Skip to Main Content

insightsarticles

Back to the future: Business activity taxes!

06.21.19

Proposed House bill brings state income tax standards to the digital age

On June 3, 2019, the US House of Representatives introduced H.R. 3063, also known as the Business Activity Tax Simplification Act of 2019, which seeks to modernize tax laws for the sale of personal property, and clarify physical presence standards for state income tax nexus as it applies to services and intangible goods. But before we can catch up on today, we need to go back in time—great Scott!

Fly your DeLorean back 60 years (you’ve got one, right?) and you’ll arrive at the signing of Public Law 86-272: the Interstate Income Act of 1959. Established in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling on Northwestern States Portland Cement Co. v. Minnesota, P.L. 86-272 allows a business to enter a state, or send representatives, for the purposes of soliciting orders for the sale of tangible personal property without being subject to a net income tax.

But now, in 2019, personal property is increasingly intangible—eBooks, computer software, electronic data and research, digital music, movies, and games, and the list goes on. To catch up, H.R. 3063 seeks to expand on 86-272’s protection and adds “all other forms of property, services, and other transactions” to that exemption. It also redefines business activities of independent contractors to include transactions for all forms of property, as well as events and gathering of information.

Under the proposed bill, taxpayers meet the standards for physical presence in a taxing jurisdiction, if they:

  1.  Are an individual physically located in or have employees located in a given state; 
  2. Use the services of an agent to establish or maintain a market in a given state, provided such agent does not perform the same services in the same state for any other person or taxpayer during the taxable year; or
  3. Lease or own tangible personal property or real property in a given state.

The proposed bill excludes a taxpayer from the above criteria who have presence in a state for less than 15 days, or whose presence is established in order to conduct “limited or transient business activity.”

In addition, H.R. 3063 also expands the definition of “net income tax” to include “other business activity taxes”. This would provide protection from tax in states such as Texas, Ohio and others that impose an alternate method of taxing the profits of businesses.

H.R. 3063, a measure that would only apply to state income and business activity tax, is in direct contrast to the recent overturn of Quill Corp. v. North Dakota, a sales and use tax standard. Quill required a physical presence but was overturned by the decision in South Dakota v. Wayfair, Inc. Since the Wayfair decision, dozens of states have passed legislation to impose their sales tax regime on out of state taxpayers without a physical presence in the state.

If enacted, the changes made via H.R. 3063 would apply to taxable periods beginning on or after January 1, 2020. For more information: https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-bill/3063/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hr3063%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=2
 

Topics: tax

Related Professionals

Principals

  • Michel Caouette
    Principal
    Construction, Family Office, Telecom-munications
    T 207.541.2254

Read this if you are a New Hampshire resident, or a business owner or manager with telecommuting employees (due to the COVID-19 pandemic).

In late January, the Supreme Court asked the Biden Administration for its views on a not-so-friendly neighborly dispute between the State of New Hampshire and the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. New Hampshire is famous amongst its neighboring states for its lack of sales tax and personal income tax. Because of the tax rules and other alluring features, thousands of employees commute daily from New Hampshire to Massachusetts. Overnight, like so many of us, those commuters were working at home and not crossing state boundaries.

As a result of the pandemic and stay-at-home orders, Massachusetts issued temporary and early guidance, directing employers to maintain the status quo. Keep withholding on your employees in the same manner that you were, even though they may not be physically coming into the state. New Hampshire was against this directive from day one and sought to sue Massachusetts over its COVID-19 telecommuting rules for employees who had previously been sitting in an office in the Bay State. The final nail in the coffin was an extension of the guidance in October. 

New Hampshire’s position
New Hampshire took particular issue because it does not impose an Individual Income Tax on wages and it believed that the temporary regulations issued by the Commonwealth overstepped or disregarded New Hampshire’s sovereignty—in violation of the both the Commerce and Due Process Clauses of the U.S. Constitution. Each clause has historically prohibited a state from taxing outside its borders and limits tax on non-residents. For Massachusetts employers to continue withholding on New Hampshire residents' wage earnings, New Hampshire argues, Massachusetts is imposing a tax within New Hampshire, contrary to the Constitution.

What makes the New Hampshire situation unique is that it does not impose an income tax on individuals, a “defining feature of its sovereignty”, the state argues. New Hampshire would say that its tax regime creates a competitive advantage in attracting new business and residents. Maine residents, subject to the same Massachusetts rules, would receive a corresponding tax credit on their Maine tax return, making them close to whole between the two states. Because there is no New Hampshire individual income tax, their residents are out of pocket for a tax that they wouldn’t be subject to, but for these regulations.

Massachusetts’ position
Massachusetts' intention behind the temporary regulations was to maintain pre-pandemic “status quo” to avoid uncertainty for employees and additional compliance burden on employers. This would ensure employers would not be responsible for determining when an employee was working, for example, at their Lake Winnipesaukee camp for a few weeks, or their relative’s home in Rhode Island. 

