Health Care Reform: Financial Impact 2013 and Beyond

November 5th, 2012

As the third year of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) approaches, employers need to be aware of additional fees that will be assessed on insurers and plan administrators of self-insured plans beginning in 2013. In addition, reporting health care costs to the government begins.

The new fees will increase the cost of providing group health plans for employees. They include:

  • Fees to fund research on patient-centered outcomes
  • Transitional reinsurance fees
  • Pay or play penalties
  • Cadillac tax

Fees to fund research on patient-centered outcomes
Health care reform created the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (PCORI), which is charged with promoting research to evaluate and compare the health outcomes and clinical effectiveness, risks, and benefits of medical treatments, services, procedures, and drugs. PCORI is to be funded in part by fees assessed on health insurers and sponsors of self-insured group health plans. This fee is commonly referred to as the “comparative effectiveness fee” or “PCORI fee.” The PCORI fee will be assessed at $1.00 times the average number of covered lives (employees and dependents) for the first plan or policy year ending on or after October 1, 2012. Employer plan sponsors must choose a method for calculating the average number of covered lives for their required annual fees by December 31, 2012, for calendar year plans.

Transitional reinsurance fees
The transitional reinsurance program will require health insurance issuers, as well as certain plan administrators on behalf of self-insured group health plans, to make contributions to a transitional reinsurance program for the three-year period beginning January 1, 2014. This fee is likely to result in additional costs for employer plan sponsors and – depending on whether the plan at issue is self-administered – certain additional reporting obligations.

Pay or play penalties
In 2014, large employers with fifty or more full-time equivalent employees could be subject to two potential penalties: the No Coverage Penalty and the Unaffordable Coverage Penalty. The No Insurance Penalty subjects certain employers to a $2,000 per full-time employee penalty (excluding the first thirty full-time employees) under specific conditions. The Unaffordable Coverage Penalty applies if an employer offers its full-time employees the opportunity to enroll in coverage under an employer plan that either is unaffordable (relative to an employee’s household income) or does not provide minimum value. This penalty is $3,000 for every full-time employee who receives a subsidy for coverage in a state exchange.

In some cases, the total cost of these penalties may be less than the total cost of providing coverage. CliftonLarsonAllen’s Health Insurance and Penalty Calculator provides information about the impact of reform on individual companies.

Cadillac tax
Starting in 2018, insurers of employer-sponsored plans or companies that self-insure their own plans will be subject to an excise tax if their premiums are in excess of $10,200 for individual coverage and $27,500 for family coverage. Roughly 60 percent of large employers believe their plans would trigger the tax unless they take action to avoid it, according to a 2011 survey by Mercer, a human resources consulting firm. Although the tax is to be imposed on insurers, the effects are likely to trickle down to consumers.

Many health care reform provisions will impact the cost to provide health care coverage for employees. Employers should be aware of the additional fees and reporting requirements and work with their benefits consultants to determine the financial impact of health care on their businesses. Plan sponsors should have already verified that they have the systems in place to determine and report the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored coverage for 2012 on employees’ Forms W-2.

Click Here to read full article

Investor Confidence in US Companies Inching Upward

October 1st, 2012

On September 19, the Center for Audit Quality (CAQ) released its sixth annual “Main Street Investor Survey,” which shows that investor confidence in capital markets has increased 4 percentage points since 2011, with 65 percent saying they have “a great deal of confidence, quite a bit of confidence, some confidence, very little confidence, or at least some confidence.” The survey defines “investors” as those with $10,000 or more in such investments as mutual funds, stocks, IRAs, 401(k)s.

By way of comparison, confidence in capital markets outside the United States fell 8 percentage points, to 35 percent.

Confidence in investing in US publicly traded companies leveled off at 71 percent this year, a 1-point drop from 2011, and a 5-point drop from years 2008 through 2010.

CAQ Executive Director Cindy Fornelli said, “Individual investors, as a group, have confidence in audited financial information released by public companies and believe that auditors are effective in looking out for investors’ interests.”

