While the IRS has reported on repairs regulations before, this is the first time they are issuing them in final form. The IRS reports that the final repair regulations will affect all taxpayers that acquire, produce, or improve tangible property. The final regulations provide a lot of technical information that taxpayers have to comprehend and incorporate into their accounting systems. While this may be tedious and feel overwhelming, the regulations do provide some positive benefits for taxpayers. The Treasury has included some of the comments they received into the final regulations in an attempt to reduce the time required to comply with the new regulations.
New safe harbor for routine maintenance for buildings
The 2011 temporary regulations provided that the costs of performing certain routine maintenance activities for property other than a building or the structural components of a building are not required to be capitalized as an improvement. Due to the comments received by Treasury, the final regulations contain a safe harbor for routine maintenance for buildings.
The final regulations use 10 years as the period of time in which a taxpayer must reasonably expect to perform the relevant activities more than once.
Routine maintenance can be performed any time during the life of the property, provided that the activities qualify as routine under the regulations.
For purposes of determining whether a taxpayer is performing routine maintenance, the final regulations remove the taxpayer’s treatment of the activity on its applicable financial statement from the factors to be considered.
The final regulations clarify the applicability of the routine maintenance safe harbor by adding three items to the list of exceptions from the routine maintenance safe harbor:
Amounts paid for a betterment to a unit of property
Amounts paid to adapt a unit of property to a new or different use
Amounts paid for repairs, maintenance, or improvement of network assets
The good news for taxpayers
The final regulations do not provide a bright line test when determining whether improvements need to be capitalized or expensed. Meaning- the IRS regulations give examples but no hard numbers. While some taxpayers like the subjective nature of the rules; many taxpayers do not want to burn up resources training their staff, or have to battle the IRS regarding expenditures that have to be capitalized upon an examination. The inclusion of a “safe harbor” for repairs and maintenance on buildings should alleviate some of these difficulties when applying the improvement standards for restorations to building structures and systems.
Many taxpayers are turning to experts in the field in an attempt to maximize their tax deductions and reduce the total burden of complying with the regulations. This is where a Cost Segregation Analysis is beneficial. Cost Segregation analyses include a thorough review of the property to accurately depreciate the assets and accelerate tax deductions. They also include an intensive review of all blueprints and site visits to verify the assets and determine the quality of those assets. The professionals performing these analyses have an intimate knowledge of the building and building systems and will provide valuable insight when examining repair and maintenance costs to determine if they must be capitalized or expensed.
CSP360 is a subsidiary of Freed Maxick, CPAs in Buffalo NY. Freed Maxick CPAs is a Top 100 accounting Firm, and one of the nation’s leading providers of Cost Segregation and consulting services. Our philosophy is to offer clients a 360 approach of a taxpayer’s assets; pairing engineering and LEED specialists with accountants for a truly unique tax advisory team. Since 1995, our in house team has provided specialty studies to CPAs in a private label arrangement. Products include Cost Segregation, 179D Energy Studies and 263a Repair and Maintenance Review. CSP360 is Circular 230 compliant and has proven methodologies that are sustainable on IRS examinations.
To learn more about our unique approach click here
Occupational Fraud Within An Organization
The Association of Certified Fraud Examiners estimates that a typical organization loses 5% to 7% of their gross revenues each year due to occupational fraud and abuse. A presentation on Monday, September 23 at The University at Buffalo's Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership will examine the different types of employee theft and fraud, the reasons employees engage in it, tips to prevent theft and fraud in the work place, red flags to help the employer identify it, and lastly what to do if you expect fraud is occurring.
UB Center for Entrepreneurial Leadership
UB Downtown Gateway
77 Goodell Street Classroom 208
Buffalo, NY 14203
Monday, September 23rd, 2013 - 5:30 to 7:30 pm
Shawn M. Frier, CPA, CFE, CMPE is a Director in Freed Maxick’s Enterprise Advisory Services Practice. Prior to joining the Firm, Shawn worked for a “Big 6″ accounting firm in New York City.
Shawn is responsible for the overall planning, supervision and completion of client engagements, audits, reviews, compilations, bookkeeping, and tax returns. He has prepared financial statements in various industry formats including consolidations and has coordinated and reviewed work performed by internal auditors, assisted numerous entities in preparing annual budgets and in tax planning and has prepared audit findings for presentation to management. In addition, Shawn is involved with supervising staff, recruiting, training, and internship programs.
