How JustAnswer Works:

  • Ask an Expert
    Experts are full of valuable knowledge and are ready to help with any question. Credentials confirmed by a Fortune 500 verification firm.
  • Get a Professional Answer
    Via email, text message, or notification as you wait on our site.
    Ask follow up questions if you need to.
  • 100% Satisfaction Guarantee
    Rate the answer you receive.

Ask Lane Your Own Question

Lane
Lane, CFP, MBA, CRPS
Category: Tax
Satisfied Customers: 3699
Experience:  Providing Financial & Tax advice since 1986
Type Your Tax Question Here...
Lane is online now
A new question is answered every 9 seconds

The irs recently changed the law to disallow employers from

Resolved Question:

The irs recently changed the law to disallow employers from paying for an employees individual insurance policy in a tax favorable way. As I understand it, the employer can increase the employees pay but is not allowed to pay for their individual insurance in any way. Only a group type policy. As an insurance broker, I am trying to help my clients around the 60%+ increases that they are being hit with on a group basis.

Is there any way for an employer to legally pay for an individual's policy under the new laws? It just seems silly that an employer cannot pay for the insurance policy and claim it as a business expense.
Submitted: 8 months ago.
Category: Tax
Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.

Lane :

Hi,

Customer:

Hi Lane

Lane :

Are you familiar with section POP plans (Premium Only Plans)? Although the policies purchased now may not be as favorable ... Section 125 was amended in 2009 to allow employers to use separate individual plans , and I'm looking now but I don't believe Obamacar overrode that specificlly

Customer:

Yes.. but I believe it did

Customer:

Cafeteria plans may no longer reimburse individually-owned insurance policies [1]


 


This may not affect most employers - however for the few employers sponsoring cafeteria plans that allow for participants to pay their individually-owned policy premiums with pre-tax dollars - the IRS and Treasury just eliminated this as an option. The reason for the change is to discourage employers from eliminating group coverage and to make it impossible for employers to send their employees to the Public Exchange and perhaps reimburse them with tax-free dollars for their cost for Exchange coverage.


 


Employers need to be aware that any reimbursement or payment of individual health coverage, whether it be inside or outside of an Exchange, cannot be made with tax-advantaged funds.

Customer:

This was a newsletter from wageworks that I just received.

Lane :

I don't think so ... can you provide a citation? ... The expansion of the ability in 2009 (Under OBAMA) was, according to MY sources, to facilitate the payment of the new policies

Customer:

Sure.. let me see if its listed.

Lane :

Most states are considering passing laws effectively mandating that employer offer Section 125 POP plans to their employees. The following states have already passed similar legislation.








































































StateLaw/ProgramDescription
ConnecticutSB 1484Requires any employer providing health insurance benefits paid partly through payroll deductions to offer a cafeteria plan, effective October 1st, 2007.
FloridaS. 2535Requires an employer who chooses to participate in the Cover Florida Health Care Access Program to offer a Section 125 plan
IndianaTax Credit ProgramRequires that an employer offer a Section 125 plan to be eligible for certain tax credits.
IowaHF 2539Requires the Commissioner of Insurance to "assist employers with twenty-five or fewer employees with (voluntarily) implementing" Section 125 POP plans.
KansasSB 81Requires all insurers to offer POP plans.
MarylandWorking Families and Small Business Health Coverage ActRequires employers (with 1-9 employees) who participate in a subsidized plan to offer Section 125 plans.
MassachusettsChapter 58 of the Acts of 2008, section 48Requires all employers with >10 employees to offer a POP Plan.
MinnesotaSF 3780Requires all employers with >10 employees (who do not offer health insurance) to offer a Section 125 Plan for individual policies.
MissouriHB 818Requires all employer providing health insurance benefits to offer a Section 125 plan.
Rhode IslandSB 448Requires employer with >24 employees to offer a Section 125 POP.
TennesseeS 333 & G 3360Requires employers (who offer Section 125 plans) to automatically pay insurance premiums through a Section 125 plan.
WashingtonSB 5930Requires employers who participate in the state's Health Insurance Partnership program to offer premium-only cafeteria plans.

