May 25, 2012

Transit Pass and Vanpool Benefits to Shrink to $125 Per Month in 2012

Millions of people across the United States will experience a significant increase in the cost of their daily commute to work, and many employers will suffer a corresponding increase in payroll taxes for 2012 and beyond, unless U.S. Congress acts before the end of 2011.  The reduction will also restore a significant gap between the exclusion limit for employer-provided transit pass or vanpool benefits and qualified parking benefits, and creates an unintended economic subsidy that may influence some commuters’ choice to drive themselves to work over using mass transit.Unless U.S. Congress acts before the end of 2011, the monthly tax exclusion for employer‑provided transit pass and vanpool benefits will shrink to $125 in 2012, from the current $230.  This reduction could mean the loss of hundreds of dollars of annual tax savings for employees who use these benefits.  Meanwhile, the monthly tax exclusion for employer‑provided parking benefits is scheduled to increase by $10 to $240 for 2012.

Background

Section 132(a)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code generally provides that qualified transportation fringe benefits provided by an employer, including parking, transit passes, vanpool benefits and qualified bicycle commuting reimbursements, are excluded from an employee’s taxable wages.  In practice, qualified transportation fringe benefits may be provided to employees as a direct benefit in addition to employee wages, as part of an employee pre-tax salary reduction agreement, or as any combination of the two.

2009 and 2010 Legislation

The transportation fringe benefit provisions were first sponsored as an initiative of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) to reduce both pollution and traffic by creating incentives for more commuters to use mass transit.  Prior to February 17, 2009, there was a significant gap between the exclusion limit for employer-provided transit pass or vanpool benefits ($100/month) and qualified parking benefits ($175/month).  The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 temporarily increased (through December 31, 2010) the transit pass and vanpool limit to be equal to the parking limit of $230/month, to eliminate an unintended economic subsidy that may influence some commuters to choose to drive themselves to work over using mass transit.  Near the end of 2010, the Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010 temporarily extended the $230 limit through 2011 for transit passes and vanpools.

IRS Rev. Proc. 2011-52 “Inflation Adjusted Items for 2012”

Starting in 2012, Revenue Procedure 2011-52 provides that the monthly exclusion under Code Section 132(f)(2)(A) for employer-provided transit pass or vanpool benefits is $125.  The monthly exclusion under Code Section 132(f)(2)(B) for qualified parking benefits is $240.

The Joint Committee on Taxation has estimated the cost of maintaining parity between the exclusion for employer-provided mass transit and parking benefits to be $119 million for 2012.

What Should Employers Do Now?

Employers providing transit pass or vanpool benefits need to decide whether to restrict to $125 employees’ monthly salary deductions for 2012, or instead allow employee salary deductions of up to $240 per month.  If salary deductions for transit passes and vanpool benefits are permitted up to $240 per month and the law does not change, amounts in excess of $125 per month will be taxable for 2012.

Congress could act to increase the monthly limit for transit passes and vanpools.  If Congress were to retroactively increase the monthly limit later in 2012, and if monthly employee salary deductions in 2012 will have been restricted to $125, the new limit could be applied going forward, but current tax rules would not permit employees to catch up to the higher limit for the portion of 2012 that already would have elapsed.

A last minute change in the law would present additional challenges to employers in certain jurisdictions.  For example, the City and County of San Francisco, and the nearby cities of Berkeley and Richmond, California, generally require that employers with 20 or more employees offer qualified transportation fringe benefits to employees, including at least a pre-tax salary deduction election consistent with the maximum limitation under federal tax law.  Thus, if the monthly transit pass limit is increased later in 2012 (and perhaps retroactively), employers in these jurisdictions and localities with similar legislation may be required to make adjustments to the maximum levels permitted under the tax rules.

© 2012 McDermott Will & Emery

About the Author

Partner

Ralph E. DeJong is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in its Chicago office.   He focuses his practice on the compensation, executive benefits and employee benefits of tax-exempt organizations.  This includes designing and preparing deferred and incentive compensation arrangements, leading governing boards in the review and approval of executive and physician compensation arrangements, negotiating and preparing executive and physician employment agreements, and analyzing the private inurement and intermediate sanctions...

312-984-6918

About the Author

Partner

Ira B. Mirsky is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Washington, D.C., office.  Ira focuses his practice on tax controversy matters related to employee compensation, fringe and welfare benefits, deferred compensation arrangements, and employment tax and information reporting issues in general.  He is significantly involved in IRS examination and tax due diligence matters involving executive compensation and fringe benefit issues; worker classification issues; tax information reporting issues in connection with...

202-756-8165

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.