Other findings:

  • 69 percent of those surveyed say they have confidence in audited financial information released by public companies.
  • 70 percent believe the American economy will either stay the same or improve over the next year; 20 percent believe it will get worse.
  • 25 percent expect their personal financial situation to improve; 64 percent expect it to stay the same over the next year.
  • The top four economic concerns are: (1) not having enough money for retirement, (2) not being able to afford health care in case of serious illness or injury, (3) not being able to maintain their current standard of living, and (4) fear of losing their jobs
  • .

The survey was conducted after some disappointing news that was expected to dampen consumer confidence but didn’t: the lackluster initial public offering of Facebook and news that JPMorgan Chase and Co. lost more than $4 billion in derivatives trading. But, according to an InvestmentNews.com report, Fornelli said, “I don’t know that the average investor is that attuned to individual companies and individual stocks.”

The CAQ conducted just one of a flurry of consumer confidence surveys. The National Association of Home Builders says the “builder confidence index” is at its highest point since 2006, and new-home construction is up nearly 30 percent from a year ago, New York magazine reports.

In his New York magazine article, “The Confidence Game: The Economy Is Recovering, Most of Us Think,” Kevin Roose says, “So, with a pile of imperfect polls and statistics mostly pointing in the same direction, it’s relatively safe to say that four years after the near-collapse of the financial system, we’re seeing the light at the end of the tunnel – or at least we think we are.”

Yet another survey indicates that perceptions don’t always match the facts. BusinessWeek reported on a survey by Franklin Templeton that asked individual investors about their perception of markets since the previous year. In 2011, 48 percent of investors said the markets were down over the course of 2010, when the Standard & Poor (S&P) 500-stock index rose more than 15 percent. Data released September 18 shows that 53 percent thought the S&P had dropped 2011, but it actually rose 2 percent.

Full article: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/investor-confidence-us-companies-inching-upward/219889

AICPA Extends Comment Deadlines

September 6th, 2012

Two committees of the American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) – the Professional Ethics Executive Committee (PEEC) and the Accounting and Review Services Committee (ARSC) – have extended deadlines on exposure drafts of proposed revisions of existing requirements for nonattest services and of requirements for compilation services.

Requirements of Nonattest Services
The PEEC has agreed to extend the deadline from August 30, 2012, to November 30, 2012, for comments on an exposure draft dated June 29, 2012, of proposed revisions to Interpretation 101-3, “Nonattest Services.”

The committee is proposing that financial statement preparation and cash-to-accrual conversions performed by a CPA member for a client should be considered nonattest services and subject to the revised requirements.

Under the proposed revisions, the preparer is no longer required to perform a compilation with respect to those statements unless engaged to do so.
The exposure draft also considers the cumulative effect that providing multiple nonattest services can have on independence.

“We have extended the deadline because we want to give people additional time to understand the impact of these changes,” said Ellen Goria, senior technical manager of AICPA’s Professional Ethics Division. “We expect the major impact to be experienced by individuals who are preparing financial statements for attest clients. Their systems and processes may need to be modified so that they can be in compliance. We will be providing additional documents to explain this further,” she said.

Requirements for Compilation Services
The ARSC has extended its deadline for comment on proposed revisions to Statements on Standards for Accounting and Review Services (SSARS) to November 30, 2012. The proposed revised SSARS are AR section 70, Association with Unaudited Financial Statements, and AR section 80, Compilation of Financial Statements (Revised).

Existing SSARS require the accountant to perform a compilation engagement whenever the accountant prepares and presents financial statements to a client or third parties. Proposed revisions to SSARS would remove the preparation of financial statements from the attest function, the exposure draft says.

The AICPA stated in its announcement that the proposed SSARS would also “revise the objective of the compilation engagement and provide requirements and guidance when an accountant is associated with financial statements that were not subjected to a compilation, review, or audit engagement.”

The Exposure Draft, Association with Unaudited Financial Statements, includes the following requirements if an accountant is requested to be associated with unaudited financial statements.