Additionally, states like New York and Connecticut have long had “convenience of the employer” laws on the books which imposed New York tax on telecommuting non-residents. Additionally, Massachusetts provided that a parallel treatment will be given to resident employees with income tax liabilities in other states who have adopted similar sourcing rules, i.e., a Massachusetts resident working for a Maine employer.

Other voices
The US Supreme Court requested a brief from the Biden administration. Additionally, many states wrote to the court on behalf of New Hampshire. To demonstrate the impact a decision against New Hampshire could have, New Jersey said that it expects to issue $1.2 Billion in tax credits to its residents because New York declined to loosen their strict telecommuting rules. In the final days before the Court recessed, it declined to hear the case brought by the State of New Hampshire against the Commonwealth of Massachusetts. Had the Court decided to move forward with the case, it stood to impact long-standing, pre-pandemic telecommuting rules by New York and others.

What now?
For Massachusetts employers specifically, you should review current withholdings and ensure compliance with the temporary regulations. The state of emergency has been lifted in Massachusetts, and the rules have an end date of September 19, 2021. Employers who haven’t been following the regulations will have a costly tax exposure to correct. 

Massachusetts’ temporary regulations were not unique as dozens of states issued temporary regulations asserting a “status quo” regime for those employees who would normally be commuting outside their home state. Unwinding from the pandemic is going to be a long road, and for all employers, it’s important that you review the rules in each state of operation and confirm that the proper withholding is made.

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact the state and local tax consulting team. We’re here to help.

Article
New Hampshire v. Massachusetts: Sovereignty or status quo?

Read this if you are a construction company.

I am pleased to introduce 2020 Tax Planning Opportunities: CARES Act, published in conjunction with CICPAC (Construction Industry CPAs-Consultants Association) by a national group of tax professionals focused on the construction industry. BerryDunn is proud to be one of CICPAC’s 65 member firms across the US, and one of only two in New England.

Within the document you’ll find an abundance of useful insights on the following topics and more related to the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act:

  • Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) loans
  • Net operating losses and excess business loss limitations
  • Qualified Improvement Property (QIP)
  • Payroll cash flow opportunities and employer tax credits

Every business has been impacted by COVID-19 in some form. The CARES Act offers opportunities galore for virtually every business. Now, perhaps more than ever, it’s time to work closely with your BerryDunn tax professional to ensure recovery through this difficult time. 

Read the entire document

Article
2020 tax planning opportunities: CARES Act whitepaper available now

Read this if you are a business with employees working in states other than their primary work location.

The COVID-19 pandemic has forced many of us to leave our offices to work remotely. For many businesses, that means having employees working from home in another state. As telecommuting become much more prevalent, due to both the pandemic and technological advances, state income tax implications have come to the forefront for businesses that now have a remote workforce and employees that may be working in a state other than their primary work location. 

Bipartisan legislation known as the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act of 2020 (S.3995) was introduced in the US Senate on June 18, 2020 to address the state and local tax implications of a temporary or permanent remote workforce. The legislation addresses both income tax nexus for business owners and employer-employee payroll tax responsibilities for a remote workforce. Here are some highlights:

Business income tax responsibility

The legislation would provide a temporary income tax nexus exception for businesses with remote employees in other states due to COVID-19. The exception would relieve companies from having nexus for a covered period, provided they have no other economic connection to the state in question. The covered period begins the date employees began working remotely and ends on either December 31, 2020 or the date on which the employer allows 90% of its permanent workforce to return to their primary work location, whichever date comes first.

The temporary tax nexus exception is welcome news for many business owners and employers, as a recent survey by Bloomberg indicated that three dozen states would normally consider a remote employee as a nexus trigger. Additional nexus would certainly add further income tax compliance requirements and potentially additional tax liabilities, complications that no businesses need in this already challenging environment.

Employee and employer tax responsibility

The tax implications for telecommuting vary wildly from state to state and most have not addressed how current laws would be adjusted or enforced due to the current environment. For example, New York implements a “convenience of the employer” rule. So if an out-of-state business has an employee working from home in New York, whether or not those wages are subject to New York state income tax depends on the purpose for the telecommuting arrangement. 

New York’s policy is problematic in the current environment. Arguments could be made that the employee is working for home at their convenience, at the employer’s convenience, or due to a government mandate. It is unclear which circumstance would prevail and as of this writing, New York has not addressed how this rule would apply.

If enacted, the Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would restrict a state’s authority to tax wage income earned by employees for performing duties in other states. The legislation would create a 90-day threshold for determining nonresident income tax liability for calendar year 2020, enhancing a bill in the House which proposes a 30-day threshold.

The 90-day threshold applies specifically to instances where the employee work arrangement is different due to the COVID-19 pandemic. For future years, the bill would put in place a standardized 30-day bright-line test, making it easier for employees to know when they are liable for non-resident state income taxes and for employers to know which states they need to withhold payroll taxes. 

