July 22, 2010

Scheduled Breaks and Their Effect in the Calculation of the Return of Title IV Funds

In our experience with College and University A-133 audits of Student Financial Aid, the second step in the Return of Title IV calculation could lead to many compliance issues for schools.  The calculation is very important because it determines how much money must be returned to the government; as well as who must return the funds. If calculated incorrectly, the school can return too much or not enough federal dollars. If too little is returned, then the school runs the risk of missing the 45 day deadline to return the funds.  The calculation of completed calendar days as a percentage of total calendar days in a term is seemingly simple; however, scheduled breaks and their exclusion from the calculation and/or the use of the mid-point cause some confusion.  Below is a refresher on how to handle scheduled breaks and the use of mid-point:

A scheduled break is a break of five or more consecutive calendar days that are excluded from the Return calculation.  For example, a school has an official break on the calendar that is Monday the 10th – Friday 15th and does not hold weekend classes. The break starts the first day after the last class is held (prior to the break) or in our example Saturday the 8th.  The last day of the break would be the Sunday before classes resume or in our example Sunday the 17th.  This causes for nine days to be excluded from the calculation (Saturday 8th to Sunday 17th).    Scheduled breaks for five or more days are excluded from both the earned days and days in the term.

If a school cannot determine a student’s official date of withdrawal, then they can utilize the mid-point method of returning funds.  The mid-point should not be confused with mid-term.  For mid-point, you calculate the total number of calendar days in the semester and find the mid-point or the number of days earned to make the calculation equal 50%.  For example, a school has 108 days in the term excluding scheduled breaks, when mid-point is used the numerator (number of days earned) would be 54 days or 50%. 

For more information, visit http://ifap.ed.gov or contact Megan Herde, MHerde@ddfky.com

Herde Megan

Bookmark and Share

July 20, 2010

Surviving Today while Planning for Tomorrow

Most contractors that I work with have already cut costs to get through the past couple of years, but many are struggling with what to do to get through the next couple of years.  We continue to hear from national economic experts that the recession is over and the economy has begun to grow.  However, those same experts also warn us that the recovery will be slow.  Contractors are expected to continue to feel the impact of reduced work through 2012.  The 2009 CFMA Construction Industry Annual Financial Survey reported that 92% of the respondents to the survey identified “Sources of Future Work” as their top challenge in the next five years.  Leaders of successful construction companies realize that they must identify and exploit new opportunities to be successful in the future.   Some of the more common strategies that I see:

  • Joint ventures – working with another company can yield significant benefits for all involved.
  • Expand geographic regions – analyze new geographic regions that could provide opportunities for new work.
  • New market niches ­- investigate new and emerging markets for opportunities to diversify.
  • Merge with or acquire another contractor.

 

Each of these strategies provides both opportunity and risk.  Contractors must first identify the strengths of their own company/workforce and match that with the changing needs of the marketplace.  This type of strategic planning will allow companies to adjust to be successful not only today, but also in the future.  Questions you should be asking:  Do we need to hire/create expertise in emerging industries, such as green building?  Do we have the industry expertise but need to market to a broader geographic region with more opportunities?  By partnering with another company will we have the financial strength and experience to perform on a project that we could not do alone?

Continuing to do what you have always done and waiting for the market to come back is not an option in today’s economic environment.  Engaging your leadership in the very important work of planning for today, as well as tomorrow will position your company to thrive in the future. 

For more information please contact:

Crissy Fiscus, cfiscus@ddfky.com

Fiscus Crissy professional

Bookmark and Share

July 13, 2010

Tax Issues Relating to Depletion

One of the largest tax deductions a mining operation may receive is for the depletion of the mineral which it is mining.  The tax rules for depletion are different than those used for Financial Statement reporting.  For Federal Income tax reporting, a deduction is allowed using either cost depletion or percentage depletion, whichever is greater.  Cost depletion is calculated by assigning each unit produced during the year or estimated to be in reserves at year-end a portion of the property’s basis.  The amount of basis allocated to units produced during the year is allowed as a deduction not to exceed the cost of the property.  Under the percentage depletion method the taxpayer may deduct a statutorily defined percentage of gross income from mining (10% for coal mining).  The percentage depletion deduction is limited to 50% of net income from mining on the property, but is not limited by the basis in the property.  Therefore, even after the entire cost basis in the property has been recovered through percentage depletion, a taxpayer may continue to take percentage depletion as long as there is net income from mining.

