The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State
State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Julie M. Whittaker
Specialist in Income Security
August 8, 2011
The House Ways and Means Committee is making available this version of this Congressional Research Service
(CRS) report, with the cover date shown above, for inclusion in its 2011 Green Book website. CRS works
exclusively for the United States Congress, providing policy and legal analysis to Committees and Members of
both the House and Senate, regardless of party affiliation.
Congressional Research ServiceJanuary 10, 2012
Congressional Research Service
7-5700
www.crs.gov
RS22954
CRS Report for Congress
Prepared for Members and Committees of Congress
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Summary
During some recessions, current taxes and reserve balances were insufficient to cover state
expenditures for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. UC benefits are an entitlement, and
states are legally required to pay benefits even if the state account is insolvent. Some states may
borrow funds from the Federal Unemployment Account (FUA) within the Unemployment Trust
Fund (UTF) to meet UC benefit obligations. The 2009 stimulus package (the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5 §2004) temporarily waives interest payments and the
accrual of interest on these loans to states from the FUA.
This report summarizes how insolvent states may borrow funds from the federal account within
the UTF to meet their UC benefit obligations. Outstanding loans listed by state may be found at
the Department of Labor’s website: http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/
budget.asp#tfloans.
In 2010, three states had a credit reduction: Michigan (0.6), Indiana (0.3), and South Carolina
(0.3). As a result, the credit reduction was applied retroactively to tax year 2010 earnings, and the
net FUTA tax during 2010 for Michigan employers is 1.4% on the first $7,000 of each employee’s
earnings. In Indiana and South Carolina (with a credit reduction of 0.3) the net FUTA tax during
2010 for Indiana and South Carolina employers was 1.1% on the first $7,000 of each employee’s
earnings. In all other states the net FUTA 2010 tax was 0.8%.
Representative Peter Welch introduced H.R. 650 on February 10, 2011. The bill would extend the
interest accrual on federal loans to states through 20122011, 20 states and the Virgin Islands had a state tax credit reduction applied to the calculation
of the federal unemployment tax (FUTA): Michigan (0.9), Indiana (0.6), Arkansas (0.3),
California (0.3), Connecticut (0.3), Florida (0.3), Georgia (0.3), Illinois (0.3), Kentucky (0.3),
Minnesota (0.3), Missouri (0.3), North Carolina (0.3), New Jersey (0.3), Nevada (0.3), New York
(0.3), Ohio (0.3), Pennsylvania (0.3), Rhode Island (0.3), Virginia (0.3), Virgin Islands (0.3), and
Wisconsin (0.3). As a result, in Michigan, a credit reduction of 0.9 was applied retroactively to
tax year 2011 earnings and the net FUTA tax during 2011 for Michigan employers was 1.5% on
the first $7,000 of each employee’s earnings. In Indiana (with a credit reduction of 0.6), the net
FUTA tax during 2011 for Indiana employers was 1.2% on the first $7,000 of each employee’s
earnings. In the other 19 states (with a 0.3% credit reduction), the net FUTA tax for 2011 was
0.9%. For all other states, the net FUTA tax was 0.6%.
H.R. 650 would extend the suspension of interest accrual on federal loans to states through 2012.
H.R. 3346 and S. 1804 would also allow states to enter into an agreement with the U.S.
Department of Labor (DOL) to temporarily suspend the accrual of interest for FY2012. In
addition, states that otherwise have employers facing a decreased state tax credit on federal
unemployment taxes would be able to opt to suspend the reduction in credit for tax year 2012. To
have these options available to the state, the state would be required to continue to calculate
regular unemployment benefit entitlements (both in weekly amount and total weeks available) as
required by state law on the date of enactment of this proposal. States with no outstanding
unemployment loans within the unemployment trust fund would earn an additional two
percentage points in interest on the (positive) average daily balance in the state’s unemployment
trust fund account.
This report will be updated to reflect major changes in state UTF account solvency.