What do you need to do?

With or without legislation, the year-end income tax filings and information gathering will be very different for tax year 2020. It’s more important than ever for business owners to have proper record keeping on where their employees are working on a day-to-day basis. This information is crucial in determining potential tax exposure and identifying a strategy to mitigate it. The Remote and Mobile Worker Relief Act would provide needed guidance and restore some sense of tax compliance normalcy.

If you would like more information, or have a question about your specific situation, please contact your BerryDunn tax consultant. We’re here to help.
 

Article
The remote worker during COVID-19: Tax nexus and the new normal

Editor’s note: read this if you are a Maine business owner or officer.

New state law aligns with federal rules for partnership audits

On June 18, 2019, the State of Maine enacted Legislative Document 1819, House Paper 1296, An Act to Harmonize State Income Tax Law and the Centralized Partnership Audit Rules of the Federal Internal Revenue Code of 1986

Just like it says, LD 1819 harmonizes Maine with updated federal rules for partnership audits by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself. It also establishes new rules for who can—and can’t—represent a partnership in audit proceedings, and what that representative’s powers are.

Classic tunes—The Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982

Until recently, the Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1982 (TEFRA) set federal standards for IRS audits of partnerships and those entities treated as partnerships for income tax purposes (LLCs, etc.). Those rules changed, however, following passage of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2015 (BBA) and the Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015 (PATH Act). Changes made by the BBA and PATH Act included:

  • Replacing the Tax Matters Partner (TMP) with a Partnership Representative (PR);
  • Generally establishing the partnership, and not individual partners, as liable for any imputed underpayment resulting from an audit, meaning current partners can be held responsible for the tax liabilities of past partners; and
  • Imputing tax on the net audit adjustments at the highest individual or corporate tax rates.

Unlike TEFRA, the BBA and PATH Act granted Partnership Representatives sole authority to act on behalf of a partnership for a given tax year. Individual partners, who previously held limited notification and participation rights, were now bound by their PR’s actions.

Fresh beats—new tax liability laws under LD 1819

LD 1819 echoes key provisions of the BBA and PATH Act by shifting state tax liability from individual partners to the partnership itself and replacing the Tax Matters Partner with a Partnership Representative.

Eligibility requirements for PRs are also less than those for TMPs. PRs need only demonstrate “substantial presence in the US” and don’t need to be a partner in the partnership, e.g., a CFO or other person involved in the business. Additionally, partnerships may have different PRs at the federal and state level, provided they establish reasonable qualifications and procedures for designating someone other than the partnership’s federal-level PR to be its state-level PR.

LD 1819 applies to Maine partnerships for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2018. Any additional tax, penalties, and/or interest arising from audit are due no later than 180 days after the IRS’ final determination date, though some partnerships may be eligible for a 60-day extension. In addition, LD 1819 requires Maine partnerships to file a completed federal adjustments report.

Partnerships should review their partnership agreements in light of these changes to ensure the goals of the partnership and the individual partners are reflected in the case of an audit. 

Remix―Significant changes coming to the Maine Capital Investment Credit 

Passage of LD 1671 on July 2, 2019 will usher in a significant change to the Maine Capital Investment Credit, a popular credit which allows businesses to claim a tax credit for qualifying depreciable assets placed in service in Maine on which federal bonus depreciation is claimed on the taxpayer's federal income tax return. 

Effective for tax years beginning on or after January 1, 2020, the credit is reduced to a rate of 1.2%. This is a significant reduction in the current credit percentages, which are 9% and 7% for corporate and all other taxpayers, respectively. The change intends to provide fairness to companies conducting business in-state over out-of-state counterparts. Taxpayers continue to have the option to waive the credit and claim depreciation recapture in a future year for the portion of accelerated federal bonus depreciation disallowed by Maine in the year the asset is placed in service. 

As a result of this meaningful reduction in the credit, taxpayers who have historically claimed the credit will want to discuss with their tax advisors whether it makes sense to continue claiming the credit for 2020 and beyond.
 

Article
Maine tax law changes: Music to the ears, or not so much?

Read this if you are interested in learning about ESG. 

Although tax credits as subsidies have been a cornerstone catalyst for advancing many environmental, social, and governance (ESG) policies and technologies over the last several years, tax is often forgotten or minimized in the process of creating and implementing corporate ESG and value creation strategies. Ignoring the symbiotic relationship between tax and ESG is a losing strategy, given increased awareness of the importance of tax transparency among shareholders and other stakeholders as a mechanism for holding companies accountable to their stated ESG commitments. A rise in media and rating agency reports on the topic indicate tax will continue to be under scrutiny in the future and may increasingly have significant corporate reputational impacts as well.