One caveat to the depletion deduction, especially as it relates to percentage depletion, is the Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT).  The AMT can significantly limit the usefulness of percentage depletion when the deduction exceeds the basis of the depletable property.  Once percentage depletion exceeds the net cost basis in the depletable property, the excess must be added back as a tax preference item for AMT.  This can typically cause either a corporation or individual who uses percentage depletion to be subject to AMT and effectively lose the benefit of the percentage depletion deduction for tax purposes.  The limitation for AMT enhances the importance to make the correct choice in determining whether to use percentage or cost depletion.

The depletion deduction can be highly beneficial for tax purposes, but also adds complexity to many taxpayers.  It is advantageous to properly use the most effective method of depletion given the tax situation of the operation and the operations shareholders.  If you have any questions please contact Melissa Coombs at mcoombs@ddfky.com or Mike McCreary at mmcreary@ddfky.com.

Bookmark and Share

July 6, 2010

Form 990 – Schedule H

During the re-design process of the new Form 990, the IRS placed more emphasis on tax exempt hospitals’ reporting requirements through Schedule H of the new form.  For 2008, Schedule H was optional except for information in Part V regarding the hospital’s facility information.  However, for 2009, the form is required to be completed in its entirety for all applicable activities pertaining to each hospital.  Substantially more documentation will be required by the filing organization.

Part I of the new schedule is designed to provide information regarding charity care and community benefit activities. Information is requested on whether the hospital has a charity care policy and the criteria surrounding the policy.  Hospitals are required to show a detailed analysis of their charity care and community benefit amounts at cost.

Part II is designed to detail any community building activities that the hospital completed during the year that helped to protect or improve the community’s health or safety.  Examples of community health and safety activities could be improvements to housing buildings for vulnerable populations, creating new employment opportunities for community residents, mentoring programs, support groups and disaster readiness programs.

Part III is designed to report the hospital’s bad debt, medicare and collection practices.  The hospital will be asked to report on costing methodologies and rationale for bad debt and medicare policies.  The hospital will also have to describe the collection policies utilized for patients who qualify for charity care and financial assistance.

Part IV is designed to describe activities associated with management companies and joint ventures in which the hospital is a partner or shareholder.

Part V was the only section that was required to be completed with the 2008 return. Within this section, the hospital describes the types of services the hospital provides, such as whether it is a licensed hospital, a critical access facility, a research facility, etc.

Part VI of the schedule, Supplemental Information, allows the hospital more room to describe information listed in other parts of the schedule.  The hospital will also be asked to provide information on how the hospital assesses the health care needs of the community, how the hospital educates and informs patients and persons about their eligibility for financial assistance, information about the community it serves, and how the hospital furthers its exempt purpose.

While the new Schedule H appears cumbersome, it allows the hospital an opportunity to describe the good things it is doing for the community it serves. 

With state governments considering whether to implement minimum amounts of charity care and the federal government considering whether hospitals should lose their tax exempt status, it is becoming increasingly important for tax-exempt hospitals to place a greater emphasis on their community benefit activities.

Please see the following link for Schedule H:   http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/f990sh.pdf

Allison Carter
alcarter@ddfky.com

Carter Allison

Bookmark and Share

June 9, 2010

IRS is Seeking Input from Exempt Hospitals on New Requirements

IRS has issued Notice 2010-39 in which it seeks comments from the exempt hospital community on the requirements of new section 501(r), enacted as part of this year’s healthcare legislation.  The new statute specifically requires exempt hospital organizations to:

  • conduct community health needs assessment every 3 years,
  • establish financial assistance policy,
  • limit amounts charged for emergency or other medically necessary care, and
  • agree to forego extraordinary collection actions before determining whether individual is eligible for assistance under organization’s financial assistance policy.

