Marketplace Appeals — The Results

At the risk of sounding like Nick Cannon on the television show  America’s Got Talent when they’re announcing performers advancing to the next round of competition, employers are beginning to see the results of appeals that they’ve filed when employees receive subsidies in the marketplace. Employers are finding some of these appeal decisions perplexing, especially when an appeal is denied. And, some employers fear that penalties will follow as a result of the lost appeal.

First, and of most importance, the marketplace appeal does not determine if an employer has to pay an employer shared responsibility penalty to the IRS. This point is made clear on both the appeals form and on the webpage that addresses employer appeals.

Second, an appeal that is denied may be due to the particular facts and circumstances of the employee and his/her family. In particular, even though an employer may have offered coverage that meets the minimum value and affordability safe harbors, the measure of affordability at the marketplace is based on household income. Household income may be quite different from an employee’s W-2 income. The marketplace’s decision regarding an employer’s appeal will not reveal personal and income information of the employee subject to the appeal.

The appeal decision letter explains that the marketplace will not consider whether an employee is a full-time employee or whether the employer employs 50 or more full-time employees and is subject to the employer shared responsibility payments. The reasoning cited in the letter is that “neither of these issues affect the employee’s eligibility for advance payments of the premium tax credit and cost-sharing reductions (if applicable).

Another employer found that the information which the employer sent to support their appeal did not go far enough. The employer submitted proof that the employer had offered coverage to the employee that met minimum value and was affordable. The hearing officer wanted proof of this offer in the form of the employee’s response to the offer. Employers that have been reluctant to require that employees sign waivers when they decline coverage may decide to require signed waivers or take other steps that can buttress the fact that an offer was made and rejected.

A review of several decision letters finds that decisions often cite “insufficient information” as the basis for the decision to reject the appeal. Employers may want to develop a checklist of materials that they will provide to ensure that appeals are not lost for want of more information.

Still other employers have received a letter while an appeal is under review that asks for more information to support the appeal. The types of information requested and documents that may contain the requisite information are shown below in a table copied from a letter asking for more information.


While marketplace appeal decisions are not triggers for IRS penalties, a successful marketplace appeal may be helpful if the IRS does attempt to penalize an employer. The successful appeal would be another piece of information for an employer to include in the IRS appeal’s process. And, whether an appeal is successful at the marketplace level, or not, an employer will have already collected information that would be required to appeal an IRS penalty determination should one be received.





Cash-in-Lieu Options Face Compliance Hurdles in 2017

IRS rules further regulating cash-in-lieu (opt-out) programs are effective the first day of the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2017. The rules provide for two different types of cash-in-lieu or opt-out arrangements: conditional and unconditional.

The easiest opt-out plan administratively is an “unconditional opt-out” arrangement. An unconditional opt-out doesn’t have strings such as requiring proof of other coverage for an employee waiving coverage. As such, the IRS guidance requires that the opt-out payment be calculated as a part of the employer’s affordability calculation for employer shared responsibility purposes.

The IRS described this unconditional opt-out arrangement in Notice 2015-87 where it said:

If an employer offers to an employee an amount that cannot be used to pay for coverage under the employer’s health plan and is available only if the employee declines coverage (which includes waiving coverage in which the employee would otherwise be enrolled) under the employer’s health plan (an opt-out payment), this choice between cash and coverage presented by the offer of an opt-out payment is analogous to the cash-or-coverage choice presented by the option to pay for coverage via salary reduction. In both cases, the employee may purchase the health plan coverage only at the price of forgoing a specified amount of cash compensation that the employee would otherwise receive – salary, in the case of a salary reduction, or other compensation, in the case of the opt-out payment.

In short, the amount available as an opt-out payment is added to the employee’s premium contribution amount when an employer is calculating affordability for the ACA’s employer shared responsibility requirements. Notice 2015-87 provides this example:

If an employer offers employees group health coverage through a Section  125 cafeteria plan, requiring employees who elect self-only coverage to contribute $200 per month toward the cost of that coverage, and offers an additional $100 per month in taxable wages to each employee who declines the coverage…the employee contribution for the group health plan effectively would be $300 ($200 + $100) per month, because an employee electing coverage under the health plan must forgo $100 per month in compensation in addition to the $200 per month in salary reduction.