As leaders of an organization’s tax function, including as vice presidents of tax, tax directors, or CFOs among others, you are the stewards charged with ensuring tax strategy and operations appropriately intersect with the corporate ESG vision and meaningfully advance ESG commitments. However, the 2022 BDO Tax Outlook Survey found that while an overwhelming majority of senior tax executives expressed an understanding of the value of ESG, three quarters of those responsible for tax were not currently involved in the organization’s ESG strategy. The findings indicate that tax leaders will need to insert the tax function into the ESG planning and execution process and take ownership of tax’s role in ESG. Insights from the survey outline how tax fits into ESG, the core principles of an ESG-focused tax strategy and key considerations for transparent reporting.

How does tax overlap with ESG?

Because there is some misunderstanding about how tax relates to environmental, social, and governance issues, there is a high probability that tax may not be incorporated in responsible business strategy and planning. While not reflected in the ESG acronym, there is an element of tax that is central to each of these principles. For example, environmental behavioral taxes and incentives, such as carbon taxes on greenhouse gas emissions and tax incentives for green energy adoption, are crucial to driving behavior change toward more sustainable practices in the near term while many impacts of climate change are still experienced in indirect ways. In terms of the social element, taxes are a key mechanism for companies to contribute to the societies in which they operate and to build trust among members of the public as a responsible corporate actor. Finally, proper tax governance can ensure that there is appropriate oversight over an organization’s tax strategy and decisions, ensuring they align with overarching business objectives and stakeholder communications around tax reporting.

Using the tax ESG cipher to unlock a successful ESG-driven tax strategy

Aligning the tax function with an overarching ESG strategy across the business is a heavy lift. To build and implement a responsible tax program will take time and requires careful consideration of an organization’s overall approach to tax, tax governance and total tax contribution. Each company will have a unique tax strategy based on its business and stakeholder considerations and may be at varying points along its responsible tax journey. Whether you are just beginning or at the stage of reassessing your approach based on changing market conditions, updates to your ESG strategy, or regulations, the cypher below can be used to guide these critical considerations and help ensure tax is meaningfully incorporated in ESG strategy. The process should be iterative over time and when implemented successfully, will drive improved decision-making on risk mitigation, strengthen risk awareness and increase transparency and accountability.

Core principle one: Approach to tax

The first step to meaningfully incorporating tax in ESG strategy is understanding and articulating the purpose and values that guide the tax function. This process includes defining the organization’s approach to regulatory compliance and the interaction with tax authorities. Writing a tax policy and strategy is an important way to articulate the company’s tax priorities and educate all team members across the organization about the function’s principles. The statement may include commitments to communicate transparently with regulators and disclose more information than required by law in some cases, for example.

As the organization evolves due to changes in the industry, overall ESG commitments and sustainability strategies, the tax strategy statement should be updated accordingly. Regulatory changes will also necessitate continuous assessment and consideration of whether the strategy meets the current understandings of transparency, risk mitigation and accountability based on new information. Through this set of guiding principles, the tax function can help improve decision-making and reporting actions to align with changes in the broader corporate ESG strategy, purpose, and values. 

Core principle two: Tax governance and risk management

Establishing a robust governance, control, and risk management framework provides comfort and assurance that the reported approach to tax and tax strategy is well embedded in an organization’s substantiable business strategy and that there are mechanisms in place to effectively monitor its compliance obligations.

However, it’s important to remember that tax governance and risk management have broad considerations that go beyond the traditional frameworks governing internal controls over financial reporting (ICFR). A common pitfall for many is a narrow focus on governance strategies. Generally, ICFR focuses on accurate and complete reporting in financial statements. While this is an important area of governance, it does not account for or represent the many objectives included in a tax ESG control framework, which is typically broader as it focuses on how and why decisions regarding tax approaches and positions are made.

The objective of this core principle is to demonstrate to stakeholders how the organization’s tax governance, control and risk management function are in alignment with the values and principles outlined in the Approach to Tax statement. This can include establishing a risk advisory council, guidelines for including tax in ESG reporting deliverables and any corresponding regulatory requirements, and communications to relevant stakeholders on executive oversight activities related to the tax strategy.  

However, many organizations have not taken the time to document and define their risk mitigation and executive oversight strategy. Often this is left merely to control procedures that are mechanical and regulatory in nature. Instead, a tax governance and risk management strategy should aim to establish a framework focused on strengthening risk awareness and transparently communicating governance activities to both internal and external audiences when appropriate.

Core principle three: Total tax contribution

While quantifying and providing necessary qualitative context around an organization’s total tax contribution is not an easy task, today, stakeholders from employees and customers to investors and regulators expect transparency around tax strategies, tax-related risks, total tax contribution and country-by-country activities. Recently, tax has received increased scrutiny from these stakeholders because it is a core component of many ESG metrics used to evaluate a business’s tax behaviors and ensure there is accountability across its tax practices. The result is that how a company shares tax information with stakeholders and what it includes in reports has a significant impact on reputation and perceptions of corporate ESG statements.