IRS is specifically requesting comments regarding the need, if any, for guidance relating to the new requirements, what constitutes “reasonable efforts” to determine eligibility for assistance under a financial assistance policy for purposes of the billing and collection requirements, and the provisions of section 501(r)(2)(B)(ii), which provides that an organization that operates more than one hospital facility “shall not be treated as described in [section 501(c)(3)] with respect to any such facility for which such requirements are not separately met,” including the tax consequences of a failure with respect to some, but not all, facilities and the proper tax treatment in future periods in such a case.

Click here to see  notice for additional information and let us know if there’s anything you want to discuss.  Comments must be submitted by 7/22/2010.

For more information please contact Leigh McKee at lmckee@ddfky.com

McKee Leigh

Bookmark and Share

June 7, 2010

MANAGING IN THE EYE OF THE STORM: Surviving and thriving in the construction industry during turbulent times.

I recently had the opportunity to hear Lee Smither speak.  Lee is the managing director of management consulting at FMI Corporation in Raleigh, North Carolina.  (FMI is the nation’s largest provider of management consulting and investment banking to the worldwide construction industry.)  Lee identified four strategic issues currently facing the construction industry and I have summarized below some excerpts from Lee’s presentation.

  1. Project financing and contractor capitalization now take “center state”.  There will continue to be a shake-out of contractors as bonding capacity is cut.  Contractors with the ability to “self-finance” between owner payments will have an advantage over pure “pay-when-paid” players.  Firms with significant equity are in a “buyer’s market” with respect to undercapitalized but solidly performing acquisition targets.
  2. Government is in the driver’s seat as both customer and regulator.  Government as a buyer of construction services will have a somewhat significant effect for the next two to three years.  The construction economy will lag general economic rebound by 18 to 24 months.  Each year, federal agencies issue approximately 4,000 new regulations at an estimated annual cost of nearly $1.1 trillion.
  3. A resistant industry moves towards changing systems, processes, delivery methods and technology.  There still exists a need for business acumen training in the project management profession.  Consistency and uniformity of practices is still widely divergent and a significant Achilles’ heel for many firms.
  4. The effects of demographic shifts in the US on both labor and management succession are going to be significant.  Sixty percent of human resource directors say that their firms have no CEO succession plans in place.  Sixty-six percent of all senior managers hired from outside an organization usually fail within the first eighteen months.

Dupont, Proctor & Gamble, Revlon and Hewlett-Packard all prospered mightily during the Great Depression.  This current economic crisis is a charter for business leaders to rewrite and rethink how they conduct business.  Great leaders don’t think retrenchment but will think new strengths.  Your company’s success will depend on leaders who are able to identify and exploit opportunities, find new market niches, reposition and perhaps restructure their company.  Expect to hear more on this later.

If you would like any assistance in possibly restructuring your operations or rethinking how you conduct business, please contact Chris Humphrey at chumphrey@ddfky.com

Humphrey Chris

Bookmark and Share

May 24, 2010

Subcontract Clauses

Contractors have been using many different ways to shift risk in contracts with owners for as long as the industry has existed.  Contractors have also shifted risk when it comes to subcontractors.  One of the ways to shift risk is the use of “paid-when-paid” and “paid-if-paid” clauses in contracts.  Often these terms are used interchangeably, but in actuality, the two terms are slightly different.  Pay-if-paid clauses state that the party responsible for making the payment will not make the payment unless and until they are paid for the work.  Pay-when-paid clauses usually state that the party responsible for making the payment must pay within a set amount of days from which they receive their payment for the work.  Pay-when-paid usually does not excuse responsibility of the payment, but establishes a reasonable time to make payment.