Over the years, Shawn has obtained a wide range of experience with manufacturing, financial institutions, distribution, physician groups, not-for-profit, general services industries and SEC and regulatory accounting matters.
A graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo, Shawn is a member of the Buffalo Chapter of the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. He is President of the New York State Medical Group Management Association, and serves as a speaker for their local and national events. In addition, he serves on the Board of Directors, is the past Treasurer for Autistic Services, Inc, and is the current Assistant Treasurer for Jewish Federation Housing. In 2011, Shawn was named a winner of Buffalo Business First’s Healthcare 50 Award, which recognizes professionals serving the medical profession and their contributions in improving the quality of healthcare in Western New York. In 2006 Shawn was recognized for his business and community leadership by Business First as a “Forty Under 40” award recipient.
Areas of Expertise
Serving manufacturing, general service, and physician groups
SEC and regulatory accounting matters
Strategic and business planning
Conflict identification and resolution
For more fraud related blog posts, check this out!
Fraud Awareness Workshop: NYC Sept. 24-26
The Fraud Awareness Workshop is a three-day program presenting best practices in the prevention and detection of borrower fraud while also recommending fraud prevention procedures for a variety of ABL disciplines. Reinforcing each learning point through numerous case studies, the goal of the program is for participants to understand their roles in mitigating the risk of fraud within their organizations.
Michael A. Boeheim, CIA, CFE is a director in Freed Maxick's Asset Based Lending Practice. Mike joined the Firm in 1995 and has over 30 years of experience in the ABL industry. He is responsible for staff supervision, quality control and developing and maintaining lender relationships.
Mike also has experience in portfolio acquisition due diligence and forensic examination assignments of troubled loans involving fraud. He served as an instructor and developed the fraud programs for the Commercial Finance Association Fraud Awareness Workshop and the European Fraud and Audit Conference, and has been a speaker for a number of organizations on various fraud related topics. Mike's articles have been published in the Secured Lender and the ABF Journal. He has provided Grand Jury testimony and was recognized for outstanding service as an instructor to the Asset Based Financial Services Industry.
A graduate of the State University of New York at Buffalo, Mike is a Certified Internal Auditor and Certified Fraud Examiner.
Jerry Oldham is co-founder, Chairman and CEO of 1stWEST Financial Corporation. Mr. Oldham has an extensive background investigations and corporate due diligence background and a broad senior management resume in commercial banking and corporate and real estate finance. He frequently serves as a consultant or expert witness in litigation and settlement negotiations involving complex corporate finance, real estate, banking and lending practice issues, having assisted in the settlement of hundreds of lawsuits over the years. Additionally, Mr. Oldham often acts as a consulting team leader to manage the overall due-diligence process on investment decisions for 1stWEST clients.
Mr. Oldham received his B.S. Degree in Finance and Real Estate from The Pennsylvania State University and his M.S. Degree in Banking and Finance from Colorado State University. While at Penn State he was President of the College of Business Student Council, and was awarded the Dean's Cup upon graduation. He is recognized for his banking research and publications in the areas of commercial loan pricing and profitability analysis and due-diligence.
Mr. Oldham is a graduate of the American Bankers Association's Undergraduate and Graduate level studies programs and holds the ABA's Certified Commercial Lender designation. Jerry also serves on the Board of Governors of the Education Foundation of the Commercial Finance Association and as a member of its Executive Committee and Education Committee. Mr. Oldham and/or 1stWEST are also members of the Association for Corporate Growth (ACG), the Small Business Investor Alliance (SBIA) and the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources (CUPA-HR).
Doug Bull is the Team Leader, Field Examination Services with JPMorgan Chase. In addition to serving as an instructor for the Commercial Finance Association, he was the primary author of CFA's Field Examiner School. He was named Best Newcomer Lecturer 2006 for the Asset Based Finance Association, UK. Prior to joining Dopkins in 2000, Mr. Bull gained 16 years of experience from public accounting and the private sector with a 10-year concentration in asset-based field examinations, most recently as Vice President, Collateral Examination Manager at HSBC Bank. At HSBC, he supervised an internal staff and coordinated the outsourcing of field examinations to various firms.
The program will meet at:
30 Rockefeller Plaza
New York, NY 10112
Sep 24: 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Sep 25: 8:30 a.m. – 5:00 p.m.