However, the increased demand for tax transparency is not without its challenges. Nearly two-thirds of respondents in the 2022 BDO Tax Outlook Survey (62%) said data collection and analysis (the quantitative component of ESG-focused tax) is the greatest challenge of tax transparency reporting efforts, pointing to an underlying issue of tax data governance and fragmented systems. Often this is an area where tax leaders require outside assistance to establish automated processes that can collect tax data on a periodic basis for regular analysis. The importance of ESG and attention around the topic will only continue to increase over the next several years, so it is critical to begin thinking about adequate data collection and analytic capabilities for tax leaders looking to incorporate tax in ESG practices and strategy. For those just beginning the process, our advice is to partner with in-house IT functions or external consultants for assistance and support.

Collecting relevant tax data on a regular basis is a critical early step because it affords tax leaders the opportunity to determine which information will be disclosed to various stakeholders and which information can help shape and support broader ESG narratives being developed by corporate leadership. While determining data collection processes, it is also important to consider and seek counsel on communication and information delivery strategies that will best reach and address the concerns of priority stakeholder groups.   

Although this task can be a heavy lift, it may also result in significant business advantages. A key benefit is that the data and information gathered will help tax leaders further define and evolve ESG-driven tax strategies through tax monetization structures and company core value items, among others. Ultimately, organizations that better understand their total tax contribution across various taxing jurisdictions and country-by-country activities are best equipped to make data-driven tax strategy decisions that are aligned with broader ESG and sustainability objectives, while also avoiding value creation hinderances. 

Key reporting considerations

Once the quantitative data have been collected, the next step is to consider how you report the information. Communicating the numbers themselves is not enough. Communicating the narrative behind the numbers – the qualitative component of reporting – is extremely important. The narrative should always aim to communicate the company’s approach to tax, values guiding decision-making and the impact of the tax strategy to key stakeholders in a straightforward and transparent manner. However, qualitative reporting can vary by organization depending on several factors, from choice of standards to company philosophy.

The 2022 BDO Tax Outlook Survey also found that challenges and variance in tax transparency reporting are driven by a lack of universal reporting standards and clarity around which ESG frameworks to follow. In the meantime, the best reporting framework for any company is one that drives a deep understanding of the organization’s ESG philosophy and vision, which may require more investment in terms of time and effort. When determining a reporting approach, it is important to consider the goal of the report or disclosure and which data best demonstrate ESG progress and strategy. Because the ESG-related tax reporting is not a mandated process and is currently a voluntary disclosure in the U.S., it can often be helpful to review tax reports related to ESG from other companies already making these disclosures as a baseline.

Keep in mind that one of the main reasons businesses are electing to publish comprehensive ESG and Sustainability Tax Reports and Global Tax Footprints is to articulate their broader total tax contribution to ensure that the tax narrative speaks to the needs and demands of their stakeholders. Each report must be unique and relevant to the company in terms of content and method of disclosure.

Currently, there is a relatively small number of companies electing to make such disclosures, based on the findings of the 2022 BDO Tax Outlook Survey outlined below. Of the 150 senior tax executives polled, less than a quarter (23%) are implementing both qualitative and quantitative disclosures:

Tax transparency reporting disclosures

Today, tax is an essential component of the ESG metrics that determine how stakeholders perceive an organization. Despite this fact, the movement to incorporate tax in ESG planning and strategies is still in its infancy. This means leaders of tax functions still have time to begin the process of implementing ESG-driven tax strategies and operations to ensure the function evolves with the importance of ESG. While there is no simple one-size-fits-all solution, given the nuances and complications of the tax function for each organization, the general framework in the Tax ESG Cipher can help guide tax leaders at any point on the journey. The cipher outlines key considerations to ensure an organization’s ESG vision is well-structured and appropriately includes tax strategies. While the process requires long-term effort and dedication, it generates high returns in terms of accountability, transparency, and reputational and sustainable value.

As ESG takes center stage in a rapidly changing business landscape, how is your organization advancing toward true sustainability?

Written by Daniel Fuller and Jonathon Geisen. Copyright © 2022 BDO USA, LLP. All rights reserved. www.bdo.com  

Article
Navigating the intersection of tax and ESG

Read this if you file taxes with the IRS for yourself or other individuals.

To protect yourself from identity thieves filing fraudulent tax returns in your name, the IRS recommends using Identity Protection PINs. Available to anyone who can verify their identity online, by phone, or in person, these PINs provide extra security against tax fraud related to stolen social security numbers of Tax ID numbers.

According to the Security Summit—a group of experts from the IRS, state tax agencies, and the US tax industry—the IP PIN is the number one security tool currently available to taxpayers from the IRS.