Lane :

I meant a legtal citation

Lane :

I have access to Westlaw ... while you're looking I'll be diggin a bit

Customer:

ok thansk

Lane :

Ubet ... sold health insure insurance as part of a financial planning practice for may years before moving to a fee-only model ... and agree with your sentiments

Customer:

Read B on this and let me know what you think

Lane :

First thing I was is definitely true HRAs nand HSAs are out

Lane :

will do

Customer:

I am moving to a fee only model as well... individual policies pay almost nothing.. and I've doing a big comparison of plans both group and individual in NJ and individual is almost always cheaper... actually, I think the only difference is that the group plans have 5% commissions and the individuals have about 2% built in

Lane :

yep ... you should be paid for your time, expertise, and objectivity .. not for distributing financial product ( and doing so only where you have an agreement)

Customer:

There has to be a way to be able to pay for the premiums.

Customer:

With a pop plan, if they do still allow, the employer would increase their pay the amount of the insurance and allow the deductible pre-tax. Would the employer get hit with an tax liabilities?

Lane :

Did you see this under C? (B certainly appears to say no)

Lane :

The Code, ERISA, and the PHS Act impose various requirements on group
health plans, but certain of these requirements do not apply to a group health plan in
relation to its provision of excepted benefits. Code § 9831(b), ERISA § 732(b), PHS Act
§§ 2722(b) and 2763. Although a health FSA is a group health plan within the meaning
of Code § 9832(a), ERISA § 733(a), and PHS Act § 2791(a), a health FSA may be
considered to provide only excepted benefits if other group health plan coverage not
limited to excepted benefits is made available for the year to employees by the
employer, but only if the arrangement is structured so that the maximum benefit payable
to any participant cannot exceed two times the participant’s salary reduction election for
the arrangement for the year (or, if greater, cannot exceed $500 plus the amount of the
participant’s salary reduction election). 26 C.F.R. §54.9831-1(c)(3)(v), 29 C.F.R.
§2590.732(c)(3)(v), and 45 C.F.R. §146.145(c)(3)(v).

Customer:

no.. what does that mean?

Lane :

I'd really like to do a little more homework here, but it looks as if FSAs are being excepted if they stay within certain guidelines of benefit provision (amount, providing to new employess, etc)

Lane :

I also saw in an article about the time that it went to supremem court... that ...

Customer:

Im just giving you all the links they sent with the newsletter I received, :)

Lane :

they were thinging about bringing back a provisions that would eliminate FSAs altogether (which implies that the recent limits are a produt of complying with

Lane :

Yep

Customer:

Affordable Care Act Changes for Flexible Spending Accounts (FSAs) - Part II of II


 


On Friday, September 13, 2013 Treasury published Notice 2013-54 (Notice) which preserves all health flexible spending accounts (health FSAs) that are considered excepted benefits but eliminates an employer's ability to use a stand-alone health FSA or other tax-favored arrangements, including Premium Reimbursement Arrangements or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs), to help employees pay for individual health policies on a tax-free basis. In addition, the Notice addresses a number of specific topics related to FSAs and HRAs. As such, this Alert is the second of two.


 


Keeping health FSAs as excepted benefits [1]


 


Prior to this guidance, assuring a health Flexible Spending Account (FSA) was classified as an excepted benefit for purposes of HIPAA was important for two primary reasons: so COBRA continuation was not offered when the account was "overspent" and to avoid HIPAA portability requirements. But now, in addition to assuring Health FSAs are not swept into the W-2 reporting rules, FSA plans must also meet HIPAA excepted benefit rules to be offered in compliance with the new Affordable Care Act (ACA) requirements.


 


Generally, this means health FSAs must meet two conditions to be offered:



  1. Only individuals eligible for employer-provided major medical coverage can be offered the health FSA. Employers with health FSAs must have an underlying ACA-compliant group health insurance plan. As an example, XYZ Co. offers a health FSA to full-time employees and part-time employees. However; the part-time employee population is not eligible to enroll in XYZ Co.'s major medical plan. Under this scenario, part-time employees can no longer enroll in an FSA. An amendment is required to XYZ Co.'s Plan Document to remove this group as eligible employees under the FSA.

  2. In addition, the health FSA must limit the maximum payable to 2 times the participant's salary reduction or, if greater, the participant's salary reduction plus $500. What does this mean? Simply that health FSAs can include employer contributions of $500 or up to a dollar for dollar match of each participant's election.


If the health FSA fails either of these conditions, it is subject to ACA's market reforms, such as no cost sharing for preventive services and the prohibition against annual and lifetime limits. By definition, the health FSA will not meet these ACA requirements.