The accountant should:

  • Read the unaudited financial statements.
  • Consider whether the unaudited financial statements appear free from material inconsistencies with other knowledge or information of which the accountant may be aware.
  • If after performing the procedures in paragraphs 6a and 6b, the accountant decides to permit the use of the accountant’s name in a report, document, or written communication containing the statements, the accountant should request that the entity clearly indicate that the financial statements were not compiled, reviewed, or audited.

The proposed SSARS also addresses the accountant’s responsibilities when engaged to compile financial statements. The proposed revisions state that the objectives of a compilation engagement provide definitions and enumerate specific requirements that apply to compilation engagements.

The ARSC stated in its exposure draft that it “is supportive of proposed revisions of Interpretation 101-3 because it is in harmony with how the 2011 edition of Government Auditing Standards (the Yellow Book) treats the preparation of financial statements. The proposed clarification would also be consistent with the views of many practitioners who believe that the preparation of financial statements is a responsibility of management and an essential part of an entity’s system of internal control.”

ABS Seeks Feedback Specific to Auditor’s Reports

August 28th, 2012

An Invitation to Comment: Improving the Auditor’s Report (ITC) was released June 22 by the International Auditing and Assurance Standards Board (IAASB), seeking input on potential changes to improve the information provided in the auditor’s report on financial statements.

In response, the AICPA’s Auditing Standards Board (ASB) is asking members to complete a survey – AICPA Auditing Standards Board – Improving the Auditor’s Report – to help inform the ASB’s response to the ITC. The survey will be open through September 10, 2012, and can be accessed on the ASB website.

The ASB has stated it “recognizes that the clarified standards will become effective within the next few months, including the revised standards for auditor reporting. However, in view of the ASB’s commitment to converge its standards with those of the IAASB, the ASB is very interested in the direction the IAASB is moving related to this topic and the likelihood of changes to the standard audit opinion that the IAASB may propose.”

The proposed improvements to the auditor’s report that are included in the ITC would be “required for all entities, except for the proposed inclusion of auditor commentary which would only be required to be included by public interest entities (PIEs),” according to the ASB.

The IAASB’s ITC suggests the following changes to auditor reporting:
Additional information in the auditor’s report to highlight matters that, in the auditor’s judgment, are likely to be most important to users’ understanding of the audited financial statements or the audit, referred to as “Auditor Commentary.” This information would be required for PIEs – which includes, at a minimum, listed entities – and could be provided at the discretion of the auditor for other entities.

Auditor conclusion on the appropriateness of management’s use of the going concern assumption in preparing the financial statements and an explicit statement as to whether material uncertainties in relation to going concern have been identified.

Auditor statement as to whether any material inconsistencies between the audited financial statements and other information have been identified based on the auditor’s reading of other information, and specific identification of the information considered by the auditor.

Prominent placement of the auditor’s opinion and other entity-specific information in the auditor’s report.

Through the survey, the ASB is seeking feedback on the ITC’s questions for respondents on pages thirteen through fifteen. The survey also includes questions regarding the topics covered in the ITC to solicit US-specific feedback.

Depending on the amount of detail survey participants wish to share with the ASB, the survey should take ten to forty minutes. Before completing the survey, the ASB recommends that participants review the ITC.

Full Article: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/abs-seeks-feedback-specific-auditors-reports/219773

FASB Proposes Changes to Presentation of Reclassified Income

August 21st, 2012

The Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) has issued for public comment a proposed Accounting Standards Update (ASU) that is intended to improve the presentation of reclassifications out of accumulated other comprehensive income. The proposed amendments balance the benefits to users of financial statements without imposing significant additional costs to preparers, according to FASB’s In Focus documents. The proposed update would apply to all public and private organizations that issue financial statements in conformity with US GAAP and that report other comprehensive income.

The ASU Comprehensive Income (Topic 220), Presentation of Items Reclassified Out of Accumulated Other Comprehensive Income, would require a tabular disclosure of the effect of items reclassified, which presents, in one place, information about the amounts reclassified and a road map to related financial disclosures. This information is currently presented throughout the financial statements under US GAAP.