Congressional Research Service
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Contents
Unemployment Compensation and the Unemployment Trust Fund................................................ 1
Unemployment Taxes ...................................................................................................................... 1
Federal Unemployment Taxes ................................................................................................... 1
Broad Guidelines for State Unemployment Taxes..................................................................... 2
Adequate Trust Fund Balances ........................................................................................................ 2
Insolvency: Insufficient UTF Reserve Balances.............................................................................. 7
Insolvent States Required to Pay UC Benefits .......................................................................... 7
Mechanism for Receiving a Loan.............................................................................................. 7
Interest Charges on Loans ......................................................................................................... 7
Expired Provision: Temporary Waiver of Interest in 2009 Stimulus Package .................... 8
Loan Repayment .............................................................................................................................. 9
Federal Tax Increases on Outstanding Loans Through Credit Reductions................................ 9
Credit Reduction ............................................................................................................... 10
How the Credit Reduction May be Mitigated: Avoidance or Cap..................................... 11
Current Status of Outstanding Loans, Accrued Interest Owed, and State Tax Credit
Reductions............................................................................................................................ 12
Tables
Table 1. State Unemployment Trust Fund Accounts: Financial Information by State, 1st3rd
Quarter 2011 ................................................................................................................................. 4
Table 2. Schedule of State Tax Credit Reduction and Net Federal Unemployment Tax Act
(FUTA) Tax for July 2011 Onwards ........................................................................................... 1011
Table 3. Outstanding Loan Balances, Interest Owed,
and Potential State Tax Credit Reduction ................................................................................... 13
Contacts
Author Contact Information........................................................................................................... 14
Congressional Research Service
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Unemployment Compensation and the
Unemployment Trust Fund
Unemployment Compensation (UC) is a joint federal-state program financed by federal taxes
under the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) and by state payroll taxes under the State
Unemployment Tax Acts (SUTA). The underlying framework of the UC system is contained in
the Social Security Act (SSA). Title III of the SSA authorizes grants to states for the
administration of state UC laws, Title IX authorizes the various components of the federal
Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF), and Title XII authorizes advances or loans to insolvent state
UC programs.
Originally, the intent of the UC program, among other things, was to help counter economic
fluctuations such as recessions.1 This intent is reflected in the current UC program’s funding and
benefit structure. When the economy grows, UC program revenue rises through increased tax
revenues, whereas UC program spending falls as fewer workers are unemployed. The effect of
collecting more taxes while decreasing spending on benefits dampens demand in the economy.
This also creates a surplus of funds or a “cushion” of available funds for the UC program to draw
upon during a recession. In a recession, UC tax revenue falls and UC program spending rises as
more workers lose their jobs and receive UC benefits. The increased amount of UC payments to
unemployed workers dampens the economic effect of lost earnings by injecting additional funds
into the economy.
Unemployment Taxes
UC benefits are financed through employer taxes.2 The federal taxes on employers are under the
authority of FUTA, and the state taxes are under the authority given by SUTA. These taxes are
deposited in the appropriate accounts within the UTF.
Federal Unemployment Taxes
FUTA imposes a 6.0% gross tax rate on the first $7,000 paid annually by employers to each
employee. Employers in states with programs approved by the federal government and with no
delinquent federal loans may credit 5.4 percentage points against the 6.0% tax rate, making the
minimum net federal unemployment tax rate 0.6%.
Because all states currently have approved programs, 0.6% is the effective federal tax rate.3 The
0.6% FUTA tax funds both federal and state administrative costs as well as the federal share of
the Extended Benefit (EB) program, loans to insolvent state UC accounts, and state employment
1
services In 2011, 20 states and the Virgin Islands were subject to a credit reduction: Michigan
1
See, for example, President Franklin Roosevelt’s remarks at the signing of the Social Security Act at
http://www.ssa.gov/history/fdrstmts.html#signing.
2
For a detailed description of UC financing, see CRS Report RS22077, Unemployment Compensation (UC) and the
Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): Funding UC Benefits, by Julie M. Whittaker.
3
Michigan, Indiana, and South Carolina employers faced higher rates in 2010; these rates were retroactively
determined for the entire year on November 10, 2010. The net FUTA tax through June 2011 was 0.8%. Thus, the
average net FUTA tax for most employers 2011 will be
more than 0.6% but less than 0.8%.
Congressional Research Service
1
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
services. Most recently, because Michigan had unpaid loan balances, the Michigan employers’
effective federal unemployment tax rate for 2010 was 1.4%. Similarly, because Indiana and South
Carolina have unpaid balances, the Indiana and South Carolina employers’ effective federal
unemployment tax rate for 2010 was 1.1%.(0.9), Indiana (0.6), Arkansas (0.3), California (0.3), Connecticut (0.3), Florida (0.3), Georgia