Sep 26: 8:30 a.m. – 1:00 p.m.
Continental breakfast will be served each day beginning at 8:30 a.m. The program will begin at 9:00 a.m. Lunch will also be provided each day.
Program Level: Intermediate
Recommended for: Any staff seeking to minimize their institutions' fraud risk.
Commercial Finance Association is registered with the National Association of State Boards of Accountancy (NASBA) as a sponsor of continuing professional education on the National Registry of CPE Sponsors. State boards of accountancy have final authority on the acceptance of individual courses for CPE credit. Complaints regarding registered sponsors may be submitted to the National Registry of CPE Sponsors through its website: www.learningmarket.org
Career Services: $298
Career Services with Textbook: $325
Member with Textbook: $770
Non-Member with Textbook: $995
As a special offer, you may purchase the industry textbook, Asset-Based Finance - Proven Disciplines For Prudent Lending at the discounted price of $25 (regularly $49.95) for CFA members, and $50 (regularly $79.95) for non-members, if you do so with your registration.
To attend, please check out the EVENT INFO HERE.
Freed Maxick ABL Services is one of the nation’s largest providers of ABL field exam outsourcing services to asset-based lending and other financial institutions that have granted loans, increased credit lines, reduced credit lines, or reduced loan loss exposure.
Read some of our ABL thought leadership on our “Summing it Up” blog.
By: Tim McPoland, CPA Director
In certain types of intellectual property (IP) cases, plaintiffs can recover, or disgorge, the profits the defendant reaped as a result of the infringement. Disgorgement has quietly become a potent and heavily relied upon aspect of SEC enforcement strategy in Federal Securities Law, in recent years. But determining the right amount for those profits can be tricky — especially when it comes to allocating revenues and expenses.
There are options
Instead of pursuing damages based on its own lost profits, plaintiffs in a copyright, trademark or trade secret case can choose to pursue “disgorgement of defendants’ profits.” Disgorgement is a remedy not a punishment. Defendants’ profits quite often outpace plaintiffs’ lost profits, thus making disgorgement an attractive remedy for many businesses.
Patent holders can pursue two options, lost profits or reasonable royalties, but not both. The exception is with design patents. For example, the instance when Apple sought $2 billion for a disgorgement of Samsung’s profits from products that infringed upon Apple design patents.
Federal patent law gives design patent holders the right to recover disgorgement without any apportionment of profits that are based on patented and non-patented features in the infringing product. This often isn’t true with other types of IP.
Shifting the burden
A plaintiff that seeks disgorgement is required only to establish gross sales revenue that’s attributable to the infringement. The burden then shifts to the defendant to prove appropriate profit allocation deductions for any expenses. If the defendant fails in this endeavor, the plaintiff will recover the gross revenue amount. Direct expenses (such as product, marketing and distribution costs) usually are deductible. But different jurisdictions will likely have different rules for other types of expenses.
The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has previously allowed deductions for a portion of a defendant’s general expenses, including federal income taxes and operating expenses, if they’re material to the generation of revenue. Some courts don’t even allow the deduction of overhead — which can be incurred in support of both infringing and non-infringing activities, while other courts allow overhead deductions that can be attributed to the production or sale of an infringing product.
Defendants in these cases generally have the burden of demonstrating the degree to which infringing and non-infringing activities contribute to gross revenue. Such apportionment can be especially difficult when, for example, infringing material is used in a book that’s mostly original material or an infringed trademark is used on a product that also benefited from strong pricing strategies or distribution channels.
Whether you’re representing the defendant or the plaintiff in a case involving disgorgement of profits, you must come prepared with thorough documentation and analysis. In addition, your financial expert witness should be able to speak authoritatively to both claimed gross revenues and claimed costs and apportionment.
If you have any questions about lost profits, testimony or any other litigation support issue, give us a call at 716.847.2651, or you may contact us here.
By: Jennifer Birkemeier, CPA
How does this affect taxpayers?
It is the responsibility of the taxpayer to ensure compliance with the temporary regulations. It also means the taxpayer will be responsible for adhering to the regulations for taxable years beginning on or after January 1st, 2014.
What is the benefit for taxpayers?