The simplest way to obtain a PIN is on the IRS website’s Get an IP PIN page. There, you can create an account or log in to your existing IRS account and verify your identity by uploading an identity document such as a driver’s license, state ID, or passport. Then, you must take a “selfie” with your phone or your computer’s webcam as the final step in the verification process.

Important things to know about the IRS IP PIN:

  • You must set up the IP PIN yourself; your tax professional cannot set one up on your behalf.
  • Once set up, you should only share the PIN with your trusted tax prep provider.
  • The IP PIN is valid for one calendar year; you must obtain a new IP PIN each year.
  • The IRS will never call, email or text a request for the IP PIN.
  • The 6-digit IP PIN should be entered onto your electronic tax return when prompted by the software product or onto a paper return next to the signature line.

If you cannot verify your identity online, you have options:

  • Taxpayers with an income of $72,000 or less who are unable to verify their identity online can obtain an IP PIN for the next filing season by filing Form 15227. The IRS will validate the taxpayer’s identity through a phone call.
  • Those with an income more than $72,000, or any taxpayer who cannot verify their identity online or by phone, can make an appointment at a Taxpayer Assistance Center and bring a photo ID and an additional identity document to validate their identity. They’ll then receive the IP PIN by US mail within three weeks.
  • For more information about IRS Identity Protection PINs and to get your IP PIN online, visit the IRS website.

If you have questions about your specific situation, please contact our Tax Consulting and Compliance team. We’re here to help.

Article
The IRS Identity Protection PIN: What is it and why do you need one?

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has issued the final rule for FY 2023 SNF PPS which was published in the Federal Register on August 3, 2022. The rule:

  • Updates the PPS rates for SNFs for FY 2023 using the market basket update and budget neutrality factors effective October 1, 2022;
  • Recalibrates the Patient Driven Payment Model (PDPM) parity adjustment;
  • Establishes a permanent 5% cap on annual wage index decreases;
  • Finalizes proposed changes in PDPM International Classification of Diseases, Version 10 (ICD-10) code mappings;
  • Updates the SNF Quality Reporting Program (SNF QRP); and
  • Updates the SNF Value-Based Purchasing (SNF VBP) Program.

2023 PPS rate calculations

The final rule provides a net market basket increase for SNFs of 5.1 percent beginning October 1, 2022 which reflects:

  • An unadjusted market basket increase of 3.9 percent adjusted upward by 1.5 percent associated with a forecast error adjustment;
  • A reduction of 0.3 percentage points in accordance with the multifactor productivity adjustment required by Section 3401(b) of the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

In addition, as discussed in the Recalibration of the PDPM parity adjustment section below, the net market basket increase of 5.1 percent is further reduced by 2.3 percent related to accounting for year one of a two-year PDPM parity adjustment phase-in.

CMS projects an overall increase in Medicare Part A SNF payments of approximately 2.7 percent or $904 million in FY 2023 related to the payment rate updates. The final rule also estimates an increase in costs to SNFs of $31 million related to the FY 2023 SNF QRP changes and an estimated reduction of $186 million in aggregate payments to SNFs during FY 2023 as a result of the changes to the SNF VBP program.

The projected overall impact to providers in urban and rural areas is an average increase of 2.7% and 2.5%, respectively, with a low of 1.4% for urban outlying providers and a high of 3.6% for urban Pacific providers―actual impact will vary. 

The applicable wage index continues to be based on the hospital wage data, unadjusted for occupational mix, rural floor, or outmigration adjustment (from FY 2019) in the absence of SNF specific data.

Recalibration of the PDPM parity adjustment

When CMS finalized PDPM in October 2019 it also finalized that this new case-mix classification model would be implemented in a budget neutral manner. However, since PDPM implementation, CMS has closely monitored SNF utilization data which has indicated an unintended increase in payments to providers. In order to achieve budget neutrality under PDPM, CMS is finalizing their proposal to recalibrate the PDPM parity adjustment using a factor of 4.6 percent (an impact of $1.5 billion) using the combined methodology of a subset population that excludes patients whose stay utilized a coronavirus (COVID-19) public health emergency (PHE)-related waiver or who were diagnosed with COVID-19 and control period data using months with low COVID-19. CMS is finalizing the implementation of the parity adjustment with a two-year phase-in period (2.3 percent applied in FY 2023, and 2.3 percent in FY 2024), which means that, for each of the PDPM case-mix adjusted components, CMS will lower the PDPM parity adjustment factor from 46 percent to 42 percent in FY 2023 and would further lower the PDPM parity adjustment factor from 42 percent to 38 percent in FY 2024. CMS applied the parity adjustment equally across all components.

Permanent cap on wage index decreases

To mitigate instability in SNF PPS payments due to significant wage index decreases that may affect providers in any given year, CMS is finalizing a permanent 5% cap on annual wage index decreases to smooth year-to-year changes in providers’ wage index payments.