To read Notice 2015-87 click here.

Importantly, this calculation of affordability applies to all employees whether they elect the opt-out arrangement or not.

 A conditional opt-out is excluded from the affordability calculation but, it is more administratively burdensome. The regulations deem a conditional opt-out arrangement to be an “eligible opt-out arrangement.”

The proposed regulations define an “eligible opt-out arrangement” as an arrangement under which the employee’s right to receive the opt-out payment is conditioned on:

(1) The employee declining to enroll in the employer-sponsored coverage and

(2) The employee providing reasonable evidence that the employee and all other individuals for whom the employee reasonably expects to claim a personal exemption deduction for the taxable year or years that begin or end in or with the employer’s plan year to which the opt-out arrangement applies (employee’s expected tax family) have or will have minimum essential coverage (other than coverage in the individual market, whether or not obtained through the Marketplace) during the period of coverage to which the opt-out arrangement applies.

Employers must obtain an employee’s attestation that other coverage is in place before the coverage period begins. If an employer “knows or has reason to know” that an employee or family member isn’t covered, then the employee cannot make an opt-out payment.

An employer is not required to ascertain that any alternative coverage is ongoing during the plan year. But, an employee must provide an attestation or evidence of coverage every plan year.

There are a number of other nuances to the opt-out rules including transition relief for collectively bargained plans. The text of the rules can be found here.

Employers may also wish to keep an eye on the courts. A recent court case found that opt-out payments must be included for overtime pay purposes under the FLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act). The court case is binding only in the state of: Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, N. Mariana Islands, Oregon and Washington. Other courts in other jurisdictions may make similar judgments.

Employers who have adopted cash-in-lieu programs or who are considering such programs would be wise to seek legal guidance in advance of implementing or renewing these options. Employers who have been offering these types of arrangements on an informal basis should also seek legal advice.



Telemedicine — A Growing Benefit Offer

Employers and insurers are increasingly turning to telemedicine programs to save employees money and increase productivity. With a doctor visit only a phone call away, employees don’t have to take time off the job to sit in a doctor’s office when a remote visit will do the trick.

Employers who wish to learn more about telemedicine from a medical practice perspective may find that the FAQs on the American Telemedicine Association website are helpful. The FAQ page is here.

Health insurers have been slow to adopt telemedicine programs. That appears to be changing. But, as a result, employers have adopted stand-alone telemedicine programs. As a stand alone program that is not integrated into the overall health plan, compliance issues may need to be considered. This is especially true if the employer offer a high deductible health plan (HDHP) that is health savings account (HSA) compatible.

There is an ongoing debate in the benefits arena regarding whether a telemedicine program meets the definition of a “group health plan” for ERISA, HIPAA and IRS purposes.  Since most telemedicine programs provide medical care, a conservative interpretation would define these plans as meeting the “group health plan” definition.

If one accepts that the telemedicine plan is a “group health plan” then the plan is subject to COBRA and provisions of the ACA. This exposes the plan to the market reforms such as covering dependents to age 26, and preventive services in-network without cost to the patient. Therefore, a plan should be structured to provide these benefits.

Some telemedicine providers or benefits consultants have argued that these plans  should be characterized as excepted benefits, an employee assistance plan (EAP) or a non-insurance based program. As such, these plans would not be subject to ACA, ERISA or other compliance requirements. Unless an employer has specific legal guidance in this regard, employers should adopt a more conservative approach by treating these programs as “group health plans.”

 One of the bigger concerns regarding telemedicine plans is whether and how to integrate these plans with high deductible health plans (HDHPs) coupled with HSAs. It’s a bigger concern because many employers have offered telemedicine programs to help address the employee exposure to larger and larger deductibles. The idea is that employees have a benefit for the more common medical expenses without having to meet the deductible.

That’s also where the problem with HSAs arises. IRS publication 969 establishes the rules for HSAs. To be eligible and qualify for an HSA you must meet the following requirements:

  • You must be covered under a high deductible health plan (HDHP), on the first day of the month.
  • You have no other health coverage except what is permitted under “Other health coverage”
  • You are not enrolled in Medicare
  • You cannot be claimed as a dependent on someone else’s 2015 tax return.

Publication 969 can be found here.