There has been a lot of feedback regarding the amount of time that is required to comply with the regulations and concern that the time spent will not result in reduced tax burdens for taxpayers. Recently CSP360 sponsored the inaugural AICPA Global Hospitality Conference where Mark Barbour presented updates on the repair regulations focusing on 263(a). The repair regulations will impact all industries requiring accounting method changes that may have favorable taxpayer consequences. Some of the hidden tax benefits for taxpayers that were highlighted at the AICPA conference include:
- Segregating the cost of structural components of buildings that were disposed of in prior years
- Identifying expenditures in prior years or current years that do not constitute improvements to buildings or building systems and can be expensed as repairs
- Reviewing the results of a prior year cost segregation study to identify dispositions of 1245 property
- Identifying the cost of removal of a structural component not subject to capitalization under 263A
- To segregate the cost of the eight building systems for purposes of applying the improvement and disposition rules under the final regulations
How are expenditures treated?
When capitalizing expenditures, the amounts paid fall into one of two categories:
- Amounts paid to acquire or produce tangible property, or
- Amounts paid to improve tangible property.
Generally capitalized costs include invoice price, transaction costs, and costs for work performed prior to the date the property is placed in service by the taxpayer. If the taxpayer is improving or “bettering” the real or personal property amounts that must be capitalized include correcting a material defect of the property, physical enlargement, expansion, or a material increase in capacity, productivity, or efficiency of the property. A taxpayer must capitalize costs that restore a unit of property to like new condition after the end of its class life. Costs incurred to adapt a unit of property to a new or different use must also be capitalized.
A Cost Segregation Analysis includes a thorough review of the property to properly depreciate the assets and accelerate tax deductions. These analyses include an intensive review of all blueprints and site visits to verify the assets and determine the quality of those assets. The professionals performing these analyses have an intimate knowledge of the building and building systems and provide valuable insight when examining repair and maintenance costs to determine if they must be capitalized or if they can be expensed.
CSP360 is a subsidiary of Buffalo, NY based Freed Maxick, CPAs a Top 100 accounting firm and one of the nation’s leading providers of Cost Segregation and consulting services. Our philosophy is to offer clients a 360 degree view of a taxpayer’s assets; pairing engineering and LEED specialists with accountants for a truly unique tax advisory team. Since 1995, our in house team has provided specialty studies to CPAs in a private label arrangement. Products include Cost Segregation, 179D Energy Studies and 263a. CSP360 is Circular 230 compliant and has proven methodologies that are sustainable on IRS examinations. To learn more about our unique approach click here.
By: Mike Ervin CPA, CFE
Let’s say that a client recently caught one of his employees falsifying an expense report. Your client fired the person, but because the fraudulent amount was fairly small, the company decided not to prosecute. Case closed? I hate to burst your bubble, but no. When it comes to expense account cheating, where there is one there is usually more.
It’s an unfortunate fact that the same conditions that make it possible for one employee to cheat may help others submit false expense reports. Think of it as a domino effect; small amounts often add up to big losses when several employees and multiple reports are involved in fraud.
Opportunities for expense account cheating
Sadly, there are many ways to cheat on an expense account. A common method is to mischaracterize business expenses — using legitimate receipts for non-business related activities. For example, if Linda treats her friend Sophie to a birthday dinner, that generates an actual receipt, but it shouldn’t show up on Linda’s expense account.
Requesting multiple reimbursements is a bit more risky, but it’s just as simple. If Linda wants her company to pay for Sophie’s birthday dinner twice, she simply copies the receipt and turns it in on another expense report. Even worse, she may try to be paid once for the bill, once for the receipt and once for the credit card statement.
Some workers overstate their expenses by simply doctoring the supporting paperwork by changing the numeral “3” to an “8” on a receipt. There are also cheats who invent expenses. An example of this is the employee who asks a taxi driver for an extra receipt then fills it out and turns it in for reimbursement.
All of these small expense account infractions can add up to huge sums of money. For instance, a top salesperson who traveled extensively for business defrauded his company of $30,000 over the course of three years by adopting a liberal definition of “allowable” business expenses. If tighter policies on fraudulent claims were in place, that company may not be out $30,000.
Enforce your policies
Expense account fraud could be averted in most cases, if companies would simply implement fraud control policies and procedures and then enforce them. Unfortunately, many companies establish policies but then fail to make sure that they’re followed correctly. Or worse, they put fraud control policies together that leave large gaps or “loopholes” for employees to take advantage of.