(0.3), Illinois (0.3), Kentucky (0.3), Minnesota (0.3), Missouri (0.3), North Carolina (0.3), New
Jersey (0.3), Nevada (0.3), New York (0.3), Ohio (0.3), Pennsylvania (0.3), Rhode Island (0.3),
Virginia (0.3), Virgin Islands (0.3), and Wisconsin (0.3). As a result, in Michigan, the credit
reduction (0.9) was applied retroactively to tax year 2011 earnings and the net FUTA tax during
2011 for Michigan employers was 1.6% on the first $7,000 of each employee’s earnings. In
Indiana (with a credit reduction of 0.6), the net FUTA tax during 2011 for Indiana employers was
1.2% on the first $7,000 of each employee’s earnings. In the other 19 states with a 0.3% credit
reduction, the net FUTA tax for 2011 was 0.9%. For all other states, the net FUTA tax was 0.6%.4
Broad Guidelines for State Unemployment Taxes
Federal laws and regulations provide broad guidelines on state unemployment taxes. States levy
their own payroll taxes on employers to fund regular UC benefits and the state share of the EB
program. These state UC tax rates are “experience-rated,” in which employers generating the
fewest claimants have the lowest rates. The state unemployment tax rate of an employer is, in
most states, based on the amount of UC paid to former employees. Generally, in most states, the
more UC benefits paid to its former employees, the higher the tax rate of the employer, up to a
maximum established by state law. The experience rating is intended to ensure an equitable
distribution of UC program taxes among employers and to encourage a stable workforce. State
ceilings on taxable wages in 20102011 ranged from $7,000 (four statesArizona, California, Florida, and Puerto
Rico) to $38,800
(Hawaii). The minimum rates ranged from 0% (10 states and the Virgin Islands) to 1.9%
(Connecticut). The maximum rates ranged from 5.4% (14 states and Puerto Rico) to 13.1576%
(Pennsylvania). Approximately $31.0 billion in SUTA taxes were collected in FY2009. In
comparison, states spent an estimated $75.3 billion on regular UC benefits and $4.1 billion on
extended benefit payments in FY2009Iowa, Missouri, Nebraska,
South Dakota) to 2.98% (Pennsylvania). The maximum rates ranged from 5.4% (Arkansas,
California, Florida, Georgia, Hawaii, Mississippi, Nevada, Oregon, and Puerto Rico) to 13.5%
(Maryland). A projected $47.8 billion in SUTA taxes will be collected in FY2012. In comparison,
states are projected to spend $51.7 billion on regular UC benefits and $0.02 billion on extended
benefit payments in FY2012.
Adequate Trust Fund Balances
Whether a state trust fund balance is adequate is ultimately a matter up to each state as there is no
statutory requirement of an adequately funded state UC program.45
The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) suggests that, to be minimally solvent, a state’s reserve
balance should provide for one year’s projected benefit payment needs on the basis of the highest
levels of benefit payments experienced by the state over the past 20 years. This is called the
average high-cost multiple (AHCM). A ratio of 1.0 or greater prior to a recession indicates a state
is minimally solvent. States below this level are vulnerable to exhausting their funds in a
recession.
DOL provides the AHCM in its Quarterly Program and Financial Data report in the summary of
financial data. These reports are available online at http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/
unemploy/finance.asp.
Table 1 provides the most recent financial information for the unemployment trust fund accounts.
The first data column lists the amount of state taxes collected in the previous 12 months. The
second column lists the balance each state’s account in the UTF at the end of the 12-month
4
4
Employers would have paid an additional 0.2% to any earnings paid to employees before July 2011. This temporary
surtax was most recently authorized by P.L. 111-92 and expired on June 30, 2011.
5
Recently funding goals for the states’ accounts were approved in federal regulations. On September 17, 2010, DOL
issued a final rule to implement federal requirements conditioning a state’s receipt of interest-free loans upon the state
meeting funding goals, established under regulations issued by the Secretary of Labor. This rule will begin to be phased
in beginning in 2014 with the full effect of the rule beginning in 2019.These goals determine whether short-term loans
to the states are interest-free loans or if they immediately begin to accrue interest. These requirements are discussed in
this report in the “Interest Charges on Loans” requirements.
Congressional Research Service
2
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
period. The DOL provides the AHCM in its Quarterly Program and Financial Data report in the summary of
financial data. These reports are available online at http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/
unemploy/finance.asp.
Table 1 provides recent financial information for the unemployment trust fund accounts. The first
data column lists the amount of state taxes collected in the previous 12 months. The second
column lists the balance of each state’s account in the UTF at the end of the 12-month period. The
third column calculates the ratio of the trust fund balance to the estimated sum of
wages earned
by employees in jobs covered by the UC system. The fourth column lists the
AHCM where a
number less than 1.0 does not meet DOL’s definition of minimally solvent. The
fifth column
reports the outstanding trust fund loan (if any). The sixth column lists the per
employee loan
amount (total loans divided by total covered employees). This statistic gives a
sense of how much
in state taxes per employee would have to be raised if a state were to have
repaid the entire loan
amount in the third quarter of 2010. The final column lists the ratio of total
loans to total covered
wages. This ratio aids in the comparison of the size of the loan to the
general wage profile in the
state.
Congressional Research Service
3
Table 1. State Unemployment Trust Fund Accounts:
Financial Information by State, 1st Quarter 2011
Trust Fund Balance
(thousands)
Trust Fund Ratio to
Total Covered
Wages
Average High
Cost Multiple
(AHCM)
Outstanding
Trust Fund Loan
(thousands)
Loan per Covered
Employee
Percentage of Loans
to Yearly Total
Wages in Covered
Employment
$463,959
$7,039
0.01
N.A.
$262,661
$150
0.48
Alaska
$129,669
$206,462
1.88
1.02
$0
—
—
Arizona
$375,365
$10,980
0.01
N.A.
$329,697
$147
0.42
Arkansas
$368,978
$14,331
0.04
N.A.
