status based on the monthly measurement
method?
A-28: Under the monthly measurement method, an employee is a full-time employee for the month if he or she
works the requisite number of hours (and therefore, could generate the employer shared responsibility
excise tax for that month) even if the employee works less than 30 hours for all other months during the
year.
An employer is permitted to determine an employee’s full-time status under the monthly measurement
method based on hours worked either in a calendar month or using successive one-week periods
(referred to in the regulations as the “weekly rule”). Thus, for certain calendar months, hours of service
are counted over four-week periods and, for other calendar months, hours of service are counted over
five-week periods. In general, the period measured for the month must contain either the week that
includes the first day of the month or the week that includes the last day of the month, but not both. For
calendar months using four week periods, an employee with at least 120 hours of service is considered
full-time, and for calendar months using five week periods, an employee with at least 150 hours of
service is considered full-time. This monthly measurement method, along with the weekly rule for
counting hours, presents helpful clarifications compared to the proposed regulations, which required
counting only on a strict calendar month basis.
10
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Q-29: It may be challenging to determine on a month-by-month basis who meets the full-time employee
definition and, thus, who must be offered coverage for that same month. How does an employer
determine an employee’s full-time status based on a look-back measurement method?
A-29:
Employers may use the look-back measurement method to determine the full-time status of new
“variable hour employees,” new “seasonal employees,” new “part-time employees,” and all “ongoing
employees.” Under the look-back measurement method, the employee’s status is determined by
averaging the employee’s hours of service over a 3- to 12-month “measurement period.” The average
hours of service provided during this measurement period will then determine if the employee will be
treated as having full-time status in a subsequent “stability period.”
The benefit of using the look-back measurement method to test the full-time status of a variable hour or
seasonal employee is that employers are not subject to the employer shared responsibility excise taxes
during the entire initial measurement period with respect to those employees even if they actually work
enough hours to be treated as a full-time employee for purposes of section 4980H. Rather, the
employer can wait and treat such employees as full time as of the start and through the end of the
stability period (provided that the employee continues to be employed through the stability period).
A disadvantage of the look-back measurement method is that all ongoing employees (i.e., an employee
who was employed for at least one complete measurement period) in the same employment category as
the new variable hour employees must also be tested based on the look-back measurement with the
application of the corresponding stability period. This means that an employer may not adopt the lookback measurement approach to determine the full-time status of variable hour employees, but use the
monthly measurement method to determine the full-status of employees in the same employment
category with a fixed-hour or more predictable schedule.
The rules for determining who is a full-time employee define the permissible employment categories that
may be used to apply different measurement methods. These categories are:




Hourly and salaried employees
Collectively bargained and non-collectively bargained employees
Employees in different states
Employees working for different employers with the aggregated group of employers
Q-30: How does the “look-back measurement” method work and when may it be used?
A-30:
The look-back measurement rules apply differently for newly-hired employees who are tested under the
“initial measurement period” and ongoing employees who are tested under the “standard measurement
period.” The look-back measurement period must be applied equally to all employees in the same
employment categories.
11
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
The initial measurement period is designed to permit employers to determine the status of newly-hired
variable hour, seasonal, and part-time employees by averaging hours of service over a period of at least
three but no more than 12 consecutive months beginning on the employee’s date of hire or a date up to
the first of the month thereafter (or first day of the following payroll period, if later). Further, the initial
measurement period and the administrative period together cannot extend past the last day of the first
calendar month beginning on or after the first anniversary of the employee’s start date. Under this
testing method, the employer must provide the employee with a stability period of equal length to the
look-back measurement period (but no less than six months) during which the employee retains the
employment status determined during the measurement period.
Because newly-hired employees will have different start dates throughout the year, under these rules an
employer could easily end up with 12 separate measurement periods (and stability periods) beginning
and ending in each calendar year – and this could necessitate detailed tracking and administration to
avoid inadvertent failures to offer coverage to these employees when they are determined to be fulltime.
The standard measurement period is a period of at least three but not more than 12 consecutive months
that a business may select and use to determine whether an “ongoing employee” is full-time. An
ongoing employee is one who has been employed by a large employer for at least one complete
standard measurement period.
Q-31: What is the “stability period”?
A-31:
The stability period is the time period that follows, and is associated with, an initial or standard
measurement period. Generally, the stability period may not be shorter than the measurement period
and must be at least six calendar months. (The stability period for these newly-hired variable hour and
seasonal employees must be the same length as the stability period for ongoing employees.) An
employee who is determined to be a full-time employee during the look-back measurement period will
retain full-time status for the entire stability period, with limited exceptions.
With respect to a newly-hired variable hour or seasonal employee who has, on average, at least 30
hours of service per week during the initial measurement period, the employer must treat the employee
as full-time during the stability period that begins after the initial measurement period and any
associated administrative period. If the newly-hired variable hour or seasonal employee does not meet
the 30-hour threshold during the initial measurement period, the employer may treat the employee as
not full-time during the stability period that follows the initial measurement period. For these employees,
the stability period cannot be more than one month longer than the initial measurement period (in
addition to being the same length as the stability period for ongoing employees) and cannot exceed the
remainder of the standard measurement period (plus any associated administrative period) in which the
initial measurement period ends.
12
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Q-32: What is the optional administrative period?
A-32:
The optional administrative period is generally a period of no more than 90 days that begins immediately
after the end of a measurement period and that ends immediately before the beginning of the associated
stability period. You may use this period to determine whether an employee has attained full-time status
treatment for the stability period and carry out the administrative tasks needed to make an offer of
coverage.
Q-33: Must employers determine the full-time status of a newly-hired employee with a fixed schedule
differently than a newly-hired employee with a variable schedule?
A-33:
Generally, yes. The rules apply differently for newly-hired employees who are non-variable hour and
non-seasonal employees and to newly-hired employees who are variable hour or seasonal employees.
A new employee who at his or her start date is “reasonably expected” to work an average of 30 hours or
more per week is considered a full-time employee regardless of which measurement method the
employer is utilizing. An employee who is reasonably expected to work full-time may be a salaried
employee or may be an hourly employee who is hired with a fixed scheduled of 30 hours or more per
week. Unless the exception for “seasonal employees” applies, any new hire that is reasonably expected
to work 30 or more hours or more per week is a full-time employee and the employer cannot utilize a
look-back with respect to this employee at the time he or she is hired.
The full-time status of a variable hour employee or a seasonal employee may be determined by using
the look-back measurement method (see Q&A-30).

A variable hour employee is an employee who, as of the date of hire, is not reasonably expected to
work on average at least 30 hours per week.

