Texas has received its share of EduJobs funds 
(more than $830 million) and the Texas Education Agency has posted a list of allocation amounts for Texas school districts . In April U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan said there was a “sense of urgency to get these funds out the door,” especially in light of the potential for large cuts in state funding for public education. “These education dollars will help Texas keep teachers in the classroom working with our students this year,” Duncan said.
The funds were expected a year ago but were delayed due to a dispute between Rep. Lloyd Doggett and Gov. Rick Perry over an amendment Doggett put in the bill that would have prohibited Texas from using the funds to replace state funding of schools.
The Texas Workforce Commission (TWC) reports that it recovered $3.9 million in fraudulently obtained unemployment insurance (UI) benefits in 2010. TWC investigates and refers to local district attorneys cases of UI fraud or deception. Recovered funds are returned to the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund from which the agency pays unemployment compensation benefits.
The people prosecuted were from across the state: Austin, Houston, San Antonio, Dallas, Brownsville, Beaumont, McAllen, and several other counties had residents who committed UI fraud. Large recoveries came from the Houston area (35 cases yielding $173,379 in restitution), the Austin area (35 cases yielding $153,897) and the Dallas area (23 cases yielding $119,513).
Some examples of UI fraud include giving false information and failing to report self-employment or other earnings while receiving UI benefits. In addition to paying restitution, TWC can order those who defraud the system to pay fines, perform community service, and serve jail time.
“Preserving our employer-paid Unemployment Insurance Trust Fund for those who are legitimately due its benefits is a task we take very seriously,” said TWC Chairman Tom Pauken. “These efforts to prosecute those who cheat the system have resulted in millions being returned to the fund.”
On April 14, President Barack Obama signed into law a measure repealing a controversial provision of the health care reform law (the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act or PPACA) that would have required all businesses to file 1099 tax forms for transactions of $600 or more.
The requirement drew strong criticism from business and advocacy groups, including the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), which called the measure “…an onerous burden on employers of all sizes” that provides no health care benefits. Repeal of the measure had strong bipartisan support.
—“President Signs Repeal of 1099 Tax Provision in Health Care Reform Law,” by Bill Leonard, SHRM Web site, April 18, 2011.
In March, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2011-28 , which provides interim guidance to employers on reporting the cost of employee health insurance on Form W-2. The notice provides guidance on what coverage needs to be reported and how to report the associated costs.
Employers will be required to report the cost of employer-sponsored health insurance coverage on Form W-2 for the 2012 tax year which is distributed to employees in January 2013. This reporting requirement is part of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) enacted in March 2010 and is intended to provide employees with information about the cost of their health insurance.
In the March notice, the IRS made the reporting requirement optional for employers filing fewer than 250 W-2 forms. It will remain optional for qualifying small businesses until further guidance is issued.
The IRS had previously deferred the new reporting requirement, making it optional in 2011. The IRS and the Treasury Department indicated that the deferral was to give employers time to make changes to payroll systems and procedures necessary to comply with the requirement. Employers that choose to begin the reporting process early can use the latest notice for guidance.
—“IRS Issues Guidance on W-2 Reporting of Health Care Costs,” by Stephen Miller, Society for Human Resource Management Web site, April 7, 2011.
The Social Security Administration (SSA) has resumed sending employers no-match letters when an employee’s name does not correspond to a valid Social Security number. SSA had discontinued the letters after litigation arose in 2007 challenging a proposed no-match rule issued by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security.
While there is no guidance on how employers should respond to no-match letters, it is clear that they are expected to have an action plan when a letter comes their way. When a district receives a no-match letter, it should ensure that it didn’t result from a typo or mix up in its own records. If there is no records-related error, the district should ask the employee for additional work eligibility identification, particularly if a Social Security card was used to complete Form I-9. Also, direct the employee to the SSA to resolve the no-match problem. The district should give the employee a window of time (say 30 to 60 days) to work with the SSA to straighten the matter out. If the employee doesn’t resolve the matter, the district should consult with its attorney prior to making any decisions about termination.
If HR chooses to ignore the letters, the SSA may refer the matter to the Internal Revenue Service or the Justice Department for criminal prosecution of Social Security fraud.
—“Social Security Administration Resumes No-Match Letters,” by Allen Smith, Society for Human Resource Management Web site, April 14, 2011.