 


Cafeteria plans may no longer reimburse individually-owned insurance policies [1]


 


This may not affect most employers - however for the few employers sponsoring cafeteria plans that allow for participants to pay their individually-owned policy premiums with pre-tax dollars - the IRS and Treasury just eliminated this as an option. The reason for the change is to discourage employers from eliminating group coverage and to make it impossible for employers to send their employees to the Public Exchange and perhaps reimburse them with tax-free dollars for their cost for Exchange coverage.


 


Employers need to be aware that any reimbursement or payment of individual health coverage, whether it be inside or outside of an Exchange, cannot be made with tax-advantaged funds.


 


Amendment for fiscal year cafeteria plans [2]


 


This may be one of the most misunderstood ACA provisions issued to date and applies only to employers with non-calendar year plans (Example: July 1 thru June 30 plans). Employees who wish to seek coverage on the Exchange, but would otherwise be prevented from doing so because their elections are generally irrevocable for the plan year, can be allowed to make a change if the employer amends their plan to allow this additional change-in-status event. A couple of points to remember: because of the employer shared responsibility rules, the guidance applies only to "applicable large" employers. These are employers who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees, or full-time equivalents, based on hours of service during the preceding calendar year. Many industry experts, however, believe there may be relief to allow the same treatment for small employers.


 


It's also only applicable to cafeteria plans that have a plan year beginning in 2013 and that run benefits on a fiscal plan year rather than a calendar year.


 


While the guidance came out before the "Employer Mandate" (shared responsibility or play or pay) was delayed until 2015, it allows employers to amend their plan and permit employees who enroll for Exchange coverage to drop their employer coverage - essentially providing an additional qualified change in status reason.


 


Why would this be a critical amendment? ACA was written to assure that employees and individuals could purchase insurance coverage through state Exchanges. Allowing employees to change cafeteria elections mid-year allows maximum flexibility for employees.


 


90-day waiting period [3]


 


Health plan years that start on or after January 1, 2014 may not contain a waiting period for entry into the plan that exceeds 90 days (60 days in California plus other states may vary). In order for health FSAs to retain their status as an excepted benefit, they can only be made available to employees who are also eligible for underlying ACA-compliant health coverage. Thus, Health FSAs must assure that their waiting periods are no less than that of the underlying health coverage.


Therefore, employers should be sure that the waiting period for the premium-only and the health FSA portion of employers' cafeteria plans mirror the waiting periods for underlying health insurance plans or, in the case of the health FSA, may be longer.


 


If the cafeteria plan document does not currently reflect these terms, a simple amendment to the cafeteria plan can be adopted that states that the eligibility and entry dates into the cafeteria plan are the same as the underlying health insurance plan. This ensures no disconnect if the waiting period changes in the health insurance plan.


 


Amendment Action Steps



















Plan



Next Steps



Premium Only Plan - Fiscal Year Plans (example July 1 - June 30)



Amend your Plan Documents to allow a one-time qualifying event giving permission for employees to enroll in the Exchange and opt out of their current health insurance plan and the premium only portion of the cafeteria plan.



January 1, 2014 Health FSAs and Premium Only Plans



Amend your plan to adjust the waiting period so that it is not more than 90 days (in most states). The waiting period adopted should be the same as the underlying insurance plan or for FSAs can be longer but in no case a shorter waiting period than the underlying health insurance plan.




This table may help you assess your current FSA plan and next steps:

















































Plan Type



Subject to
Annual
dollar limit prohibition?



Subject to preventive services requirements?



Regulatory Status



Next Steps



Excepted benefit health FSA



No



No



Not subject to the annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirement, and does not provide minimum essential coverage (participant remains eligible for premium tax credits)



Consider employer contributions to $500 or matching a maximum of $1 for every dollar elected by the participants.



Non-excepted benefit health FSA funded under a 125 cafeteria plan



No



Yes



Fails to satisfy the preventive services requirement



Plan must be terminated.



Non-excepted benefit health FSA not funded under a 125 cafeteria plan



Not yet determined



Yes



Fails to satisfy the preventive services requirement; may also fail the annual dollar limit prohibition



Plan must be terminated.



After-tax employee contributions which participant may use to purchase individual market coverage



No



No



An arrangement under which after-tax employee contributions may be used to purchase individual market coverage and are structured as an employer payroll practice are permissible.



 



Pre-tax employee contributions which participant may use to purchase individual market coverage



Yes



Yes



Fails to satisfy annual dollar limit prohibition and preventive services requirement



Plan must be terminated.



 


Need assistance with any of these new requirements? Contact your Client Services Team.



Click here for a PDF download of this update.