$352,659
$321
1.12
California
$5,546,485
$74,585
0.01
N.A.
$10,614,552
$752
1.82
Colorado
$485,533
$13,885
0.02
N.A.
$578,201
$271
0.70
Connecticut
$721,546
$35,676
0.05
N.A.
$708,439
$450
0.97
Delaware
$95,010
$1,360
0.01
N.A.
$58,585
$146
0.40
District of Columbia
$143,660
$277,027
0.97
1.06
$0
—
—
Florida
$1,315,991
$81,172
0.04
N.A.
$2,247,900
$328
0.98
Georgia
$708,084
$18,514
0.01
N.A.
$693,000
$190
0.54
Hawaii
$214,047
$2,611
0.02
N.A.
$49,492
$90
0.30
Idaho
$315,687
$84,380
0.53
N.A.
$202,402
$336
1.27
Illinois
$2,077,586
$133
0.00
N.A.
$2,950,976
$545
1.40
Indiana
$600,739
$17,933
0.02
N.A.
$2,169,933
$812
2.63
Iowa
$545,984
$206,404
0.50
0.52
$0
—
—
Kansas
$388,191
$21,466
0.05
N.A.
$159,477
$126
0.36
Kentucky
$462,990
$4,562
0.01
N.A.
$930,600
$562
1.89
Louisiana
$213,388
$830,477
1.42
1.60
$0
—
—
Maine
$155,280
$233,684
1.55
0.99
$0
—
—
Maryland
$899,212
$58,351
0.07
0.19
$0
—
—
Massachusetts
$1,787,051
$5,385
0.00
0.01
$334,145
$108
0.24
Michigan
$1,601,568
$110,579
0.09
N.A.
$3,991,179
$1,069
3.23
Revenues Past 12
Months
(thousands)
Alabama
State
CRS-4
State
Minnesota
Revenues Past 12
Months
(thousands)
$1,010,159
Trust Fund Balance
(thousands)
Trust Fund Ratio to
Total Covered
Wages
Average High
Cost Multiple
(AHCM)
Outstanding
Trust Fund Loan
(thousands)
Loan per Covered
Employee
Percentage of Loans
to Yearly Total
Wages in Covered
Employment
$8,887
0.01
N.A.
$733,182
$289
0.83
—
—
Mississippi
$132,556
$293,972
1.07
1.19
$0
Missouri
$616,048
$13,348
0.02
N.A.
$861,221
$344
1.09
Montana
$122,468
$79,281
0.70
0.70
$0
—
—
Nebraska
$225,233
$185,717
0.76
1.18
$0
—
—
Nevada
$295,897
$31,338
0.08
N.A.
$735,660
$676
1.91
New Hampshire
$169,289
$594
0.00
0.02
$20,143
$34
0.10
New Jersey
$2,448,124
$33,134
0.02
N.A.
$1,991,619
$548
1.20
New Mexico
$272,520
$174,229
0.80
0.79
$0
—
—
$3,071,734
$31,103
0.01
N.A.
$3,781,502
$465
1.02
$884,800
$226,550
0.19
N.A.
$2,733,400
$738
2.30
—
—
New York
North Carolina
North Dakota
$80,493
$80,774
0.81
1.05
$0
$1,281,298
$18,229
0.01
N.A.
$2,551,597
$525
1.68
Oklahoma
$197,729
$212,069
0.47
0.62
$0
—
—
Oregon
$888,551
$838,304
1.71
0.76
$0
—
—
Pennsylvania
$2,545,763
$66,969
0.04
N.A.
$3,600,956
$671
1.96
Puerto Rico
$205,443
$274,393
1.72
0.70
$0
—
—
Rhode Island
$237,081
$3,358
0.02
N.A.
$257,292
$586
1.87
South Carolina
$298,800
$5,912
0.01
N.A.
$977,721
$568
1.95
—
—
Ohio
South Dakota
$14,977
0.16
0.00
0.26
$0
Tennessee
$707,538
$61,473
0.07
0.19
$0
—
—
Texas
$2,533,349
$39,569
0.01
N.A.
$98,518
$10
0.03
Utah
$163,541
$253,141
0.73
0.81
$0
—
—
Vermont
$89,793
$1,376
0.02
N.A.
$70,986
$249
0.92
Virgin Islands
$1,439
$73
0.01
N.A.
$19,785
$460
1.86
CRS-5
State
Virginia
Washington
Revenues Past 12
Months
(thousands)
$552,590
Trust Fund Balance
(thousands)
Trust Fund Ratio to
Total Covered
Wages
Average High
Cost Multiple
(AHCM)
Outstanding
Trust Fund Loan
(thousands)
Loan per Covered
Employee
Percentage of Loans
to Yearly Total
Wages in Covered
Employment
$61,052
0.05
N.A.