A telemedicine plan’s benefits are often structured to provide health care without regard to whether or not someone has met their HDHP deductible. If this is the case, there is a strong argument that a person with a telemedicine plan does not qualify for an HSA.

 A plan could be structured so that the beneficiary pays the “fair market value” as a fee whenever a service is rendered. In this type of arrangement an employer could offer the coverage and likely pay for it without disqualifying someone from an HSA. But, paying a fee for each service and coordinating this with a beneficiary’s deductible so there is a benefit of value is difficult, if not impossible.

It is clear that some of the services that can be provided through a telemedicine program can be considered preventive services. However, limiting a plan to only preventive services would make the telemedicine program far less appealing.

Employers could also consider offering telemedicine as a voluntary benefit. Voluntary benefits are not governed by ACA’s myriad rules. To avoid complications and ERISA compliance concerns, employers would have to follow the safe harbor for voluntary plans.

A plan is voluntary and usually not an ERISA plan if:

  • The employer doesn’t contribute to the cost of the plan
  • Participation is voluntary
  • The employer’s involvement in limited and the employer does not “endorse” the plan
  • The employer isn’t compensated for collecting and remitting premiums.

With more and more employers offering telemedicine plans, the questions regarding HSA eligibility, ERISA, HIPAA and other compliance concerns related to employee benefits will not go away. An employer is wise to avoid making assertions regarding taxes or other issues unless the employer has obtained legal or tax advice. And, the employer should ask that the telemedicine provider provide sufficient information to ensure that an employer’s in compliance with ERISA, HIPAA, COBRA and any other relevant laws.


Trade Adjustment Act Health Tax Credit Hardship Exemption Announced by IRS

The special health care tax credit for individuals and their families receiving trade adjustment assistance (TAA) or receiving payments from the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation was reinstated in 2015, retroactive to 2014. It had previously expired in 2013.

The Trade Preferences Extension Act of 2015 extended and modified the expired tax credit. This credit provided advanced payments for health insurance coverage for eligible individuals and families. The health care tax credit (HCTC) will now be available for coverage through 2019. General information including who can claim the tax credit is provided by the IRS here.

The previous process to claim the tax credit was also expected to be reinstated and be in operation by July 2016. Guidance released on August 12, 2016 asserts that reinstatement of the credit process is not yet operational. The guidance describes a “limited interim process” for the remainder of 2016 with the expectation that the full process will be implemented by January 2017.

As a result of this delay, individuals will be required to pay the full amount of any qualifying health coverage. Since payment of the full premium may be a hardship, the IRS has allowed that any eligible individual who is not enrolled in HCTC-qualified coverage for one or more months between July and December 2016 will be entitled to claim a hardship exemption from the individual shared responsibility requirement for months for which they were eligible for the HCTC. Further guidance detailing how to claim this exemption on individual tax returns will be forthcoming.

The full IRS announcement can be read here.

“To Fee or Not to Fee” — Considerations and Concerns

Brokers have been buffeted by the myriad changes occurring at record pace over these past few years. The Affordable Care Act (ACA) has had a dramatic impact on the types of health insurance products available, the scope of benefits offered and how brokers are compensated for the valuable services they provide.

Many brokers have transformed their practices with an emphasis on becoming a consultant to their clients – individual and group. As a consultant, brokers are expanding the scope of the traditional sales-related assistance.

Recent guidance from CMS clarified that brokers can charge fees in the Federal marketplace for the extra value that they are providing to clients. The guidance, in the form of a Q& A, establishes that brokers must clearly disclose the amount and reason for a fee while also informing consumers that they can apply for coverage on their own without a fee through Here is the full-text of the guidance.

A broker wishing to establish a fee-based practice must consider a number of other factors before implementing this change. Chief among these is whether state law allows a broker to charge a fee, the rules surrounding the charging of fees and whether a separate consulting license is required. NAHU has compiled a chart that provides some information on a state-by-state basis regarding relevant state laws. It is recommended that a broker verify whether fees may be charged and any related requirements through their insurance commissioner before taking steps.

Why are some brokers considering fee-based practices? Some are adding valuable services that exceed the selection and placement of insurance coverage. Others see a fee-based business as a reaction to changing commission structures, providing more predictability to revenue streams.

