SIMERPU RESEARCH · SOURCE RECAP
IRS Chief Counsel Advice Says Wellness Indemnity Payments Are Taxable If No Unreimbursed Medical Expenses Related to the Payment
SIMERPU recap and commentary: Mardy Gould
Opened — main text retrieved
Quick recap
Analyzes the CCA’s $1,200 premium / $1,000 payment facts, income exclusion rules and employment taxes; connects the memo to earlier IRS advice.
SIMERPU’s viewpoint
Groom’s detailed treatment makes the numerical example useful as a transaction map. SIMERPU would separate the premium, the benefit payment and any underlying medical expense rather than treating the illustration as a single savings number. Each component needs an explanation consistent with the program’s documents.
What this source contributes
The numerical example makes it possible to examine premiums, benefit payments and payroll treatment as separate parts of a transaction.
What remains unanswered
An employer needs to substitute its own facts carefully. Changing the dollar amounts alone does not explain a different tax result.
Mardy Gould’s take
Numbers can make this debate clearer. I would place the proposed paycheck next to the memo’s example and mark each meaningful difference. Then I would ask the provider to explain those differences in plain English. The employer should understand the reasoning behind the illustration, not just the final savings figure.
Questions I would bring to the conversation
1. What replaces the example’s premium and cash payment?
2. Which differences concern legal entitlement rather than amount?
3. Where is any underlying expense documented?
Mardy Gould · Co-Founder, SIMERPU →
What would change our assessment?
A transaction map identifying substantive differences and their legal rationale would improve the comparison; revised arithmetic alone would not.
Read the original source
The original author and publisher are credited below. Continue to their article, document or source page for the complete context.
Original Author: Not individually identified
Publisher: Groom Law Group, Chartered
Original Publication Date: 2023-06-26
Read this alongside…
Each connection has a specific purpose. Compare the sources’ facts, positions and publication dates as you read.
CCA 202323006 — Tax Treatment of Employer-Funded, Insured, Fixed-Indemnity Wellness Policy
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
Source position: Neutral / explanatory
Check the original numerical example and its qualifications.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
CCA 201703013 — Tax Treatment of Benefits Paid by Fixed-Indemnity Health Plans
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
Source position: Neutral / explanatory
Compare the earlier funding scenarios with the premium treatment here.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
Short-Term, Limited-Duration Insurance and Independent, Noncoordinated Excepted Benefits Coverage
Federal Register
Source position: Neutral / explanatory
Follow the later rulemaking discussion of the same broad payment issue.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
Keep learning with SIMERPU
Build your understanding with learning resources, the free Professional Roadmap and our approach to reviewing sources.
About this source
Original Updated Date: 2023-06-26 (page metadata)
Source Type: Law firm analysis
Model Discussed: wellness indemnity payments
Position: Critical
Period: Recent — 2023–2026
Retrieved: October 31, 2026
Research and date notes
Date from article metadata; June 8 in body describes IRS release, not article publication.
Each record identifies the material retrieved. SIMERPU’s viewpoint and Mardy Gould’s take are editorial commentary; the source-position label describes the original source’s stance. Read the original and its qualifications when evaluating a particular arrangement.
SIMERP
U
™
Understand the details. Lead with confidence.
© 2026 SIMERPU.