$467,909
$139
0.35
—
—
$1,483,774
$2,250,939
2.22
1.12
$0
West Virginia
$202,749
$38,533
0.21
0.27
$0
—
—
Wisconsin
$950,807
$18,315
0.02
N.A.
$1,664,760
$637
2.14
Wyoming
$100,033
$108,030
1.30
1.07
$0
—
—3rd Quarter 2011
Loan per Covered
Employee
Percentage of Loans
to Yearly Total
Wages in Covered
Employment
44,122
$25
0.08
1.00
0
—
—
0.01
N.A.
326,883
$141
0.41
119,470
0.36
N.A.
330,853
$300
1.03
6,209,637
95,846
0.02
N.A.
9,034,656
$640
1.49
Colorado
734,334
8,094
0.01
N.A.
300,107
$142
0.35
Connecticut
804,286
313,854
0.40
N.A.
809,876
$517
1.08
Delaware
107,006
22,548
0.14
N.A.
62,523
$161
0.41
District of Columbia
162,622
313,232
1.05
1.05
0
—
—
1,741,664
50,801
0.02
N.A.
1,649,800
$234
0.70
Georgia
797,129
217,250
0.16
N.A.
721,080
$198
0.54
Hawaii
272,273
11,529
0.07
N.A.
0
—
—
Idaho
280,722
138,139
0.83
N.A.
0
—
—
Illinois
2,697,199
6
0.00
N.A.
2,006,604
$375
0.92
Indiana
743,988
17,226
0.02
N.A.
1,894,608
$714
2.23
Iowa
629,553
463,141
1.07
0.51
0
—
—
Kansas
400,571
159,744
0.35
N.A.
170,821
$136
0.38
Kentucky
475,765
120,177
0.23
N.A.
948,700
$571
1.88
Louisiana
245,419
836,961
1.37
1.56
0
—
—
Maine
170,126
274,034
1.79
0.98
0
—
—
Maryland
1,009,432
465,599
0.51
0.19
0
—
—
Massachusetts
1,886,789
297,960
0.20
0.01
0
—
—
Michigan
1,748,101
123,598
0.09
N.A.
3,181,760
$864
2.46
Revenues Past
12 Months
($ in thousands)
Trust Fund Balance
($ in thousands)
Trust Fund Ratio
to Total Covered
Wages
Average High
Cost Multiple
(AHCM)
Alabama
547,360
6,955
0.01
N.A.
Alaska
154,945
235,229
2.08
Arizona
405,523
10,944
Arkansas
396,700
California
State
Florida
CRS-4
Outstanding
Trust Fund Loan
($ in thousands)
Loan per Covered
Employee
Percentage of Loans
to Yearly Total
Wages in Covered
Employment
$108
0.30
—
—
$293
0.90
0
—
—
1.17
0
—
—
0.10
N.A.
742,161
$686
1.92
74,939
0.35
0.02
0
—
—
2,781,827
32,837
0.02
N.A.
1,424,570
$393
0.85
310,201
147,873
0.66
0.78
0
—
—
3,190,697
30,006
0.01
N.A.
3,102,380
$380
0.80
North Carolina
894,546
225,781
0.18
N.A.
2,530,461
$682
2.08
North Dakota
84,499
106,422
0.96
1.01
0
—
—
1,510,506
355,730
0.22
N.A.
2,313,387
$485
1.48
Oklahoma
401,718
413,930
0.87
0.61
0
—
—
Oregon
970,213
1,052,004
2.05
0.75
0
—
—
Pennsylvania
2,858,931
51,672
0.03
N.A.
2,960,113
$555
1.57
Puerto Rico
235,043
375,010
2.35
0.69
0
—
—
Rhode Island
245,314
25,465
0.18
N.A.
240,425
$564
1.71
South Carolina
553,252
124,496
0.24
N.A.
851,316
$497
1.66
South Dakota
49,779
35,356
0.36
0.50
0
—
—
748,239
353,854
0.40
0.19
0
—
—
2,556,652
741,237
0.18
N.A.
0
—
—
Utah
274,178
345,499
0.95
0.79
0
—
—
Vermont
116,026
54,804
0.68
N.A.
77,732
$272
0.99
2,163
144
0.01
N.A.
26,621
$605
2.44
Revenues Past
12 Months
($ in thousands)
Trust Fund Balance
($ in thousands)
Trust Fund Ratio
to Total Covered
Wages
Average High
Cost Multiple
(AHCM)
Minnesota
1,202,041
8,945
0.01
N.A.
268,954
Mississippi
244,437
379,597
1.35
1.17
0
Missouri
672,579
51,430
0.06
N.A.
725,447
Montana
142,802
117,407
1.01
0.70
Nebraska
226,445
276,140
1.09
Nevada
393,036
37,925
New Hampshire
203,395
State
New Jersey
New Mexico
New York
Ohio
Tennessee
Texas
Virgin Islands
CRS-5
Outstanding
Trust Fund Loan
($ in thousands)
Loan per Covered
Employee
Percentage of Loans
to Yearly Total
Wages in Covered
Employment
210,751
$63
0.15
1.09
0
—
—
0.57
0.26
0
—
—
15,171
0.02
N.A.
