How Burdensome Is E-Verify Photo Matching? Offer Your Input

By Scott Mezistrano, CPP

E-Verify has a biometric tool that can be very effective in preventing document fraud and unauthorized employment. But it may also place an undue burden on employers. The Immigration subcommittee of the Government Affairs Task Force is discussing this issue with the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and needs your input to support its position.

What Is Photo Matching?

Photo matching comes into play if you are creating a case (used to be called "initiating a query") in E-Verify for someone who presented a Permanent Resident Card (PRC, Form I-551) or an Employment Authorization Document (EAD, Form I-766) for their Form I-9 documentation. Assuming the other Form I-9 information matches DHS's records, E-Verify will display the photo it has on file for the document presented and ask you to indicate whether it matches the photo on the PRC or EAD. (Photo matching will also be required at some point when employees present a U.S. passport.)

What Is the Burden?

Here is the burden that many employers may not be able to support. You must also:

*Make and retain a copy of every PRC and EAD, and

*If the photos do not match, submit a copy of the PRC or EAD to DHS by either scanning and uploading the image via E-Verify or mailing it via an express mail service, at your expense.

"I know of employers that were planning to implement E-Verify until they heard of this requirement," said Dave Fowler, GATF Immigration Subcommittee Chair. "Many large employers have hundreds or thousands of locations. E-Verify photo matching will require them to equip these locations with scanners and copiers plus absorb the associated training, operational, maintenance, and support costs. They see this as an unnecessary burden on the business. The current requirements of photo matching will also increase the security and privacy risks for employees, because it is inevitable that hardcopies of employee documents will end up in trash cans and scanned images will be left on the hard drives of shared computers. In addition, there is the added concern many have with retaining and/or mailing copies of documents with such sensitive and personally identifiable information."

Please Offer Your Input

* Are you (or were you) considering E-Verify but have concerns about the photo matching requirement?

* Are your hiring locations prepared to support photo matching today?

* What sorts of burdens (employee time, equipment expense, mailing expense, record retention), if any, would this place on your business?

All input will be kept confidential. Please write to smezistrano@americanpayroll.org. Thank you!

Background

E-Verify is an online system that allows employers to electronically verify that a new hire's name, date of birth, and social security number match the records of the Social Security Administration and that the new hire is authorized to work in the United States according to the Department of Homeland Security.

Photo matching is discussed on pages 18-20 and 36-37 of the E-Verify User Manual for Employers (June 2010 edition).

E-Verify is currently used by over 205,000 employers at more than 750,000 worksites and is growing by more than 1,400 employers a week. For more information, please see http://www.dhs.gov/E-Verify.


Immunize Against This Viral Healthcare Reform Myth

By Scott Mezistrano, CPP

There is a viral e-mail circulating about how employer-provided health coverage will be added to your Forms W-2 for tax year 2011 and how it will dramatically increase your tax liability. As payroll professionals, we know this is not true, and we're the perfect people to stop this from spreading among our families, friends, and colleagues.

The e-mail incorrectly quotes the Kiplinger Tax Report and includes such statements as:

"I contacted my Congressman about House bill HR 3590, the health care bill. I asked for a summary of changes. Starting in 2011 (next year folks) your W-2 tax form sent by your employer will be increased to show the value of whatever health insurance you are given by the company. Take your tax form you just finished and see what $15,000 or $20,000 additional gross does to your tax debt. That's what you'll pay next year."

As we in payroll know, employer-provided health coverage will be reported on the W-2 (tax-year 2011 and beyond), but it is information only. It does not add to taxable wages/income.

The Kiplinger Report said as much in its article, (see item 3) and this myth is further debunked by Factcheck.org.  

The actual summary of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act says the following (see page 23; bold is added):

"(Sec. 9002) Requires employers to include in the W-2 form of each employee the aggregate cost of applicable employer-sponsored group health coverage that is excludable from the employee's gross income (excluding the value of contributions to flexible spending arrangements)."

By the way, it has not yet been decided in which W-2 box the cost of employer-sponsored health coverage will be reported, but APA is urging the Internal Revenue Service to make that decision as soon as possible, so everyone can begin planning and programming. Meanwhile, if you get the e-mail, you can copy and paste the above in your reply.


OCSE to Update IWO, NMSN

The Office of Child Support Enforcement is seeking public comments on revisions of two staples of child support enforcement: the standardized Income Withholding Order and the National Medical Support Notice. Proposed changes to the IWO include instructions that all payments are to be directed to the State Disbursement Unit.

The comment periods opened on July 1 and July 2, respectively, and each will remain open for 60 days.

Income Withholding Order (IWO) Form
In a Dear Colleague Letter (DCL-1-10) issued to state and tribal child support directors, OCSE describes two proposed modifications to the IWO Form.

The first change eliminates any shading in the form. Employers had complained that vital information became obscured when the form was issued by fax, requiring the employer to contact the sender and have the form reissued. The second change adds a check box to page two of the form, which is to be used by employers when returning the form to the sender because the payment is not being directed to the State Disbursement Unit.

APA welcomes both changes. This second change is somewhat controversial because returning a withholding order to the sender delays its implementation. Child support professionals and APA members alike do not wish to delay the income withholding process; however, APA members on the Government Affairs Task Force Child Support and Garnishment Subcommittee have long been discussing with OCSE the problem of orders directing payments to custodial parents or their representatives instead of to the SDU, as is required by law.
 

The issue came to the forefront this year when the U.S. Postal Service accused Child Support Services of Atlanta, a private child support collection firm, of mail fraud. See the February edition of Inside Washington.

CSS had contracted with custodial parents to collect their child support rather than having the state collect it. CSS then neglected to pay the amounts to the custodial parents. The case reinforced the fact that the child support system has been designed effectively, and that making all payments to the State Disbursement Unit safeguards against this type of fraud. OCSE has been collecting comments from employers and state child support agencies through work groups it sponsors. Comments offered by participants include a number of calls for increased education to court personnel who issue child support orders.

"APA members are sympathetic to the fact that child support to a needy family will be delayed because the payroll department rejects an income withholding order. No one likes that. But this isn't a minor paperwork error," said Bill Dunn, APA's Manager of Government Relations. "The law requires that these payments be directed to the State Disbursement Units, so there's a compliance issue. It is surprising to us that judges, lawyers, and other court workers as well as child support professionals in the state enforcement agencies need to be educated on the very laws they enforce and adjudicate."

"But more important to employers, every payment that is directed away from the SDU creates an administrative issue for the company and affects its payroll processing. APA cheered when the SDUs were established, providing a single point of remittance for each state. Hearing that OCSE is reinforcing the fact that all payments are to go to the SDUs is very promising," Dunn added. "The wording on the form is so significant because it legitimizes the employer's right to reject an order that is irregular. As it is, we hear of employers being threatened with contempt of court charges for doing that."

National Medical Support Notice (NMSN)
Changes to the NMSN are not so fraught with controversy. As described in another Dear Colleague Letter (DCL-1-11), changes to the NMSN largely deal with clarifying terms by which the order may be referred by adding spaces for "case identifier," "order identifier," and "document tracking number." Page numbers will also be added to the multipage form. In addition, OCSE is proposing to add space for a name, mailing address, and telephone number for the representative of the child covered by the order.

All public comments are welcome. Consideration will be given to comments received by Thursday, August 26, 2010, for the IWO and by Friday, August 27 for the NMSN. The revised forms may be reviewed from the OCSE website.