Courts have been looking at pay-if-paid clauses for some time now to analyze their values, legality, and fairness.  The issue is whether it is fair to shift the risk of nonpayment to the subcontractor that does not have control over the insolvency of the owner.  The issue is being addressed at the state level in three different ways.  The first approach simply states that the clause is illegal and therefore unenforceable.  In this case the courts interpret the payment obligation to mean payment is required within a reasonable time from the completion of the work invoiced.  The second approach states that the provision violates public policy.  The reasoning of the clause violating public policy is that it eliminates the subcontractor’s lien right.  A mechanics’ lien is a statutory right to preserve the contractor’s security for payment of sums due.  This approach is then interpreted the same as the first in that the payment obligation is required to be made within a reasonable time rather than a condition to be paid.  The third approach is that some states will enforce the clause as it is written.  This approach usually requires precise language that clearly indicates the parties intend for the subcontractor to assume the risk.  If the court decides the language states a pay-when-paid rather than pay-if-paid, the clause is deemed to establish a reasonable time for payment.

State courts are also taking positions on the responsibility of the surety.  Some states are of the position that is the pay-if-paid clause is enforceable as to the claim of the subcontractor against the general contractor, then the surety is not responsible to pay the subcontractor.  Other states view the payment bond as the insurance for when the owner or general contractor does not make payment and allows the subcontractor to make claims against the surety.

It is important to remember when preparing subcontractor agreements to use language that clearly states that the risk of insolvency of the owner passes to the subcontractor.  Also, it is important to know which state will have jurisdiction over the contract and consult your attorney as to that state’s position on enforcing pay-if paid clauses.

If you would like more information please contact Hunter Stout at hstout@ddfky.com

Stout Hunter

Bookmark and Share

May 10, 2010

EHR Certification Update – Q2 2010

Whether you have already implemented an electronic health record (EHR) solution or you are still evaluating your options, it is VERY important to understand the issue of certification.  Assuming you are up to speed on the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA), the HITECH Act, and Meaningful Use (MU), you have heard of the topic “Certified EHR”.  If you are not up to speed on the previously mentioned topics, please visit http://www.ddfky.com/HITECH-Act.html.

There is still some confusion around the details of what the certification process will look like.  Previously CCHIT (Certification Commission for Health Information Technology), an independent body, provided certification standards and testing for healthcare information systems, including EHR’s.  With ARRA, the government has assumed and placed the responsibility of setting standards and the certification process with Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) and the Office of the National Coordinator (ONC).

The ONC has outlined a process by which a company can apply for certification and has established the criteria for becoming an accredited certification testing organization.  The ONC will begin accepting applications from organizations who wish to fulfill the role of EHR certification testing in May of 2010.  Currently there are two known organizations that plan to seek accreditation, CCHIT and The Drummond Group.

Here is where the confusion begins.  Any EHR vendor that advertizes their software as CCHIT certified, for any year, is NOT yet certified for MU.  CCHIT 2011 and below does not guarantee ARRA/MU certification.  All EHR systems will need to be tested and certified for ARRA/MU sometime after June of 2010.

CCHIT will likely continue to offer its own certification in addition to any certification that they get approved by the ONC to offer.  However, the standard CCHIT certification will be no more than a Good Housekeeping or J.D. Power and Associates type of achievement. 

It is very important that you understand where your current or potential EHR solution stands.  Demand that your software vendor keep you updated on the roadmap and progress as it relates to certification.  It is highly unlikely that any software solution had the full set of functionality to meet the MU requirements.  Therefore, the vendor’s first step is to make the required enhancements to the software.  This step in and of itself could be quite challenging for vendors with limited resources.  The second hurdle is to participate in testing and demonstrate that the EHR solution in fact does offer all of the capabilities as required for MU.

If you are still in the process of evaluating and selecting a solution, keep in mind that this is only the first round of requirements and testing required.  MU will be rolled out in three distinct stages over the next five years.  This means that any solution provider that you choose will need to be up to the challenge of continual enhancement and certification. 

