Category: Compensation and
Employee Benefits Subject: Dependent Care Assistance Title: Exclusion if Both Spouses Are Covered by Separate Employers. IRC Sections: 129 Filename: 1043.html Date Produced: 12/97 Copyright 1998, The Tax Resource Group. All
rights reserved. Telephone 800-578-3498. Internet: www.taxresourcegroup.com
Taxpayers are married filing jointly. Both spouses
are employed. Both employers have dependent care assistance plans. The limit on excludible dependent care assistance
under Section 129 is $5,000 per year. The question is whether the limitation
is A) per employee, such that a married couple
such as the taxpayer's in this example could exclude $10,000; or B) per taxpayer, such that a married couple
filing jointly (i.e., as one taxpayer) could exclude only $5,000. The limitation language in the statute, IRC
Section 129(a)(2)(A), is somewhat fuzzy. The language of the portion of
the statute dealing with the exclusion in general is couched in terms of
a benefit provided by an employer to an employee. The limitation language
simply says "the amount which may be excluded is $5,000". Is this
per employee or per taxpayer? The limitation is $5,000 or $2,500 for married
individuals filing separately. Normally, a married filing separately limitation
in this context indicates that the overall limitation, $5,000 in this case,
applies to married taxpayers filing jointly as a unit. In other words, the
implication is there is one $5,000 limitation per taxpayer, not per employee.
There are no regulations. The instructions to Form 2441 are not helpful.
The committee reports surrounding enactment of the limitation are not helpful
at all. There are no rulings, cases, announcements, etc. With nothing more to go on, I would conclude
that there is only one $5,000 limitation for married taxpayers filing jointly.
The literal language of the statute supports this interpretation. Out of curiosity, I "dummied up" a
return on Lacerte with two married taxpayers each of whom received $5,000
of dependent care assistance. For what it is worth, the system allowed an
exclusion of only $5,000. |