Lane :

A littl dated, but take a look at this:

Customer:

thats the whole newsletter

Lane :

OK

Lane :

Here's what I had read that lead me to believe that it wasn't doing away with FSAs altogether

Lane :

(from that article I linked) Now the Department of Treasury in Notice 2012-40 is soliciting comments on whether to modify the use-it-or-lose-it rule. Anyone can send in comments via email to notice.comments@irscounsel.treas.gov (subject line: IRS Notice 2012-40) through Aug. 17, 2012.

Customer:

Wait.. i think you are talking about the rule that allows FSA's to roll over up to $500 from year to year of unused funds.. is that right?

Lane :

that's part f it

Customer:

ok

Lane :

BUt that implies that FSAs are still there'

Customer:

right

Customer:

An arrangement under which after-tax employee contributions may be used to purchase individual market coverage and are structured as an employer payroll practice are permissible.

Lane :

Yeah it's that 2500 cap that takes the wind out of what can be done there I guess

Lane :

RIght

Lane :

but that's a little different from eliminating FSAa as well

Customer:

Everything in this newsletter is saying pre-tax plans for insurance are not allowed... am I reading that right?

Lane :

I don't think it eliminates the pay for ins through an FSA ... but it's limited to 2500

Lane :

Tell you what. I have an attorney I can call that can point me to the exact provisions

Lane :

and where it stands no

Lane :

he's an ERISA guy and know benefits generally

Customer:

ok thanks..

Lane :

Let me move us to the Q&A mode, and I can make a couple of calls and get the definitive for you ... (know your objective)

Lane :

that way the question stay open... and then you can come back here to this same url: http://www.justanswer.com/tax/841lt-irs-recently-changed-law-disallow-employers.html

Customer:

and with the FSA and the 2500 limit, that doesn't really do much unless they are receiving a subsidy. Maybe thats why they did that to FSA's before the law took place.

Lane :

to check ... this will allow the question to syaty open

Customer:

ok thanks

Lane :

yes, exactly, not nearly enough

Customer:

ok.. i will wait for an update then.

Customer:

thanks for looking into it

Lane :

Good deal ... I'll move now ... and then check back this afternoon, if you would

Customer:

thanks

Lane :

no prob, good question (my gut is that you're fears are warranted, but I'll get the exact citation and see if there ANY workaround)

Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.

OK Scott her we are.

 

DO me a favor and don't reply until I come back with something ... that'll just let the questions sit here until I come back.

 

Thanks

 

Lane

 

Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.

Hi Scott,

Quick Phone call results...

Still want to pin down the citations specifically, but there's the short answer

(1) Self Employed's still get a deduction (before the line deduction on the 1040).

(2) Companies, of course for group, still pay those premiums as an expense profit, deductible.

(3) IN 2014 the SHOP program (Small Business Health Options) is rolled out, where small businesses - less than 50 - will get tax breaks and credits for buying for employees through the "SHOP Marketplace"

(4) But yes, for individual plans, they've been dealt a blow, unless something changes - people can still deduct on Schedule A as a medical expense, bot only over the AGI floor


Still looking for the specific sections for you.

Have a 1:00 but will be back on it after 2:00 or so

Customer: replied 8 months ago.

What about defined contribution benefit plans?

Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.
Nothings changing ther t all other than the limitations being placed on the section 125 plans we've been Talking about.

Still sitting in a meeting ... Should break out any minute ... Forgive the shorthand and typos ... Trying to do this on the iphone
Customer: replied 8 months ago.

Absolutely understand. Getting ready to go into one myself.


 


I Keep reading about 105 plans as being a solution. Some say it works and others say no. Still trying to figure out who's right?

Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.


Yes, I think that 105 IS the answer .. to the small employer issue.

Federal regulations prohibit businesses from paying directly for employee's individual health insurance premiums, outside of an HRA (Health Reimbursement Arrangement), or other IRS/HIPAA/ERISA-qualified tax-free vehicle (e.g. Section 125).

The two big reasons they need to do it right is that, first, paying for Individual Health Insurance without an qualified HRA Causes the Employer to "Endorse" the Individual Health Insurance Plans, and second, paying for Individual Health Insurance without an qualified HRA Causes the premium to be included as taxable income.

You may already know these guys but they're out ahead of things as much as anyone it seems:

http://www.zanebenefits.com/products/health-insurance-premium-reimbursement/

Lane

Customer: replied 8 months ago.