Once your company has an expense report policy in place, communicate it. A solid policy can prevent misunderstandings and make punishing infractions easier.
Moreover, your managers should keep on top of employee business travel plans and other activities that might trigger expense reports. Let’s look at Tom, who is based in Cleveland but submits a bill for a dinner in Dallas. His supervisor should have known about the trip before it happened. The supervisor should review every expense that Tom turns in and require original receipts for everything. If a photocopied receipt is necessary, the supervisor should inspect it for signs of tampering. This also means that expense reports should include details of the company and specific individuals that are being entertained, to allow for follow up related to sales generated and evaluation of effectiveness of the expenses incurred.
Even though expense tracking software isn’t a substitute for hands-on expense account reviews, it can certainly help you spot inconsistencies that develop over time. Such programs make it easy to see if an employee’s expenses have soared in recent months or are noticeably higher than normal.
Also consider a confidential fraud-reporting hotline. It will encourage anonymous reports of misdoings and signal that the business is serious about eliminating fraud.
“Reasonable” is the key word
Businesses must ensure that their antifraud policies are reasonable. If the official definition of reimbursable expenses is too narrow, some employees may be inclined to lie on their expense accounts to make up for out-of-pocket expenses.
It’s also critical to hold everyone in the organization to the same standards. Even a CEO shouldn’t be immune from approval and scrutiny from the appropriate level. A CEO who cheats on an expense account may also be perpetrating other forms of fraud, such as falsifying financial records. This in turn teaches employees that “If the CEO can falsify records, why can’t I?” Managers might be surprised to see how much their employees pay attention to their own behavior at work. If it’s not acceptable for one, it should not be acceptable for any.
Enlist an expert
If a business contacts you about possible expense account cheating, help the client understand that the incident may not be an isolated one-time problem. Bring in a fraud expert to investigate the claim and possibly to review the company’s expense reporting policies and internal controls.
If you suspect expense account cheating is going on at your business, contact us here, or call us today at 716-847-2651
By Jennifer Birkemeier, CPA
In December of 2011, temporary regulations (T.D. 9564) were published. These regulations will affect taxpayers that acquire, produce, or improve tangible property. They also mean potential significant tax savings for taxpayers.
One purpose is to clarify Sec. 263(a) of the regulations for capital expenditures, which make available tax benefits to commercial property owners through favorable rulings on building improvements and repairs. The building structure and its building systems might include: heating ventilations, electrical systems, all escalators, plumbing systems, HVAC systems, fire protection and alarm systems.
There is a process in finding these benefits, and it starts with a Cost Segregation study. The Cost Segregation study allows the commercial property owner to take advantage of the new capital improvement guidelines. This is done through qualitative tests; performed based on the cost of the unit of property and the current expenditures, and is either capitalized or expensed. While most owners want the expense, the unit of property must be defined in order to allow for this option. The new regulations will allow for expensing the repairs and maintenance to the unit once it’s defined.
Cost Segregation Studies
Cost Segregation studies help to define the units of property for the owner. In addition to this, the study can correctly identify “disposed of building components”.
Why is this an important aspect of the study? The Tangible Property regulations now allow for disposed of building components to be deducted up to their remaining depreciable basis. If a cost segregation study is not conducted than the costs of the disposed building components can’t be correctly identified, resulting in no deduction for the commercial property owner.
The Cost Segregation Partners of Freed Maxick CPAs is one of the nation's leading providers of Cost Segregation and consulting services to real estate owners. Our philosophy is to offer clients an experienced team of professionals who take a 360 degree view of a taxpayer’s assets. This helps our team identify credits and incentives that the taxpayer may benefit from. To learn more about our unique approach click here.
By: John Kleiman
Commercial lenders often cross-collateralize loans in order to reduce risks. But beware: Accounting concerns and debt restructuring issues may emerge when using multiple properties to secure a loan associated with one property.
Nonaccrual status for loans
Typically, when interest payments on a loan are significantly overdue and collecting any principal is unlikely, the loan must be placed on what’s known as “nonaccrual status.” For example, if your bank experiences an increase in nonaccrual loans, it will likely be forced to bump up its reserves for loan losses, which may hurt profits in the long run.
