<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Good news: Feds nix COBRA reporting for &#8216;09</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/</link>
	<description>Your daily dose of HR</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 18 Mar 2010 13:43:13 -0400</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=abc</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Josephine A</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-15397</link>
		<dc:creator>Josephine A</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 16 Jun 2009 20:30:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-15397</guid>
		<description>Not only must the separations be involuntary to qualify for the subsidy, but the separation also must be through no fault of the employee (i.e. lay offs). If the employee was involuntarily terminated for cause then he/she would not be eligible for the subsidy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Not only must the separations be involuntary to qualify for the subsidy, but the separation also must be through no fault of the employee (i.e. lay offs). If the employee was involuntarily terminated for cause then he/she would not be eligible for the subsidy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andrea J</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-13312</link>
		<dc:creator>Andrea J</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Wed, 20 May 2009 18:59:45 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-13312</guid>
		<description>Janie,
Yes, the separations/terminations must be involuntary to qualify for the COBRA subsidy.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Janie,<br />
Yes, the separations/terminations must be involuntary to qualify for the COBRA subsidy.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Janie</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-13145</link>
		<dc:creator>Janie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 18 May 2009 20:16:31 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-13145</guid>
		<description>This only applied to &quot;Involuntary&quot; terminations, correct?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This only applied to &#8220;Involuntary&#8221; terminations, correct?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Laura</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-12368</link>
		<dc:creator>Laura</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 22:38:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-12368</guid>
		<description>Nikkita,
Who ever administer&#039;s your Cobra will have this information.  They had to send out eligibility notices by April 18th, and employees have 60 days to complete the forms and return them to the company.  YOU would only be required to know if you self-administered.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nikkita,<br />
Who ever administer&#8217;s your Cobra will have this information.  They had to send out eligibility notices by April 18th, and employees have 60 days to complete the forms and return them to the company.  YOU would only be required to know if you self-administered.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: nikkita</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-12367</link>
		<dc:creator>nikkita</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 22:21:22 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-12367</guid>
		<description>&quot;Assistance eligible individual&#039;s eligibility&quot;... &quot;confusion, blackout&quot;!!!  Please tell me this is info my TPA has or will be acquiring.  I almost cried reading, let alone carrying out in my humble HR department of .</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>&#8220;Assistance eligible individual&#8217;s eligibility&#8221;&#8230; &#8220;confusion, blackout&#8221;!!!  Please tell me this is info my TPA has or will be acquiring.  I almost cried reading, let alone carrying out in my humble HR department of .</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Gracie</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-12360</link>
		<dc:creator>Gracie</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 11 May 2009 21:37:24 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-12360</guid>
		<description>Michelle, 

I value the HR Morning emails because I&#039;ve received many a &quot;heads-up&quot; re: legislation changes and/or updates.

I was somewhat surprised by this article in terms of not requiring the w2/1099 but honestly wasn&#039;t that surprised as I did question how on earth an employer was to provide a W2 or 1099 when the subsidy was given to a dependent of a former employee (i.e. s/he was never on our payroll). 

But long-tory-short wanted to post a comment as I have found that the HR Morning emails give me a &quot;flag&quot; to keep an eye out for additional information re: issues such as this. They&#039;ve usually been followed w/ further details, links, etc. from additional sources such as SHRM, IRS, DOL or my external counsel. 

Just my two cents. 

Gracie</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michelle, </p>
<p>I value the HR Morning emails because I&#8217;ve received many a &#8220;heads-up&#8221; re: legislation changes and/or updates.</p>
<p>I was somewhat surprised by this article in terms of not requiring the w2/1099 but honestly wasn&#8217;t that surprised as I did question how on earth an employer was to provide a W2 or 1099 when the subsidy was given to a dependent of a former employee (i.e. s/he was never on our payroll). </p>
<p>But long-tory-short wanted to post a comment as I have found that the HR Morning emails give me a &#8220;flag&#8221; to keep an eye out for additional information re: issues such as this. They&#8217;ve usually been followed w/ further details, links, etc. from additional sources such as SHRM, IRS, DOL or my external counsel. </p>
<p>Just my two cents. </p>
<p>Gracie</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Jim Giuliano</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-11986</link>
		<dc:creator>Jim Giuliano</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 13:09:52 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-11986</guid>
		<description>Michele:
Announcements such as this one are made at the weekly IRS conference call attended by one of our reporters from HR Morning. The IRS does not necessarily follow up such announcements with info on the agency Web site. Nevertheless, the information is accurate. To verify, you can contact your local IRS office.

Jim Giuliano
Managing Editor
HR Morning</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Michele:<br />
Announcements such as this one are made at the weekly IRS conference call attended by one of our reporters from HR Morning. The IRS does not necessarily follow up such announcements with info on the agency Web site. Nevertheless, the information is accurate. To verify, you can contact your local IRS office.</p>
<p>Jim Giuliano<br />
Managing Editor<br />
HR Morning</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Michele</title>
		<link>http://www.hrmorning.com/good-news-irs-nixes-cobra-reporting-for-09/comment-page-1/#comment-11984</link>
		<dc:creator>Michele</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 08 May 2009 13:02:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.hrmorning.com/?p=1828#comment-11984</guid>
		<description>Can you please cite your sources when you post articles like this? I searched the IRS website and was unable to find any reference to W2 and 1099 reporting not being required. In an earlier article you said that the IRS was rejecting COBRA subsidies and I could not source that either so I posted it on a few message boards and did a Google search and still came up empty. I am beginning to doubt the credibility of the information I find on this website.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Can you please cite your sources when you post articles like this? I searched the IRS website and was unable to find any reference to W2 and 1099 reporting not being required. In an earlier article you said that the IRS was rejecting COBRA subsidies and I could not source that either so I posted it on a few message boards and did a Google search and still came up empty. I am beginning to doubt the credibility of the information I find on this website.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- This site's performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Dramatically improve the speed and reliability of your blog!

Learn more about our WordPress Plugins: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using disk
Page Caching using disk (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching 7/20 queries in 0.020 seconds using disk

Served from: lamp03.pbp.com @ 2010-03-19 03:44:38 -->