A seasonal employee is an employee in a position for which the customary annual employment is
six months or less. To be a seasonal employee, the nature of the employment position must
typically be for six months or less and the period should begin each calendar year in approximately
the same part of the year.
Q- 34: What if an employee with “part-time” status attains “full-time” status? When does an employer have to
provide an offer of affordable coverage to these employees?
A-34:
An employee who has a material change in status from part-time to full-time must be provided an offer of
affordable coverage within a certain time period of their change in status. Those employees whose
statuses change from “not reasonably expected to work an average of 30 hours per week” to
“reasonably expected to work an average of 30 hours per week” must be offered affordable coverage by
the first day of the fourth month following the change in status.
13
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Q-35: What happens if an employee who is determined to have full-time status, based on hours of service
during a measurement period, begins to only work part-time hours during the stability period? Does an
employer still have to offer affordable coverage to this individual?
A-35:
Yes. If an employee is determined to have attained full-time status based on his or her hours of service
during a measurement period, then the employee must be treated as having full-time status for the
entire duration of the stability period.
Q-36: Does an employer have to offer coverage to workers at its site location who are employed by a staffing
company?
A-36:
The current rules recognize that when a staffing company is the employee’s “common law employer” it is
the staffing company that has the responsibility to offer affordable coverage to the employees with fulltime status (or risk a potential penalty). Determining which party is the common law employer is critical
to the determination of which party retains the potential excise tax liability.
Q-37: What is the penalty for not providing affordable health care coverage to all or some employees who may
have attained full-time status?
A-37:
As was referenced in Q&A-19, either (but not both) of two potential penalty taxes may apply beginning in
2015 if a member employer of a large employer does not offer coverage to full-time employees, or if the
member offers coverage but such coverage is not affordable or does not have minimum value.
The first penalty is imposed by Internal Revenue Code section 4980H(a) and, thus, is commonly
referred to as the “A Penalty.” The “A Penalty” applies to a member employer if it does not provide an
offer of coverage to all its full-time employees (and dependents) and if any one of the member’s full-time
employees becomes certified for a PTC. If health care coverage is not offered and even one full-time
employee becomes certified, the annual excise tax is $2,000 times the number of all the member
employer’s full-time employees, minus an employer’s allocated reduction of 30 full-time employees (first
80 full-time employees in 2015).
The second potential penalty is imposed by Internal Revenue Code section 4980H(b) and, thus, is
commonly referred to as the “B Penalty.” The “B Penalty” will apply to a member employer if the
member offers MEC to all of its full-time employees (and dependents) but such offer is not considered
affordable or not of minimum value. The annual “B Penalty” is equal to the lesser of $3,000 times the
number of full-time employees not provided an offer of affordable coverage of minimum value who
actually purchase coverage through the Exchange and receive a PTC, or the amount of $2,000 times
the full-time employees that would otherwise be determined under the “A Penalty.”
14
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Q-38: Is an employer automatically subject to an excise tax equal to $2,000 multiplied by all full-time
employees in 2015 if it overlooks one full-time employee and fails to offer coverage?
A-38:
No. For 2015, an employer is treated as having offered coverage to its employees as long as 70% of its
full-time employees (and their dependents) receive the offer of MEC. After 2015, employers will be
treated as offering coverage to their full-time employees as long as 95% or more of their full-time
employees (and dependents) receive the offer of MEC. Even with this cushion provided in the
regulations, employers will need to ensure that they have properly identified and counted their full-time
employees (using the 30-hour definition) to ensure that they do not become subject to the “A penalty.”
Q-39: What is “affordable” health care coverage?
A-39:
An offer of coverage will be “affordable” if the cost for an employee to enroll in self-only coverage under
the health care plan does not exceed 9.5% of the employee’s annual household income. An employee’s
household income means the modified adjusted gross income of the employee and any members of the
employee’s family who are required to file a Federal income tax return. (See Q&A 41 for a discussion of
an employer safe harbor on affordable coverage).
Q-40: What if an employee has a family and needs family coverage? Does an employer have to also offer
affordable family coverage?
A-40:
No. The employer shared responsibility excise tax requires only that self-only MEC be affordable.
Q-41: How is an employer expected to know an employee’s annual household income?
A-41:
The IRS has provided a few safe harbor methods an employer can use.

Form W-2 safe harbor: Under this safe harbor, coverage will be considered affordable if the
employee’s required contribution for the calendar year for the employer’s lowest cost self-only
coverage that provides minimum value during the entire year does not exceed 9.5% of that
employee’s Form W-2 wages from the employer for the calendar year. Application of this safe
harbor is determined after the end of the calendar year and on an employee-by-employee basis
taking into account the employee’s Form W-2 wages from the employer and the employee
contribution to the health plan.

