SIMERPU RESEARCH · SOURCE RECAP
Using Benefits to Increase Pay? It’s Probably an Illegal Double-Dip
SIMERPU recap and commentary: Mardy Gould
Opened — main text retrieved
Quick recap
Describes recurring double-dip designs and why returning salary reductions without qualifying expenses can create tax exposure. Gives warning signs for employers evaluating proposals.
SIMERPU’s viewpoint
HUB’s warning signs provide a way to examine a proposal promising increased take-home pay. SIMERPU would test the mechanism producing that result and the conditions attached to the payment. An employee benefit opportunity is easier to evaluate when the employer can explain both the added value and how the numbers work.
What this source contributes
The warning signs help readers examine how a proposal produces an increase in take-home pay.
What remains unanswered
The employer still needs to test the actual payment entitlement and expense support instead of judging by the headline result alone.
Mardy Gould’s take
An attractive paycheck illustration deserves a clear explanation. I would ask the provider to show where the increase comes from, which conditions must hold and what happens if they do not. That gives employees and employers a better understanding of the opportunity and the assumptions built into it.
Questions I would bring to the conversation
1. What mechanism produces the claimed pay increase?
2. What expense or entitlement supports the payment?
3. What changes when an employee does not meet the illustrated conditions?
Mardy Gould · Co-Founder, SIMERPU →
What would change our assessment?
A complete payroll reconciliation and documented payment basis could clarify whether the article’s warning signs describe the proposal.
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: HUB’s EB Compliance Team
Publisher: HUB International
Original Publication Date: 2022-04-20
Read this alongside…
Each connection has a specific purpose. Compare the sources’ facts, positions and publication dates as you read.
Revenue Ruling 2002-3 — Reimbursement of pre-tax health insurance premiums
IRS
Source position: Neutral / explanatory
Compare the illustrated money flow with the historical premium-reimbursement issue.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
CCA 201622031 — Tax Treatment of Wellness Program Benefits and Employer Reimbursement of Premiums Provided Pre-tax Under a Section 125 Cafeteria Plan
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
Source position: Neutral / explanatory
Check the distinction between rewards and reimbursements.
Read the SIMERPU recap →
CCA 202323006 — Tax Treatment of Employer-Funded, Insured, Fixed-Indemnity Wellness Policy
IRS Office of Chief Counsel
Source position: Neutral / explanatory
Examine the later example of recurring wellness cash payments.
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: Not stated
Source Type: Benefits consultant / administrator
Model Discussed: Double-Dip Schemes
Position: Critical
Period: Historical — through 2022
Retrieved: October 31, 2026
Research and date notes
No additional retrieval note.
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.