Yes I do.. I've spoken with Rick there a couple times over the years and considered using their product because I am big fan of Paul Pilzer.


 


However, recently, they contradicted themselves on a very recent article. They didn't retract it but in the comment section, Eric from Zane made it very clear that an employer or employee cannot pay for individual premiums on a pre-tax basis. They are now saying that it has to be done through payroll but somehow can still be pre-tax. Their infograph on their homepage indicates one of the steps as putting it through payroll.

Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.

Yes, putting it through payroll WOULD support that it's really been made part of their compensation,

I'm sure you know about 162


Supported by this:

(a) In general.--There shall be allowed as a deduction all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including--(1) a reasonable allowance for salaries or other compensation for personal services actually rendered;

26 U.S.C.A. § 162 (West)



I think that this (1) Holds Water, (2) may be the ONLY way to do it ... and (3) has not, and will not be for a while, tested (challenged is probably a better word).

Lane
Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.

Hi Scott,

One quick follow-up.

... received a call from a rep a Zane Benefits, and he said that they were absolutely standing by their stance that An HRA would still be a way to pay for individual plans in a tax advantaged way.

He insisted, as I pointed out earlier, that this is compensation under 162, therefor a deduction for the company and that nothing had changed tax wise, in that regard.

Let me know if this answers the question for ya

Lane
Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.
FYI ... just got this:

Hi Lane,

Thanks for checking out our content about Defined Contribution Health Plans! We hope you’ll join the thousands of companies that use the Defined Contribution method to offer better health benefits at lower costs.

Our research shows that offering health benefits with a Defined Contribution Health Plan is the ideal solution for Health Care Reform. Learn more by watching our webinar, "Defined Contribution and Individual Health Insurance – The Next Benefits Trend."

Watch the Recording Now

Let me know if this has helped AND I'd be interested in any data you've found that contradict what they're saying here.

Not sure we have really pinned this one down.

Lane
Customer: replied 8 months ago.

Hi Lane,


 


Thanks. I did see that before. I'm on their site alot. There are so many contradicting articles out there. My thought is, even if there is a work-around, I don't think the IRS wants employers paying for it. I worry if I offer it that way, does the irs come back and say nope... all those defined contribution benefit dollars are now taxable income.


 


It doesn't sound like there is really a clear answer to this. I am trying to find an article by a tax attorney I read yesterday that said something to the affect that people will try to side step the law, but the irs is very clear. They don't want employers paying for individual policies. If I find it, I will let you know.



The sad part about them changing these laws is that they are killing the working people. Its sad.

Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.

I agree,

And after doing a little more research for you I'm not so sure that Zane is telling the WHOLE story, or at least they don't get there until you're way into their disclosure docs.




First, just so we dot the I's and cross the T's here, the actual statues (LAWs) we're talking about is (1) The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA), Public Law No. 111-148, as modified by the (2) Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act (HCERA), Public Law No. 111-152.

The three federal agencies implementing the Affordable Care Act — HHS, the Department of Labor and the Treasury Department just released a set of answers to frequently asked questions (FAQs) addressing the future of HRAs.

(The answers to these FAQs, which were posted on January 24, 2013, are on the DOL website: http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq-aca11.html)




What it comes down to is this: For an HRA to be a permissible type of coverage under the Affordable Care Act, an employee must be enrolled in other primary group coverage that complies with the annual dollar-limit rules.

The introduction to the latest answers to FAQs confirm what the Departments
stated in the 2010 interim final rule on annual and lifetime dollar limits: HRAs do not
violate the annual dollar-limit rules if they are “integrated” with other coverage as part of a group health plan where that other group health plan coverage complies with the rules
.

And if you look at FAQ #3, I think it's clear that for an HRA to be considered an integrated HRA, the employee must also be enrolled in the primary group health plan cover-age. Not only that, if the HRA is available to employees who are not covered by the primary group coverage, it is not an integrated HRA.

And then, to your primary concern, An HRA is not an integrated HRA if it is paired with individual market coverage (rather than coverage under a group policy) or with an employer plan that provides coverage through individual market policies, under FAQ #2

SO employers and other plan sponsors will not be able to offer a stand-alone HRA for employees to purchase individual market coverage (no matter whether they buy it inside or outside a health insurance Exchange).



The answer IS clear, and your concerns are valid. If this flies, better start moving toward the group business quickly. This may just be a confirmation for you, but getting from DOL and the three agencies, hopefully adds some certainty for you.