Rate of pay safe harbor: Under this safe harbor, the affordability test will be considered met if
the employee’s required contribution for the month for the employer member’s lowest cost selfonly coverage that provides minimum value does not exceed 9.5% of an amount equal to 130
hours multiplied by the employee’s hourly rate of pay as of the first day of the coverage period.
For salaried employees, monthly salary is used as the rate of pay.
15
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited

Federal poverty line safe harbor: Under this safe harbor, the affordability test is met if the
employee’s required contribution for the calendar month for the employer member’s lowest cost
self-only coverage that provides minimum value does not exceed 9.5% of a monthly amount
determined as the Federal poverty line for a single individual for the applicable calendar year,
divided by 12 (approximately $92 per month for 2014).
Q-42: When will the health care coverage offered by an employer not be considered to provide minimum
value? How does this determination relate to the so-called “metal” plans that are being sold in the
Exchanges (i.e., bronze, silver, gold, and platinum plans)?
A-42:
A plan will fail to provide minimum value if the plan’s share of the total allowed costs of benefits provided
under the plan is, on an actuarial basis, less than 60% of such costs. This does not mean than any
particular individual covered by the plan will receive 60% of his or her health care expenditures paid by
the plan. Rather, the 60% value is determined on the basis of the expected experience of the plan over
a standard population.
The factors that are most important in calculating minimum value are the actual health benefits that are
provided by the plan (e.g., hospitalization, physician visits, and prescription drugs) and the enrollee’s
out-of-pocket costs. The ACA has defined an essential health benefits (EHB) package of specific types
of health benefits that must be provided by a qualified health plan offered on an Exchange and plans
offered in the small group market. Although self-insured plans and large group market plans are not
required to cover all of the EHBs, the benefits that are covered by the plan are taken into consideration
in determining whether the plan meets the minimum value standard.
A variety of approaches may currently be used for determining if minimum value is provided. These
approaches include (1) the minimum value (MV) calculator made available by the Department of Health
and Human Services and the IRS, (2) a choice of design-based safe harbors, and (3) for plans with nonstandard features that cannot determine MV using the calculator or a safe harbor, obtaining an actuarial
certification from a member of the American Academy of Actuaries.
Q-43: How will an employer know if an employee becomes certified for a PTC causing it to be assessed a
penalty for not offering affordable health care coverage of minimum value?
A-43:
Although a business should be provided with written notice by the applicable state or Federal Exchange
where an employee has applied for a PTC, the IRS will certify that the employee was entitled to the
PTC. If a full-time employee is certified as being eligible for the PTC, the IRS may assess the employer
with the shared responsibility excise tax.
Q-44: How does an employer correct errors if an employee is erroneously certified for a PTC?
16
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
A-44:
The employer may appeal the notice received from the Exchange (see Q&A-17), which provides the
employer with the first opportunity to correct an error. The employer will also have an opportunity
through the normal IRS procedures to appeal in the event that the IRS assesses the employer with an
excise tax.
Q-45: Aside from the potential “A Penalty” and “B Penalty,” are there any additional penalties that a company
will be subject to beginning in 2015 if it does not provide an offer of affordable health care coverage to
full-time employees (and their dependents)?
A-45:
Generally, there are no other ACA penalties imposed on an employer for failing to offer affordable,
minimum value health care coverage to employees.
Q-46: If a company has always self-insured its employees’ health coverage, does the ACA require it to buy
commercial insurance instead?
A-46:
No. Employer group health plans may continue to be either self-insured, insured, or a combination of
both.
Reporting and Disclosure
Q-47: How will the appropriate government agencies know if an employer has provided affordable MEC to its
employees?
A-47:
Generally, an employer is required to report and disclose a significant amount of information to the
Internal Revenue Service.
Beginning in 2013 (for the 2012 calendar year), employers were required to report the cost of coverage
under an employer-sponsored group health plan on an employee’s Form W-2, Wage and Tax
Statement, Box 12, using Code DD.
Beginning in 2016 (for the 2015 calendar year), employers will be required to report the following
information to their employees and the IRS:


Information about their employees (and their dependents) who are enrolled in their health care
plans (this information reporting is required by Internal Revenue Code Section 6055);
Information about all of their full-time employees, whether they were offered coverage, and the
cost of the lowest cost coverage (this information reporting is required by Internal Revenue
Code Section 6056).
17
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Q-48: What information is provided to individuals and the IRS for the 2015 calendar year?
A-48: The information employers are required to provide to employees and file with the IRS under Sections
6055 and 6056 is summarized below:
Section 6055
Section 6056
(Reporting of enrollment in coverage)
(Reporting of offer of coverage)
How will individuals and the IRS
use the information reported?
 Individuals: to evidence minimum
essential coverage
 IRS: to enforce the individual mandate
Who is responsible for the
reporting?
 Self-funded plan: the plan sponsor
(each employer in the controlled group
is separately responsible)
 Insured plan: the insurer
 Employer– and employee-specific data
including name, address, and TIN for
covered individuals (including
dependents)
 Each month during which individual is
covered
 IRS transmittal: Form 1094-C
 Individual statement:
Self-funded - Form 1095-C
Insured plan – Form 1095-B
(Forms are not yet published)
 Individuals: to assess availability of
PTC
 IRS: to enforce the employer excise tax
and the PTC
 Each employer in the controlled group
What information is reported and
how often?
On what form is the information
reported?
What is the deadline to deliver the
form?
 Individual statement: 1/31 (2/1 for
2016)
 IRS transmittal: 3/31 for electronic filers
 Employer EIN
 All full-time employees’ TINs
 Plan data including employee cost for
lowest cost plan, time offered, etc
 Month-by-month basis
 IRS transmittal: Form 1094-C
 Individual statement:
Self-funded plan: Form 1095-C
Insured plan: From 1095-C, except that
employer omits items addressed by the
insurer’s Form 1095-B
 Same
Q-49: Are there any simplified reporting methods that would permit an employer to avoid reporting information
on a month-by-month basis?
A-49: Yes. For the Section 6056 reporting, there are two alternative reporting methods that are available in
limited circumstances. Employers may use either or both of these alternatives for some or all of their
employees.

Employers that make a “qualifying offer” (as defined below) to their full-time employees (and their
spouses and dependents) are permitted to send a simplified letter, in lieu of the Form 1095-C, to
employees who received the qualifying offer for all 12 months. The letter will provide a statement to
the effect that the employee (and his or her family) is not eligible for the premium tax credit in the
prior year. This alternative reporting method is available only if the offer of employer-sponsored
coverage satisfies the following conditions:
18
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
o The offer must be a qualifying offer, which means that (i) the coverage offered meets the
minimum value standard; and (ii) the employee contribution to self-only coverage does not
exceed 9.5% of the federal poverty level for a single individual (i.e., for 2014, $92 per month);
o Qualifying offer must be made for all 12 months in the calendar year (the simplified reporting is
available only for employees who were employed for all 12 months and received the qualifying
offer); and
o An offer of coverage must be made to employee’s spouse, as well as dependents.
For 2015 only, the simplified reporting is available for all employees if at least 95% of the full-time
employees received a qualifying offer. In this case, employees who received a qualifying offer for
less than 12 months would receive a modified letter explaining that the employee or the family may
be eligible for a premium tax credit in one or more of the months during which they did not receive
the offer of coverage.

Employers that offer MEC to at least 98% of all full-time employees and part-time employees who
are eligible for coverage are not required, for Section 6056 reporting purposes, to distinguish
between full-time and part-time employees. Under this alternative, the employer would report on all
full-time employees and any part-time employees who received the offer of coverage. This
alternative reporting method is available to employers if the MEC that is offered to the employees
(and their dependents): (1) satisfies the minimum value requirements; and (2) is affordable to the
employee under any of the employer affordability safe harbors.
Q:50: Are there any penalties for failing to file or inaccurate reporting of this information to employees or to the
IRS?
A:50:
Yes. Failure to comply with the Section 6055 reporting and Section 6056 information return and
employee statement requirements are subject to sections 6721 (failure to file correct information
returns), and 6722 (failure to furnish correct payee statement) penalties.