Determining how much to charge and what the scope of services the fee will purchase isn’t easy. For many consultants, fee setting is one of the more difficult decisions to make. Then, becoming accustomed to discussing fees and services with clients is another hurdle. Some considerations for fee setting, if allowed by law, include:

  • Fees plus commission on commissionable products
  • Fees only on non-commissionable products
  • Reflection of hours worked
  • Past revenue basis
  • Increased revenue basis
  • Loss leader
    • Nominal fee
    • Profits made in follow-on sales of products or services.

“To fee or not to fee” is a decision that can’t be made lightly and it must be made after reflection and planning. For products where commissions have been the practice, one must be able to make the case to the consumer that the services provided exceed those of the other brokers who have maintained a traditional commission-based practice.

Business Associates Beware – A Fine May Find You

HIPAA’s privacy and security requirements have been a part of the health insurance and insurance broker lexicon for many years. Most health insurance brokers have signed at least one – and often multiple – BAAs (Business Associate Agreements) over the course of the years. HIPAA HITECH, enacted into law in 2009 increased the responsibilities for business associates and statutorily obligated a business associate with HIPAA privacy and security provisions. Business associates have been required to comply with these provisions since September 2013 when rules implementing the law became final.

 For the first time a business associate has settled a HIPAA case with the HHS Office of Civil Rights (OCR). Catholic Health Care Services of the Archdiocese of Philadelphia has this dubious distinction and has  agreed to pay $650,000 to settle a case with OCR that resulted from the theft of a cellphone.

A cellphone that was neither password protected nor encrypted was stolen. This phone contained PHI including social security numbers, names of family members and information regarding diagnosis, treatment, medical procedures and medication information.

 As a part of the settlement of the case, the business associate had to agree to a corrective action plan. This plan can serve as a good checklist for all business associates to measure their HIPAA compliance efforts.

The corrective action plan includes:

  • Risk analysis and risk management to assess potential risks and vulnerabilities to the confidentiality, integrity and availability of e-PHI
  • Documentation of security measures that are implemented to reduce the identified risks
  • Revision and maintenance of written policies and procedures necessary to keep PHI secure
  • Communication of the updated policies and procedures to all employees on a timely basis
  • Written or electronic compliance certification from all employees stating that they have read, understand and will abide by the policies and procedures
  • Barring employees who have not signed or certified that they will comply with the procedures from having access to ePHI.

Among the more prescriptive aspects of the correction action plan is a lengthy list of the “minimum content” of the policies and procedures. These include:

  1. Policies regarding encryption of ePHI.
  2. Policies regarding password management.
  3. Policies regarding security incident response.
  4. Policies regarding mobile device controls.
  5. Policies regarding information system review.
  6. Policies regarding security reminders.
  7. Policies regarding log-in monitoring.
  8. Policies regarding a data backup plan.
  9. Policies regarding a disaster recovery plan.
  10. Policies regarding an emergency mode operation plan.
  11. Policies regarding testing and revising of contingency plans.
  12. Policies regarding applications and data criticality analysis.
  13. Policies regarding automatic log off.
  14. Policies regarding audit controls.
  15. Policies regarding integrity controls.

Brokers have taken important steps that recognize their responsibilities when handling personal health information (PHI) as HIPAA requires. This includes physical changes to offices to secure information, adoption of encrypted email and other measures.

However, now may be a good time to review the steps taken with an eye to what may have been overlooked or where more robust action is necessary. The steps of this corrective action plan are a good start to a thorough review. After all, the last few years have seen significant changes in the use of electronic mobile devices, including an explosion of employees using their own devices for work-related purposes.

For more information on HIPAA requirements click here.








IRS Publishes 2016 Draft Forms for ACA Reporting

With the first ACA reporting deadlines for employers in the rearview mirror, the IRS has released draft forms for 2016. These drafts, if finalized, will be used when employers file in 2017.

The deadlines for reporting of 2016 health coverage are expected to return to the original dates:

  • Deadline to distribute forms to employees and covered individuals will be January 31, 2017
  • Deadline to file paper forms with the IRS will be February 28, 2017
  • Deadline to file electronically with the IRS will be March, 31, 2017.

The draft forms offer few changes from the 2015 forms. Of note, the line 14 code series reflects wording changes in a few codes and new codes 1J and 1K. These new codes discuss conditional offers of coverage to spouses.

Also, the “Plan Start Month” box on Form 1095-C will continue to be optional for 2016.