1,200,719
$467
1.50
150,973
1.71
1.03
0
—
—
Trust Fund Balance
($ in thousands)
Trust Fund Ratio
to Total Covered
Wages
Average High
Cost Multiple
(AHCM)
687,187
57,869
0.04
N.A.
1,508,670
2,647,114
2.49
222,182
111,047
Wisconsin
1,147,231
Wyoming
119,035
State
Virginia
Washington
West Virginia
Revenues Past
12 Months
($ in thousands)
Outstanding
Trust Fund Loan
($ in thousands)
Source: Employment and Training Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Data Summary, 4th Quarter 2011 Report, Washington, DC, 2011,
Table: Financial Information by State for CYQ 2011.1 and individual state reports, http://www.ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/content/data_stats/datasum10/
DataSum_2011_1DataSum_2011_3.pdf.
Notes: Total covered wages are based on extrapolated wages for the most recent 12 months. Trust Fund Balance does not include outstanding debt. States may have
obligated some portion of their UTF funds and may be borrowing to fund unemployment benefits even if the state’s UTF balance appears to be positive.
N.A. = Not Applicable: these states have outstanding debt that exceed their fund balances. Conversely, “—“ = no outstanding loan.
CRS-6
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Insolvency: Insufficient UTF Reserve Balances
During economic slowdowns or recession, some states have found that current state
unemployment taxes and UTF reserve balances were insufficient to cover state expenditures for
UC benefits.
Insolvent States Required to Pay UC Benefits
States have a great deal of autonomy in how they establish and run their unemployment system.
However, the framework established by the federal government requires states to actually pay the
UC benefits as provided under state law. If the state does not pay the UC benefits, federal law is
quite explicit. The state will not have a UC program meeting federal requirements and thus the
federal federal
tax on employers would be a net tax of 6.0% (with no credit for state unemployment
taxes)with no allowable state tax rate rather than 0.6% if
the state UC program paid benefits and had no outstanding loans.
In budget terms, UC benefits are an entitlement (although the program is financed by a dedicated
tax imposed on employers and not by general revenues). Thus, even if a recession hits a given
state and as a result that state’s trust account is depleted, the state remains legally required to
continue paying benefits. To do so, the state will be forced to borrow money either from the dedicated
dedicated loan account, the FUA, within the UTF or from outside sources. If the state chooses to borrow
borrow funds from the FUA, not only will the state be required to continue paying benefits, it will
also be
required to repay the funds (plus any interest due) it has borrowed from the federal loan
account.
Such states will probably be forced to raise taxes on their employers or reduce UC
benefit levels,
actions that dampen economic growth, job creation, and consumer demand. In
short, states have
strong incentives to keep adequate funds in their trust fund accounts.
Mechanism for Receiving a Loan
For a loan to be made to a state account, the governor of the state (or the governor’s designee)
must apply to the Secretary of Labor for a three-month loan. Once the loan is approved by DOL,
the funds are placed into the state account in monthly increments.
Interest Charges on Loans
Since 1982 (P.L. 97-35), states are charged interest on new loans that are not repaid by the end of
the fiscal year in which they were obtained. Under previous law, states could receive these loans
interest-free. The interest is the same rate as that paid by the federal government on state reserves
in the UTF for the quarter ending December 31 of the preceding year, but not higher than 10%
per annum. States may not pay the interest directly or indirectly from funds in their state account
with the UTF. If states do not repay the interest, or pay the interest with funds from SUTA taxes,
the Department of Labor is required by federal law to refuse to certify the state program in
compliance with federal law.56 Not being in compliance with federal unemployment law would
mean that the state would not be eligible to receive administrative grants and its state employers
56
42 C.F.R. § 503(c)(3) and 26 U.S.C. § 3304(a)(17).
Congressional Research Service
7
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
would not receive the state unemployment tax credit in the calculation of their federal
unemployment taxes.
States may borrow funds without interest from the FUA during the year. To receive these interestfree loans, the states must meet three conditions:
1. The states must repay the loans by September 30.
2. For those loans to maintain their interest-free status, there cannot be any loans
made to that state in October, November, or December of the calendar year of
such an interest-free loan. If loans are made in the last quarter of the calendar
year, the “interest-free” loans made in the previous fiscal year will retroactively
accrue interest charges.
3. The states must meet funding goals relating to their account in the UTF,
established under regulations issued by DOL.
Until recently, there were no funding goals issued by DOLfor state accounts within the UTF. On September 17,
2010, DOL issued
a final rule to implement federal requirements conditioning a state’s receipt of
interest-free loans
upon the state meeting funding goals, established under regulations issued by
the Secretary of
Labor.67 This rule will begin to be phased in beginning in 2014 with the full effect
of the rule
beginning in 2019.