Cross-collateralization can cause multiple loans to be placed on nonaccrual status, even if some of the loans are still performing. In the OCC’s June 2012 Bank Accounting Advisory Series (BAAS), the agency offers several examples that show the potential impact of cross-collateralization on nonaccrual status.
For instance, one example involves a real estate developer that has two loans with a bank for two separate projects. Loan A is up to date and the bank expects full repayment of interest and principal. Loan B, on the other hand, is placed on nonaccrual status.
According to the BAAS, placing one loan on nonaccrual status won’t automatically require your bank to place the other loan on the same status. The guidance stresses that the responsible party on the two loans are separate corporations and are wholly owned by the developer and that there’s no cross-collateralization or personal guarantees.
So, if the bank subsequently negotiates a cross-collateralization agreement with the developer, must loan A also be placed on nonaccrual status? According to the BAAS, when entering into a cross-collateralization agreement, the bank is simply taking steps to improve its own position relative to the borrower. The bank does not need to place loan A on nonaccrual status if cross-collateralization doesn’t change the repayment pattern of the loans or endanger loan A’s full repayment.
Yet another example shows loans A and B are related to separate real estate projects. The loans are personally guaranteed by the developer and were initially cross-collateralized. Project A has the cash flows to repay loan A in full, but no excess in order to meet a shortfall on loan B, which is already past due.
According to the OCC, if the developer has the intent and the ability to make the payments on both loans, the bank could keep both loans on accrual status. If, on the other hand, the developer lacks the ability and intent to make the payments, both loans should then be placed on nonaccrual status.
Because, in the above example, the loans are cross-collateralized, make sure that collectability is evaluated on a combined basis. The developer, as the guarantor, is the ultimate repayment source for both loans, so placing only loan B on nonaccrual status wouldn’t indicate that the collectability of the entire debt is in doubt.
Troubled debt restructurings
Under current accounting standards, if restructured loans are regarded as troubled debt restructurings (TDRs), they may result in losses on the bank’s financial statements or additional valuation allowances. Typically, a restructuring is a TDR if a bank grants a concession to a borrower that’s experiencing financial difficulties.
Some institutions use cross-collateralization in hopes of avoiding TDR status on reworked loans. They might, for example, defer loan payments or reduce the interest rate in exchange for additional collateral.
Work with an expert
Should you have any questions about the cross-collateralization strategy, contact a Freed Maxick ABL advisor here or call us at 716-847-2651.
Jennifer A Birkemeier, CPA, Senior Manager, CSP 360 has passed the American Society of Cost Segregation Professionals (ASCSP) Member Exam. The exam is one of several available from the organization, which was formed with the goal of establishing a measurable standard by which cost segregation consultants can be evaluated both from a business practice standpoint as well as actual quality of deliverables.
(ASCSP) was established as a non-profit corporation in response to the growing need for education, credentials, technical standards and a Code of Ethics within the cost segregation industry. The ASCSP's goal is to provide its members with educational programs and continuing education programs; create and maintain minimum quality standards, and provide a Code of Ethics.
LEED credential holders have a deep understanding of the most current green building principles and practices, and show a clear commitment to professional growth in the field. LEED Green Associates earn their credential by passing a two-hour, computer-based exam comprising 100 randomly delivered multiple-choice questions.
CSP 360 is headquartered in downtown Buffalo, NY and is one of the nation's leading providers of cost segregation and consulting services to real estate owners. CSP 360 also assists accountants and CPA firms in providing cost segregation services to their qualified clients who have constructed, bought, expanded or remodeled real estate.
By: Sam DiSalvo, Tax Director
The IRS has created a new, and user friendly website to provide information and guidance on the tax provisions of the ACA. This website is located at www.IRS.gov/aca.
The home page is divided into three sections that will allow individuals, businesses, and other organizations (such as governmental entities and tax exempt organizations) to access the health care laws, and receive education on how the laws may affect them.
The site provides information about tax provisions that are in effect now and those that will go into effect in 2014 and beyond. Visitors to the new site will find information about legal guidance, the latest news, and links to additional resources.
The IRS/ACA webpage is user friendly, with easy to find resource information. For example, the new web based flyer -- Healthcare Law Online Resources (Publication 5093), provides a number of informational links on the ACA for individuals and employers. The website also categorizes organizations into small (fewer than 50 full time employees) and large employers, as well answering frequently asked questions, such as “Do I need to do anything right now to get ready for the changes coming in 2014?”