Draft instructions for employers to complete the forms have not been issued at this time.

Filing for 2016 will reflect several differences that we will expect to see reflected in the instructions to complete the forms. Chief among these is that employers will be required to offer minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of full-time and full-time equivalent employees to avoid the A “no offer” penalty. Transition relief was available for the 2015 coverage year that required an offer to 70% of employees to meet the requirement to offer coverage.

Here are the links to review the draft forms:

Form 1094-C  —–dft.pdf

Form 1095-C —–dft.pdf.

Early releases of all draft forms are at



CMS Acts on Documentation for Special Enrollment Periods (SEPs)

In an effort to stabilize the individual insurance marketplaces and improve the risk pool CMS has rolled out a new Special Enrollment Verification process. Individuals who assert that they have qualified for one of five Special Enrollment Periods (SEPs) will be sent a Marketplace Eligibility Determination Notice requesting documentation to support their eligibility for the SEP.

The five SEPs that will trigger the Marketplace Eligibility Determination Notice are:

  1. Loss of minimum essential coverage
  2. Change in primary place of living
  3. Birth
  4. Adoption, placement for adoption, placement for foster care, or child support or other court order
  5. Marriage.

The Marketplace Eligibility Determination Notice will be tailored to the specific circumstances of each individual applying for coverage. The notice will provide the list of acceptable documents to prove an individual’s eligibility for the SEP.

After the person has enrolled in coverage and sent in the proof for the SEP, no further action is required. Coverage will be considered confirmed unless there is an additional contact from the exchange.

The fastest method to provide documents to prove eligibility is by uploading them. The notice includes instructions on how to upload a document. Alternatively, documents can be mailed to the processing center with a bar code page that is included with the notice.

Examples of documents that support eligibility for an SEP include:

Loss of minimum essential coverage

  • Letter from an employer stating that the employer dropped coverage for the employee, including the date coverage ended or will end
  • Letter or other document from an employer stating that the employer stopped or will stop contributing to the cost of coverage
  • Letter showing an employer’s offer of COBRA coverage

Place of Living

  • Lease or rental agreement
  • Mortgage or rental payment receipt
  • Utility bill


  • Marriage certificate showing the date of the marriage
  • An official public record of the marriage, including a foreign record of marriage
  • A religious document that recognizes the marriage


  •  Birth certificate or application for a birth certificate for the child
  • Application for a Social Security Number (SSN) for the child
  • Medical record from a medical provider showing the date of birth


  • Court order showing effective date of the order
  • Adoption letter or record showing the date of adoption dated and signed by a court official
  • Government-issued or legal document showing the date legal guardianship was established.

Depending on the SEP reason, the types of documents that can be used for verification purposes are more expansive than the few listed in this article.  More information is available on the CMS notices webpage. Click here to go to the notices page. Then scroll down to “Eligibility Notice” and click on the “English” link that appears below “Special Enrollment Periods (2016 coverage) (June 2016).”

Data Match Letter Demands Action

NAHU members report that employers are seeing a recent flurry of data match letters. Exactly what is causing this renewed and reinvigorated activity isn’t clear, but employers need to be on the watch for these letters and understand their responsibility to respond to them.

What is data match?

Data match is a program coordinated by the IRS, CMS and SSA that seeks to identify Medicare beneficiaries who received Medicare benefits with Medicare as the primary payer when Medicare should have been secondary. The program has saved the Medicare funds more than 3.5 billion dollars since its inception in 1989.

The data match program reflects the rules that surround Medicare Secondary Payer (MSP). By way of review, Medicare is the secondary payer to some group health plans for services provided to:

  • The working aged
  • People with permanent kidney failure, and
  • Certain disabled people.

“Working aged” refers to persons who are employed at age 65 and over and people with employed spouses of any age who have group health plan coverage because of their or their spouse’s employment status.

Medicare is the secondary payer to a group health plan for the working aged where a single employer of 20 or more employees sponsors or contributes to a group health plan or two (2) or more employers sponsors or contributes to a group health plan and at least one of the sponsors or contributors has 20 or more employees.

