SEC. 9002. INCLUSION OF COST OF EMPLOYER-SPONSOREDCongratulations, if you have any clue as to what this means. As with the financial reform bill, this act is written in such an opaque manner that only the specialists, who put the paragraphs in, understand why a certain paragraph was put in and its ultimate purpose.
2 HEALTH COVERAGE ON W–2.
3 (a) IN GENERAL.—Section 6051(a) of the Internal
4 Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to receipts for employees)
5 is amended by striking ‘‘and’’ at the end of paragraph (12),
6 by striking the period at the end of paragraph (13) and
7 inserting ‘‘, and’’, and by adding after paragraph (13) the
8 following new paragraph:
9 ‘‘(14) the aggregate cost (determined under rules
10 similar to the rules of section 4980B(f)(4)) of applica11
ble employer-sponsored coverage (as defined in section
12 4980I(d)(1)), except that this paragraph shall not
13 apply to—
14 ‘‘(A) coverage to which paragraphs (11) and
15 (12) apply, or
16 ‘‘(B) the amount of any salary reduction
17 contributions to a flexible spending arrangement
18 (within the meaning of section 125).’’.
19 (b) EFFECTIVE DATE.—The amendments made by this
20 section shall apply to taxable years beginning after Decem21
ber 31, 2010.
Given the above, it's clear that the portion of an employee's health insurance that is paid by the employer will be reported on W2s. It is not as clear that as RedState writes, as quoted in my earlier post, that additional taxes will be required on such for everyone.
Any misinterpretation by RedState can't really be blamed on RedState given the opaque manner in which the regulation is written.
Who really knows why this clause was put in there? It's possible it is for some future excise tax where this information will be used to, indeed, increase some taxes for individuals. Whatever the purpose, whenever additional dollar amounts are added to W2s, it is something to be very nervous about.