Other comprehensive income includes gains and losses that are initially excluded from net income for an accounting period. Those gains and losses are later reclassified out of accumulated other comprehensive income into net income.

Some items of other comprehensive income that are reclassified after a reporting period, and which FASB uses in its presentation examples, include cash flow hedges, unrealized gains and losses on available-for-sale securities, and foreign currency translation adjustments. US GAAP disclosure requirements already require this information to be disclosed, the Exposure Draft (ED) of the amendments states.

The ED provides examples of tabular formats and addresses the needs of life insurers. It also refers to US GAAP requirements for defined benefit pension costs.

“Stakeholders raised concerns that certain requirements about the reclassification of items out of accumulated other comprehensive income would be costly for preparers and add unnecessary complexity to financial statements,” said FASB Chairman Leslie F. Seidman. “Based on this new feedback, the Board is proposing a revised approach that will present information about other comprehensive information in a useful way that is more cost-effective.”

No decision has been made regarding an effective date. Stakeholders are asked to provide their written comments on the proposed ASU by October 15, 2012.

Full article: http://www.accountingweb.com/article/fasb-proposes-changes-presentation-reclassified-income/219733

343,020 Reasons CPAs Should Talk Up Their Tax Expertise Now

August 14th, 2012

Nearly three years ago, the IRS launched the tax return preparer oversight program and seeds were planted in the landscape of tax return preparation services. Today, those seeds are starting to sprout.

In June, the IRS estimated there are 717,161 PTIN holders, many of which (212,975, or 29.7%) are CPAs, outnumbering Enrolled Agents (42,895) and attorneys (31,189) combined. While CPAs have dominated the regulated tax preparation arena, that landscape is about to change. More and more people are completing the final step to becoming a Registered Tax Return Preparer, or RTRP (they have until 12/31/13 to pass the competency exam). Currently, there are 4,893 RTRPs. That leaves an estimated 338,127 “provisional preparers” who may join the RTRP ranks.

That means more competition is coming and it will influence the public perception of tax return preparers. Unfortunately, the public doesn’t really understand the difference between a CPA and other tax return preparers. We have all seen the advertisements by the big box tax preparation and software chains that inflate the qualifications of their employees. They often compare them to CPAs or perhaps they feature a CPA in the ad, implying that every customer representative will have similar qualifications.

Some believe that RTRPs will leverage their new designation as some form of implied association with or endorsement by the IRS, thus giving them an advantage in the marketplace. While the IRS has put in restrictions on advertising that leverage the RTRP designation (thanks to AICPA advocacy), they cannot possibly enforce them completely. And they can’t police informal or non-commercial promotions. If CPAs wait to counter such marketing efforts, they may find themselves in the same position as a political candidate trying to counteract a negative ad: while the ad may be false, it is hard to change someone’s mind after the fact.

That’s why it is important for CPAs to start telling their stories better, more often and everywhere they can think of. And they need to start now. Clients need to hear messages about the value of a CPA directly from their CPA. They also need to understand how they are more than just a tax return, that their CPA is available year-round and can help them plan for life’s significant milestones such as buying a house, planning for retirement, saving for college and much, much more. If we don’t start tooting our own value horn louder and longer, who will?

When do you need to start building your new value proposition? Yesterday. And how do you do this? Start by developing a value-centric firm culture, then educating your staff on the importance of value based client communications.

The AICPA has developed the Tax Practitioner Toolkit (available free) to help members better define their value and communicate it to current and prospective clients. A Toolkit Implementation Checklist is included, so you can get started right away.

Once your firm masters its story so it is infused in every client contact, networking presentation, or prospective client meeting, it will become part of who you are and what your firm represents for its clients. Once you know your value and live it every day, clients will never have to guess. They’ll automatically know that their CPA is the premier provider of tax services and they would never trust their finances to anyone else.