Changes in PDPM ICD-10 code mappings

Beginning with the updates for FY 2020 nonsubstantive changes to the ICD-10 codes included on the PDPM code mappings and lists are applied through a subregulatory process consisting of posting updated code mappings and lists on the PDPM website. Substantive changes will be proposed through notice and comment rulemaking. The final rule finalized several proposed changes to the PDPM ICD-10 mappings.

SNF QRP update

CMS is finalizing the adoption of a new process measure, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-developed Influenza Vaccination Coverage Among Healthcare Personnel (HCP) (NQF#0431) measure, beginning with the FY 2024 SNF QRP. The measure is intended to increase influenza vaccination coverage in SNFs, promote patient safety, and increase the transparency of quality of care in the SNF setting. Residents of long-term care facilities have greater susceptibility for acquiring influenza. Therefore, monitoring and reporting influenza vaccination rates among HCP is important as HCP are at risk for acquiring influenza from residents and exposing residents to influenza. The measure reports the percentage of HCP who receive an influenza vaccine. SNFs will submit the measure data through the CDC National Healthcare Safety Network.

CMS is also revising the compliance date for certain SNF QRP reporting requirements, including the Transfer of Health Information measures and certain standardized patient assessment data elements to October 1, 2023. This will align the collection of data with the Inpatient Rehabilitation Facilities and Long-Term Care Hospitals and Home Health Agencies.

SNF VBP program

The rule finalizes a proposal to suppress the SNF 30-Day All-Cause Readmission Measure (SNFRM) as part of the performance scoring for the FY 2023 SNF VBP program year due to the combination of fewer admissions to SNFs, regional differences in the prevalence of COVID-19 throughout the PHE and changes in hospitalization patterns in FY 2021 which has impacted the ability to use the SNFRM to calculate payments for the FY 2023 program year. For FY 2023, CMS will assign a performance score of zero to all participating SNFs and will reduce the otherwise applicable adjusted Federal per diem rate for each SNF by 2% and award SNFs 60% of that withhold, resulting in a 1.2% payback. Any SNFs that do not report a minimum of 25 stays for the SNFRM will be excluded from the VBP program for FY 2023.

In addition, Section 111(a)(2) of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 allows the secretary to add up to an additional nine new measures with respect to payments beginning in FY 2023 to the VBP program, which may include measures of functional status, patient safety, care coordination, or patient experience. CMS is using this authority to finalize the adoption of three new measures into the VBP program—two measures in FY 2026 and one measure in FY 2027.

CMS is also finalizing a number of updates to its scoring methodology:

  • Updating the policy for scoring SNFs that do not have sufficient baseline period data beginning with the FY 2026 VBP Program year.
  • Adoption of a measure minimum policy beginning with the FY 2026 SNF VBP program year which will require a two-measure minimum for a SNF to receive a SNF performance score for FY 2026 and a three-measure minimum for FY 2027.
  • Adoption of a case minimum policy for the SNFRM that replaces the Low-Volume Adjustment policy beginning with the FY 2023 program year. 
  • Adoption of a case minimum policy for the SNF HAI, Total Nurse Staffing, and DTS PAC SNF Measures beginning between FY 2026 and FY 2027.

Our experts at BerryDunn have created an interactive rate calculator to assist you with the calculation of your PPS rates for FY 2023. You can access the PPS rate calculator now:

Click to download SNF PPS Rate Calculator

Please note: The rates per our calculator are prior to any FY 2023 VBP adjustment based on the final rule which includes special scoring and payment policies for FY 2023. When CMS releases the final VBP incentive payment multipliers for FY 2023 by facility, we will update the interactive rate calculator as necessary.

If you have any specific questions about the final rule or how it might impact your facility, please contact Ashley Tkowski or Melissa Baez.

Article
Fiscal Year (FY) 2023 Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF) Prospective Payment System (PPS) final rule

Release Date: August 1, 2022
Federal Register Publication Date: Scheduled for August 10, 2022
Effective Date: October 1, 2022 

The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) issued a final rule that updates Medicare payment rates and policies for inpatient hospitals and long-term care hospitals for the fiscal year 2023, as well as other provisions. Following is a summary of the major provisions of this final rule.

IPPS payment rates:

CMS finalized a net increase in FY 2023 Medicare IPPS rates of 4.3% for hospitals that are meaningful users of electronic health records and submit required quality data, up 1.1 percentage points from the 3.2% increase initially proposed. The increase is broken down as follows:

CMS estimates the following impact of the proposed rule on hospital payments, including the impact of reductions to DSH and other payments:


 

LTCH PPS Payment Rates:

CMS finalized a net increase in FY 2023 Medicare LTCH PPS rates of 2.3% for long-term care hospitals, up 1.6 percentage points from the 0.7% increase initially proposed. The payment rate update includes the productivity-adjusted market basket increase of 3.8% for FY 2023 and a projected decrease in high-cost outlier payments. CMS estimates that LTCH PPS payments will increase approximately $71 million as a result of the FY 2023 payment update.