Counting to 20 is a bit more complicated than it sounds. Most importantly, determining whether an employer has 20 employees and is subject to MSP, has nothing to do with how many employees are enrolled in the health plan. Also, it is not a count of full-time employees. Instead, the measure is “whenever an employer has 20 or more employees for 20 or more calendar weeks in the current calendar year or preceding calendar year.” This means the number of employees on the payroll on any given workweek.

 Employers are required to complete a data match report within 30 days of receipt of the Data Match notice. In some cases an extension of time may be requested. Failure to respond to this letter can result in penalties of as much as $1,000 per person who is part of the inquiry, as well as IRS excise taxes.

The notice contains an employer’s “Data Match Personal Identification Number (PIN).” The letter directs an employer to the Data Match Secure Website. Upon entering the employer identification number and PIN, the employer can access their questionnaire.

This questionnaire asks for information on specific workers or their spouses during a specific period of time. It will also ask if the employee or spouse had employer-provided group health coverage.

 Among the questions that employers must complete, if applicable, in response to the Data Match letters are:

  • Did you offer a health plan to any employee at any time since (date)?
  • Did your organization make contributions on behalf of any employee who was covered under a collectively bargained Health and Welfare Fund (e.g. a union plan) since (date)?
  • In the following years, did you have 20 or more employees for 20 or more calendar weeks (this includes full-time, part-time, intermittent and/or seasonal employees)?
  • In the following years, did you have 100 or more employees during 50% of your business days (full or part-time)?
  • Was this individual employed by your organization during (time period)?
  • Was this individual covered under a Group Health Plan at any time after (date)?

The employer is required to certify that the information provided is complete and correct.

Depending on the responses, an employer may receive a follow-up letter with instructions to provide additional information for listed individuals regarding medical expenses paid on behalf of these individuals.

 Completing this information may not be as simple as the questions would seem to indicate. The data match inquiry may be made years after the medical services were rendered.

Employers may enter into an Employer Voluntary Data Sharing Agreement with CMS as an alternative to data match. This sharing agreement allows an employer to share coverage information with CMS.

More information on the data match program is available here.

Correcting Employer Reporting Errors Needed to Meet Good Faith Compliance Standard

As employers were struggling to complete Forms 1095-C to get them in their employees’ hands by March 31, they had the small comfort that the IRS had announced that employers needed to meet a “good faith compliance” standard to avoid penalties. The expectation was that employers would do their best to comply with this new obligation and the steep learning curve accompanying the obligation.

The IRS is now providing more details of what may – or may not – meet the “good faith compliance” standard. In a new video on correcting errors, an IRS spokesman notes that:

“If a filer transmits a batch of returns with no health coverage information but just names and addresses, then the good-faith relief would not be available for the failure to file accurate and complete returns.”

The video titled Affordable Care Act Information Returns Corrections Process can be found here. It provides a detailed review of the corrections process for both paper and electronic returns.

The video notes that there are three (3) ways that errors can be identified:

  1. By the IRS as an error message reported by the IRS as a part of the information return submission process
  2. By the employer as a result of internal review
  3. By the employee who reports an error to the employer.

Employers should take the time between now and the deadline for filing with the IRS to review their records. It is easier to correct errors before returns have been filed with the IRS. Paper filing reporting is due at the end of May. Those filing 250 or more returns must file electronically with a due date of June 30, 2016.

Once returns have been filed with the IRS, the IRS will review the returns to validate whether the information was accurate and complete. Filers will be advised regarding errors or missing information.

The types of errors and steps needed to correct them are detailed in the instructions for the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. Among the more common errors are:

  • Mismatches between names and social security numbers
  • Safe harbor or relief codes
  • Premium amounts.

When correcting a return, the employer will need to refile the correction along with the information that was on the original form. It is unacceptable to file the return showing only the corrected information. In essence, the corrected return will totally replace the one previously filed. It’s also important to note that a corrected return must also be provided to the employee.

In the case of an error in the social security number, employers cannot simply default to the date of birth. A filer may have to prove to the IRS that they followed the “TIN solicitation process.” This process requires:

  • The initial solicitation is made at an individual´s first enrollment or, if already enrolled on September 17, 2015, the next open season
  • The second solicitation is a reasonable time thereafter
  • And the third solicitation is made by December 31st of the year following the initial solicitation.

Employers should not disregard any error notices from the IRS. Failure to make corrections – or to make them timely – can result in the assessment of sizable penalties.