Section 6721 provides that a taxpayer who fails to file correct information by the due date is subject
to $100 per return (up to $1.5 million). This penalty is reduced if the failure is corrected within 30
days of the due date or if corrected by August 1 of the calendar year when the filing was due.
Section 6722 provides that a taxpayer who fails to provide a correct payee statement is subject to
$100 per return (up to $1.5 million). This penalty is also reduced if the failure is corrected within 30
days or if corrected by August 1 of the calendar year when the payee statement was due.
The provision providing for a waiver of penalties for reasonable cause applies.
Also, for 2015, the IRS has confirmed that the accuracy-related penalties will not apply as long as the
taxpayer makes a good faith effort to complete the filings and statements accurately.
19
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Other Fees under the ACA
Q-51: What is the Patient-Centered Outcome Research Institute fee?
A-51:
The ACA created a private, non-profit corporation called the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research
Institute to conduct research and to evaluate and study health outcomes and clinical effectiveness, risks,
and benefits of medical treatments. The ACA requires that the Institute be financed in part by fees paid
by health insurance issuers and plan sponsors of health care plans. This fee is commonly referred to as
the “PCORI fee.”
Generally, the amount of the fee per year is based on the number of individuals covered under an
employer’s health insurance plan multiplied by $1 for plan years ending between January 1, 2012 and
December 31, 2012. The fee increased to $2 per covered individual for plan years ending in 2013 and
increased each year thereafter based on an increase in the projected per capita amount of national
health expenditure. For self-insured plans, this fee is paid by the plan sponsor and is a tax-deductible
fee. For insured plans the fee is paid by the health insurance issuer. The fee will be paid on an IRS
Form 720 and is first due on July 31st.
Q-52: What is the Transitional Reinsurance Fee?
A-52:
Generally, the Transitional Reinsurance Fee is a fee imposed on insurance plans that provide “major
medical coverage” to fund “reinsurance” payments to Exchanges to stabilize insurance premiums
nationally. This fee is not considered a tax and is administered by the Department of Health and Human
Services.
The amount of the Transitional Reinsurance Fee is based on the number of individuals covered under a
plan times $63 for plan years ending in 2014, $44 for 2015. For self-insured plans, this fee is paid by
the plan sponsor and is a tax-deductible fee. For insured plans the fee is paid by the health insurance
issuer. The filing for this fee will be due to the Department of Health & Human Services in the fall of
2014.
Q-53: Is there a tax imposed on health care coverage that is considered to be “too good” or on the offer of very
“generous” benefits?
A-53:
The ACA includes a provision that, beginning in 2018, imposes a 40% excise tax on the value of health
care coverage that exceeds certain dollar thresholds. This tax is sometimes referred to as the “Cadillac
tax.” Regulations or other guidance have not yet been published on this tax.
20
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited
Other Key Provisions of the ACA
Q-54: What are some of the other key provisions of the ACA that affect employers and how are they enforced?
A-54:
The ACA imposes another excise tax on employers who offer health plan coverage that does not meet
certain “market reforms” that are applied to both individual and employer group health plans. The excise
tax is $100 a day per each affected participant in the health plan (the “$100 a day excise tax”). The
market reforms that, if not complied with, could cause the $100 a day excise tax to be assessed include:




Beginning in 2014, a ban on annual and lifetime coverage limits on essential health benefits,
such as physician, hospital, and pharmacy benefits.
If a plan includes coverage for children, a parent must be allowed to cover a child through age
26.
Certain preventive services must be provided with no cost-sharing for those services.
Expanded nondiscrimination rules preclude more favorable benefits to higher paid employees.
21
This publication contains information in summary form and is therefore intended for general guidance only. It is not intended to be a substitute for
detailed research or the exercise of professional judgment. Neither Ernst & Young LLP nor any other member of the global Ernst & Young
organization can accept any responsibility for loss occasioned to any person acting or refraining from action as a result of any material in this
publication. On any specific matter, reference should be made to the appropriate advisor.
A member firm of Ernst & Young Global Limited