By 2019, states must have had at least one year in the past five calendar years before the year in
which advances are taken where its AHCM was greater than or equal to 1.0. Additionally, states
must meet two criteria for maintenance of tax effort in every year from most recent year the
AHCM was at least 1.0 and the year in which advances are taken:
•
The average state unemployment tax rate (the ratio of total state tax amount
collected over the total taxable wages) was at least 80% of the prior year’s rate;
and,
•
The average state unemployment tax rate is at least 75% of the average benefitcost ratio over the preceding five calendar years, where the benefit-cost ratio for
a year is defined as the amount of benefits and interest paid in the year divided by
the total covered wages paid in the year.
Expired Provision: Temporary Waiver of Interest in 2009 Stimulus Package
The 2009 stimulus package (the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, P.L. 111-5 §
Section 2004) temporarily waived interest payments and the accrual of interest on advances to state
state unemployment funds by amending Section 1202(b) of the Social Security Act. The interest
payments that arewere due from the time of enactment of the proposal until December 31, 2010, are
were deemed to have been made by the state. No interest on advances accrueaccrued during the period.
Although interest willdid not accrue during this period, this doesdid not absolve states from repaying the
underlying loans. If a state does not pay back funds within the prescribed amount of time or make
67
Employment and Training Administration, Labor, “Federal-State Unemployment Compensation Program Funding
Goals for Interest-Free Loans,” 75 Federal Register 57146, September 17, 2010.
Congressional Research Service
8
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
good progress as determined by the Labor Secretary, the state tax credit will be reduced, as
described below.
Beginning onSince January 1, 2011, the calculation of interest will reverthas reverted to permanent law on interest
charges as described in the previous paragraphs.
Representative Peter Welch introduced H.R. 650 on February 10, 2011. The bill would extend the
interest accrual on federal loans to states through 2012. Senator Durbin introduced S. 386, the
Unemployment Insurance Solvency Act of 2011, on February 17, 2011. Among many other items,
S. 386 would extend the suspension of interest accrual on federal loans to states through 2012.
Loan Repayment
States with outstanding loans from the FUA must repay them fully by November 10 following the
second consecutive January 1 on which the state has an outstanding loan. If the outstanding loan
is not repaid by that time, the state will face an effective federal tax increase. Thus, a state may
have approximately 22 to 34 months to repay the loan without a federal tax increase, depending
on when it obtained the outstanding loan. Currently, three states (Michigan, Indiana and South
Carolina) have outstanding loan balances on both January 1, 2009, and January 1, 2010.
As of February 7, 2011, almost $42.4
As of December 28, 2011, just over $36.3 billion in federal UTF loans to the states were
outstanding.
A current list of states with outstanding loans may be found at DOL’s website:,
http://www.workforcesecurity.doleta.gov/unemploy/budget.asp#tfloans.
Federal Tax Increases on Outstanding Loans Through
Credit Reductions
If the state does not repay a loan fully by November 10 of that second year, it becomes subject to
a reduction in the amount of credit applied against the federal unemployment tax beginning with
the preceding January 1 until the state repays the loan fully. That state’s employers must pay the
additional federal taxes resulting from the credit reduction no later than January 31 of the next
calendar year.78 The provisions of the 2009 stimulus package dodid not change the timetable for
federal tax increases resulting from a state’s outstanding loans.
In 2010, three states had a credit
reduction: Michigan (0.6), Indiana (0.3), and South Carolina
(0.3). As a result, the credit
reduction was applied retroactively to tax year 2010 earnings, and the
net FUTA tax during 2010
for Michigan employers was 1.4% on the first $7,000 of each
employee’s earnings. In Indiana and
South Carolina the net FUTA tax during 2010 for their
employers was 1.1% on the first $7,000 of
each employee’s earnings. In all other states the net FUTA 2010 tax was 0.8%.
The additional federal taxes attributable to the credit reduction are then deposited into the
appropriate state account. Thus the amount of the loan (or the funds the state must continue to
borrow) is reduced by the additional federal taxes paid by the state employers.
7
FUTA 2010 tax was 0.8%.
8
Interest payments can be delayed up to nine months (and no interest on the unpaid interest would accrue) if the most
recent 12-month average unemployment rate (from September of the previous year to August of that year) is 13.5% or
higher (42 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(9)). If the state’s January through June average insured unemployment rate in the previous
year is 6.5% or higher, the state would be required to pay 25% of that current year’s interest that is due. The state the
would pay the remaining 25% in each of the next three years. The (75%) remainder of the interest payment would be
not be subject to additional interest calculations (42 U.S.C. § 1322(b)(3)(C)).