If you have any questions regarding the HITECH Act, Meaningful Use, EHR Certification, please contact Jason Miller at (859) 425-7626 or jmiller@ddftech.com.

Miller Jason

Bookmark and Share

May 3, 2010

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a study on tax arbitrage

The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) has released a study on tax arbitrage – the earning of tax exempt income on the proceeds of tax exempt bonds – by colleges and universities.  The study was requested by Senator Grassley and uses several measures of tax arbitrage that are broader than the definition in the current statute and concludes that if Congress were to broaden the definition of tax arbitrage, colleges and universities would likely reduce their use of exempt bonds, decreasing the cost to the federal government for this tax preference.  By one of the broadened measures, nearly all of the tax-exempt bonds issued in 2003 would be classified as earning profits from tax arbitrage.  Under a narrower, but still expanded definition, 75% of those bonds would have tax arbitrage.  The incidence of tax arbitrage in the study is high because it includes investment earnings from endowment funds, including those held in separate foundations and the thinking behind it is that perhaps colleges and universities should sell some of their assets or use non-exempt financing for capital projects.  Read the entire report at http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=11226

For more information contact:

Leigh McKee
lmckee@ddfky.com

McKee Leigh

Bookmark and Share

April 13, 2010

RAC BLACKOUT DELAYED – RAC WILL MOVE AHEAD WITH COMPLEX REVIEWS

The anticipated blackout period for the Recovery Audit Contractor (RAC) for Kentucky has been delayed.  Highmark Medicare Services, Inc. (HMS) was awarded the Medicare Administrative Contract (MAC) for combined Part A/Part B Medicare services in Jurisdiction 15 which is comprised of Kentucky and Ohio.  However, two protests were filed which have delayed the transition from the current fiscal intermediaries to Highmark.  Providers will eventually receive notification of the timeline for the transition once it has been determined.  The ninety day blackout period for the RAC will be defined once the transition timeline is set.  For now, all providers should anticipate the RACs are conducting business as usual and proceeding with their audit agenda.

CGI Federal recently posted new approved issues on their RAC website.  The announcement is further indication that 2010 will be a busy year for providers; particularly for complex reviews involving MS-DRG coding and DRG validation. There are over thirty-eight issues that deal specifically with MS-DRG and DRG validation.   Medical necessity reviews are specifically excluded from review at this time.  With auditors beginning the process of conducting more advanced audits, it is anticipated that RACs will attempt to find evidence of “upcoding”.  It is very resource-intensive to respond to complex reviews. Providers have only forty-five days to respond to the RAC notification.  In some instances, the information they are requesting may go back to October 1, 2007 so the medical records may be in storage, some may be on paper, and some may be electronic.   The complex review will require many more man-hours from providers than an automated review. 

Dean Dorton Ford recommends that providers visit the CGI website frequently and prepare for the complex reviews that are anticipated for 2010.  Here are a few simple measures to help you prepare and reduce your risk in 2010:

  • Review all approved issues for your region
  • Conduct internal audits for coding and DRG validation on the approved issues list
  • Physicians documentation remains key to successful for appeals – conduct documentation audits and education as necessary based on internal review and audit findings

In addition, the Office of the Inspector General (OIG) released a report in February of 2010 on the outcomes of the Recovery Audit Contractors’ Fraud Referrals.  It simply stated that during the Demonstration project, RACs identified over $1 billion in improper payments, yet only referred two cases of fraud to the OIG.  RACs do not receive any contingency fees for the cases they refer so there may be some disincentive for RACs to refer cases of potential fraud to the OIG.   RACs are required to report any cases of potential fraud that they identify; however, they must be able to identify fraud to refer it.  CMS is going to provide mandatory training on the identification and referral of fraud.  Also, the OIG recommends they implement a database system to track fraud referrals that arise from the fraud referrals from the RACs.

For more information please contact:
Pam Hicks
phicks@ddfky.com
859.425.7636

Hicks Pam 2

Bookmark and Share
Older Posts »