Hope this helps

Lane

If this has helped, I would appreciate a feedback rating of 3 (OK) or better (excellent, is ideal)… That's the only I get credit for the work.

Lane, CFP, MBA, CRPS
Category: Tax
Satisfied Customers: 3699
Experience: Providing Financial & Tax advice since 1986
Lane and 8 other Tax Specialists are ready to help you
Expert:  Lane replied 8 months ago.

Thanks so much Scott,

Enjoyed working with you.

Let me know if I can help again.

Lane

JustAnswer in the News:

 
 
 
Ask-a-doc Web sites: If you've got a quick question, you can try to get an answer from sites that say they have various specialists on hand to give quick answers... Justanswer.com.
JustAnswer.com...has seen a spike since October in legal questions from readers about layoffs, unemployment and severance.
Web sites like justanswer.com/legal
...leave nothing to chance.
Traffic on JustAnswer rose 14 percent...and had nearly 400,000 page views in 30 days...inquiries related to stress, high blood pressure, drinking and heart pain jumped 33 percent.
Tory Johnson, GMA Workplace Contributor, discusses work-from-home jobs, such as JustAnswer in which verified Experts answer people’s questions.
I will tell you that...the things you have to go through to be an Expert are quite rigorous.
 
 
 

What Customers are Saying:

 
 
 
  • I really was impressed with the prompt response. Your expert was not only a tax expert, but a people expert!!! Her genuine and caring attitude came across in her response... T.G.W Matteson, IL
< Last | Next >
  • I really was impressed with the prompt response. Your expert was not only a tax expert, but a people expert!!! Her genuine and caring attitude came across in her response... T.G.W Matteson, IL
  • I WON!!! I just wanted you to know that your original answer gave me the courage and confidence to go into yesterday's audit ready to fight. Bonnie Chesnee, SC
  • Great service. Answered my complex tax question in detail and provided a lot of additional useful information for my specific situation. John Minneapolis, MN
  • Excellent information, very quick reply. The experts really take the time to address your questions, it is well worth the fee, for the peace of mind they can provide you with. Orville Hesperia, California
  • Wonderful service, prompt, efficient, and accurate. Couldn't have asked for more. I cannot thank you enough for your help. Mary C. Freshfield, Liverpool, UK
  • This expert is wonderful. They truly know what they are talking about, and they actually care about you. They really helped put my nerves at ease. Thank you so much!!!! Alex Los Angeles, CA
  • Thank you for all your help. It is nice to know that this service is here for people like myself, who need answers fast and are not sure who to consult. GP Hesperia, CA
 
 
 

Meet The Experts:

 
 
 
  • Wallstreet Esq.

    Tax Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    570
    10 years experience
< Last | Next >
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/KU/KUMI95/2013-9-30_195031_kumar.64x64.jpg Wallstreet Esq.'s Avatar

    Wallstreet Esq.

    Tax Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    570
    10 years experience
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/CU/Cuttinggirl/2011-10-29_03719_wcrop2.64x64.jpg Wendy Reed's Avatar

    Wendy Reed

    Enrolled Agent

    Satisfied Customers:

    3052
    15+ years tax preparation and tax advice.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/CATax/2009-08-04_204548_Mark.jpg Mark D's Avatar

    Mark D

    Enrolled Agent

    Satisfied Customers:

    985
    MBA, EA, Specializing in Business and Individual Tax Returns and Issues
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/IN/insearchoftheanswer/2013-8-16_0233_attorney.64x64.jpg Richard's Avatar

    Richard

    Tax Attorney

    Satisfied Customers:

    3229
    29 years of experience as a tax, real estate, and business attorney.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/MY/MyVirtualCPA/2012-7-5_44024_cookmegan1.64x64.jpg Megan C's Avatar

    Megan C

    Certified Public Accountant (CPA)

    Satisfied Customers:

    6121
    Licensed CPA, CFE, CMA who teaches accounting courses at Master's Level
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/JG/jgordosea/2012-6-7_43138_GordosVeritas.64x64.jpg jgordosea's Avatar

    jgordosea

    Enrolled Agent

    Satisfied Customers:

    2783
    I've prepared all types of taxes since 1987.
  • http://ww2.justanswer.com/uploads/OZ/ozaukeecpa/2012-6-7_193219_Picture1croppedandshrunk.64x64.jpg MequonCPA's Avatar

    MequonCPA

    Certified Public Accountant (CPA)

    Satisfied Customers:

    2231
    CPA, Over 30 yrs experience w/individuals and small businesses. Masters in Tax.