SIMERP and ERC: “We Will Not Be Next” Has to Mean Something

SIMERP arrangements and the Employee Retention Credit have different legal foundations. My comparison is about professional conduct: what we teach, what we document, and how we respond when the employer asks for evidence behind the presentation.

“We will not be the next ERC.”

I’ve said it. I mean it.

But saying it does not protect a single employer.

Neither does calling our industry the Wild West and then going right back to business as usual.
At some point, we have to decide what we are going to do differently. Not just what we are going to say differently. What we are actually going to expect from the people presenting these programs, the organizations administering them, and ourselves.

For me, that conversation starts with the person sitting on the other side of the presentation.
Picture a business owner considering a benefits program. The savings look attractive. The additional access to care sounds worthwhile. There may be a real opportunity to help the business and its employees.

But before signing, that employer deserves an answer to a question that belongs in every presentation:

What am I responsible for, and who is accountable for making sure this works the way you are describing it?

That is where the conversation about standards should begin.

First, let’s be honest about ERC

The Employee Retention Credit was not inherently a scam. It was a legitimate refundable tax credit for certain eligible businesses and tax-exempt organizations affected during the COVID-19 pandemic. Qualification depended on specific requirements and the period being claimed. IRS
That distinction matters. We should not erase the difference between an eligible employer claiming a lawful credit and someone being persuaded to claim something they did not qualify for.

But the problems surrounding its promotion were real.
In July 2023, the IRS warned about promoters who claimed they could determine eligibility within minutes, encouraged businesses to disregard trusted tax professionals, or suggested there was nothing to lose by submitting a claim. The agency also warned that some promoters omitted important eligibility details. IRS
There was something to lose. Employers that improperly received the credit could face repayment, interest, and penalties. A confident presentation did not eliminate that exposure. IRS

On September 14, 2023, the IRS announced a moratorium on processing new ERC claims amid concerns about improper submissions and aggressive promotion. Its announcement also explained that heightened compliance reviews would slow processing of previously submitted claims. IRS
The story is more complicated than blaming every problem on a salesperson. A February 2026 Government Accountability Office report identified complex eligibility rules, weaknesses in risk planning, processing limitations, and communication problems as lessons from ERC’s design and administration. GAO

That is precisely why we should study what happened instead of using “ERC” as a convenient scare word.
My takeaway is not that tax-advantaged opportunities should be avoided. It is that a legitimate opportunity still needs accurate explanations, careful review, and people who are accountable for their work.

SIMERP and ERC are different arrangements. The lesson still matters.

ERC and employer medical reimbursement arrangements are not the same thing. ERC was a pandemic-era tax credit. Medical reimbursement and wellness arrangements raise different questions about employer-provided coverage, eligible expenses, payments, and tax treatment. IRS

The comparison I am making is about conduct.

Do we explain the conditions as clearly as the potential savings?
Do we welcome independent review, or treat it as an obstacle?

Does the person presenting the program understand the explanation—or simply know how to repeat it?

Those questions matter regardless of the label on the product.
Take the IRS Chief Counsel Advice released in June 2023 concerning an employer-funded, fixed-indemnity wellness policy. Under the facts described, wellness payments without corresponding unreimbursed medical expenses were taxable income and wages. The memorandum is expressly nonprecedential, but it provides a concrete explanation of the IRS’s reasoning about that arrangement. It is neither approval of every differently named program nor a declaration that every Section 105 reimbursement plan is unlawful.
IRS
Someone presenting these programs should understand that distinction.

Not because everyone needs to become a tax attorney. Because an employer should not receive a sweeping assurance where the correct answer requires examining the actual program.

We cannot keep saying “the Wild West”

I have heard that description of this space plenty of times. I have used it myself.

But what are we really saying?

That the standards are unclear? That the quality of an employer’s explanation depends on whom they happen to meet? That we recognize a problem but have accepted it as part of doing business?

I do not want that to become our excuse.