Other major provisions:

  • Rate setting will be based on FY 2021 MedPAR claims data and FY 2020 cost report data, consistent with historical practice, but with modifications to account for the COVID-19 pandemic, including:
    • Calculating MS-DRG relative weights based on the average of two set of weights, one including and one excluding COVID-19 claims
    • Determining outlier fixed-loss amount using charge inflation and Cost to Charge Ratio (CCR) adjustment factors to approximate the increase in costs that will occur from FY 2021 to FY 2023
    • Modifying the outlier fixed-loss amount calculation to factor in certain payment increases for COVID-19
  • 25 technologies are eligible for new technology add-on payments (NTAP) in FY2023, including 8 newly approved technologies, discontinuation of NTAP for those technologies that have been in the market for 3 years, and discontinuation for those technologies that received an extension in FY2022.
  • No new MS-DRGs are established and the implementation of the “three-way split criteria” will be further delayed.
  • Policy modification relating to Medicare Graduate Medical Education (GME) for teaching hospitals that apply for the FTE cap when the Hospital’s weighted FTE count is greater than its FTE cap but would not reduce the weighting factor of residents that are beyond their initial residency period to less than 0.5 for cost reporting periods beginning on or after October 1, 2022.
  • Urban and rural hospitals participating in the same Rural Training Program (RTP) are given the same flexibility as other teaching hospital to share RTP cap slots via an GME affiliation agreement, effective academic year beginning July 1, 2023. 
  • Uncompensated care costs will be distributed based on more than one year of Worksheet S-10 cost report data. Data from the two most recent years of audited data (FY 2018 and FY 2019) will be used to distribute FY 2023 payments and a three-year average would be used for FY 2024 and beyond. 
  • Decreases to a hospital’s wage index from the prior fiscal year will be capped at 5%. This policy will be applied in a budget neutral manner through a national adjustment to the standardized amount.
  • Wage index rural floor will be calculated as it was before FY 2020. Wage data of hospitals that have reclassified from urban to rural will be included in the calculation of the rural floor and wage index for rural areas in the state where the hospital’s county is located. 
  • Expected in Fall 2023, CMS will establish a publicly-reported, public-facing hospital designation on the quality and safety of maternity care for hospitals that report “Yes” to both questions in the Maternal Morbidity Structural Measure in the Hospital Inpatient Quality Reporting (IQR) Program. 
  • CMS finalizes a variety of changes for the Hospital IQR Program, some include:
    • Adopting ten measures and refining two current measures
    • Making changes to the existing Electronic Clinical Quality Measures (eCQM) reporting and submission requirements
    • Removing the zero denominator declaration and case threshold exemptions for hybrid measures
    • Updating eCQM validation requirements for medical record requests
    • Establishing reporting and submission requirements for patient-reported outcome-based performance measures.
  • CMS finalizes a variety of changes to the Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program for eligible Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals (CAHs).
  • CMS will pause or refine certain measures in the Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program (HRRP), Hospital-Acquired Condition (HAC) Reduction Program, and Hospital Value-Based Purchasing (VBP) Program that would be impacted by circumstances caused by the COVID-19 Public Health Emergency.
  • Implement a five-year extension of the Rural Community Hospital and Frontier Community Health Integration project (FCHIP) demonstrations, as authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021.
  • Revise Conditions of Participation (CoP) for Hospitals and CAHs to continue to report COIVD-19 and seasonal influenza data after the conclusion of the COVID-19 PHE and continue until April 30, 2024, unless ended earlier by the Secretary.

Major Proposed Provisions that were NOT finalized:

  • Proposed regulation governing the calculation of the Medicaid fraction of the Medicare disproportionate share hospital (DSH) that would be explicit as to who is “regarded as eligible” for Medicaid. As proposed, it would include only patients who receive health insurance through a Section 1115 demonstration itself, or who purchase such insurance with the use of premium assistance provided by a Section 1115 demonstration that assists with at least 90% of the cost of health insurance. CMS is not moving forward with this proposal currently but expects to revisit it in future rulemaking.
  • CMS has withdrawn its proposal to establish additional data reporting requirements for Hospitals and CAHs during future PHEs related to epidemics and pandemics.

Sources: 
CMS-1771-F Medicare Program; Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment Systems for Acute Care Hospitals and the Long-Term Care Hospital Prospective Payment System and Policy Changes and Fiscal Year 2023 Rates; Quality Programs and Medicare Promoting Interoperability Program Requirements for Eligible Hospitals and Critical Access Hospitals; Costs Incurred for Qualified and Non-qualified Deferred Compensation Plans; and Changes to Hospital and Critical Access Hospital Conditions of Participation

Article
Medicare Final Rule for FY 2023 Hospital Inpatient Prospective Payment System (IPPS) and Long Term Care Hospitals (LTCH PPS)