And we should not talk as though oversight is a distant possibility.
South Carolina enacted legislation in May 2026 requiring administrators of defined wellness reimbursement programs to be licensed. Its law also addresses misleading marketing, requires plain-language disclosures, and calls for a recommendation that employers obtain independent tax or legal advice. South Carolina Legislature
West Virginia also now requires licensing for administrators of arrangements within its statutory definition and prohibits deceptive or misleading promotion by those administrators. West Virginia Code
These requirements have defined scopes and exclusions; they are not blanket rules for every workplace wellness activity. Nor should a state license be presented as federal approval of a program’s tax treatment. South Carolina’s disclosure provisions explicitly distinguish those questions. South Carolina Legislature

To me, the message is not “wait for someone to tell us what professionalism looks like.”

It is that we should already be doing the work.

Education has to come before the presentation

When I talk about education, I am not talking only about agents.

Certification should mean more than completion

I believe this space needs meaningful certification.

But we need to be honest about what we are proposing.

A certificate should not imply that someone can provide legal advice, replace a required license, or certify that a provider’s program is compliant. Those are not the claims an educational credential should make.

The standard I am advocating is demonstrated understanding.
Can the person explain the fundamentals accurately? Can they distinguish a potential benefit from a guarantee? Can they identify an unsupported claim? Can they work through a realistic employer question without inventing an answer?

And when the rules or the program change, is there an expectation that their knowledge changes with them?

That is what I want certification to represent.

Not permission to stop asking questions. Preparation to ask better ones.
Education also has limits. It cannot make a flawed arrangement sound. It cannot compensate for missing documentation or poor administration. That is why the standard cannot stop with the person making the introduction.

Providers have to be accountable, too

We cannot ask the field to become more professional while accepting vague answers from the organizations behind the programs.

Providers and administrators should be prepared to explain their responsibilities, support their claims, identify the limits of their services, and give employers a clear path for resolving problems.

An advisor should have somewhere to take a difficult question.
A payroll team should know whom to contact when something does not reconcile.

An employee should not have to navigate a chain of introductions to find help.

And when a provider is asked for supporting information, the question should not be treated as an attack.

We should ask the same questions of the providers we recommend as we ask of the providers we question.

Otherwise, we are not establishing standards. We are defending relationships.

What I want SIMERPU to contribute

I am not building SIMERPU to give people a more polished way to repeat a sales pitch.

I want it to be a resource they can turn to before they present a program, when an employer asks a difficult question, and when something in the field does not match what they were taught.

That means helping people understand the framework, recognize the limits of their role, evaluate explanations, and know when qualified review is needed.
It also means making room for questions that are inconvenient.

The goal should not be to teach everyone how to defend the same conclusion. It should be to help professionals reach better-supported conclusions—and recognize when they do not yet have enough information.

We cannot replace regulators. We should not pretend that we can.

But we can establish educational expectations, invite scrutiny, document what we teach, and contribute informed experience to the regulatory conversation.
We do not need permission to take those responsibilities seriously.

The standard has to show up before someone signs

The person I keep coming back to is the employer reviewing the proposal.

They should not need to become an expert in tax law or benefits administration to receive an honest explanation. They should not have to guess which promises have conditions attached. And they should know who is responsible after enrollment.

That is the reason for education.

That is the reason certification should mean something.
That is the reason provider accountability belongs in the conversation alongside the savings.

“We will not be the next ERC” cannot be the end of our argument.

It has to be the beginning of our commitment.

The difference will not be what we promised in the presentation. It will be what we understood, what we documented, and what we were prepared to stand behind.

This is educational commentary. The ERC events described are historical; the article does not describe current ERC claim availability or determine the treatment of any specific benefit program.

Continue learning with SIMERPU

Explore the free SIMERP Professional Roadmap and more SIMERPU Insights & Reports.

About Mardy Gould

Mardy Gould is the founder of SIMERPU, an independent education platform for SIMERP agents, brokers, affiliates, employers, and advisers. His work focuses on understanding program structures, asking better questions, and examining the evidence behind benefit recommendations. Meet Mardy Gould.