Congressional Research Service
9
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
In 2011, 20 states and the Virgin Islands had a state tax credit reduction: Michigan (0.9), Indiana
(0.6), Arkansas (0.3), California (0.3), Connecticut (0.3), Florida (0.3), Georgia (0.3), Illinois
(0.3), Kentucky (0.3), Minnesota (0.3), Missouri (0.3), North Carolina (0.3), New Jersey (0.3),
Nevada (0.3), New York (0.3), Ohio (0.3), Pennsylvania (0.3), Rhode Island (0.3), Virginia (0.3),
Virgin Islands (0.3), and Wisconsin (0.3). As a result, in Michigan, a credit reduction of 0.9 was
applied retroactively to tax year 2011 earnings and the net FUTA tax during 2011 for Michigan
employers was 1.5% on the first $7,000 of each employee’s earnings. In Indiana (with a credit
reduction of 0.6) the net FUTA tax during 2011 for Indiana employers was 1.2% on the first
$7,000 of each employee’s earnings. In the other 19 states with a credit reduction, the net FUTA
tax for 2011 was 0.9%. For all states not subject to the credit reduction, the net FUTA tax was
0.6%.
The additional federal taxes attributable to the credit reduction are then deposited into the
appropriate state account. Thus the amount of the loan (or the funds the state must continue to
borrow) is reduced by the additional federal taxes paid by the state employers.
If any January 1 passes without an outstanding balance, the year count starts over with the next
loan.
Credit Reduction
The credit reduction is initially 0.3 percentage points for the year beginning with the calendar
year in which the second consecutive January 1 passes during which the loan is outstanding and
increases by 0.3 percentage points for each year there is an outstanding loan. For example, in the
first year, the credit reduction results in the net federal tax rate increasing from 0.6% to 0.9%—an
additional $21 for each employee; in the second year, it would increase to 1.2%—a cumulative
additional $42 for each employee.89
There are two potential additional credit reductions (in addition to the cumulative 0.3 percentage
point increases) during the ensuing calendar years in which a state has an outstanding loan: (1) in
the calendar years after which the third and fourth consecutive January 1s pass and (2) in the
calendar years after which the fifth or more consecutive January 1s pass. The first additional
credit reduction (referred to as the “2.7 add-on”) uses a statutory formula that takes into
consideration the average annual wages and average employment contribution rate. The second
additional credit reduction (referred to as the Benefit Cost Ratio, or BCR, add-on) replaces the 2.7
add-on and uses the five-year benefit cost rate as well as average wages in its calculation.910 Table
2 presents these reductions and the subsequent net FUTA tax faced by state employers as a result
of these unpaid loans.
Table 2. Schedule of State Tax Credit Reduction and Net Federal Unemployment
Tax Act (FUTA) Tax for July 2011 Onwards
Loan Year
Credit Reduction
Additional Reductions
Net FUTA Tax
Year 1 of outstanding loan
0.0%
None
0.6%
Year 2 (applied retroactively
at end of calendar year)
0.3%
None
0.9%
Year 3
0.6%
2.7 Add-on
1.2% or more
Year 4
0.9%
2.7 Add-on
1.5% or more
Year 5
1.2%
BCR Add-on
1.8% or more
Year 6
1.5%
BCR Add-on
2.1% or more
Year 7
1.8%
BCR Add-on
2.4% or more
Year 8
2.1%
BCR Add-on
2.7% or more
Year 9
2.4%
BCR Add-on
3.0% or more
Year 10
2.7%
BCR Add-on
3.3% or more
8
9
For 2011 this calculation will be slightly different. For the first $7,000 on wages earned through June 2011, the net
FUTA tax is 0.8%; for any remaining portion of the first $7,000 of wages earned in 2011 after June, the FUTA tax is
0.6%. Any state tax credit reduction (for example, in the first year) would follow the same pattern of an increase net
FUTA tax of 0.3%.
910
The 2.7 add-on formula is: [(2.7% x 7000/ U.S. Annual Average Wage)-Average Annual State Tax Rate on Total
Wages] x State Annual Average Wage/7000. The BCR add-on formula is: Max [five-year State Average Cost/Taxable
Wages, 2.7] - Average Annual State Tax Rate on Total Wages.
Congressional Research Service
10
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Loan Year
Credit Reduction
Additional Reductions
Net FUTA TaxTable 2. Schedule of State Tax Credit Reduction and Net Federal Unemployment
Tax Act (FUTA) Tax for July 2011 Onwards
Loan Year
Credit Reduction
Additional Reductions
Net FUTA Tax
Year 1 of outstanding loan
0.0%
None
0.6%
Year 2 (applied retroactively
at end of calendar year)
0.3%
None
0.9%
Year 3
0.6%
2.7 Add-on
1.2% or more
Year 4
0.9%
2.7 Add-on
1.5% or more
Year 5
1.2%
BCR Add-on
1.8% or more
Year 6
1.5%
BCR Add-on
2.1% or more
Year 7
1.8%
BCR Add-on
2.4% or more
Year 8
2.1%
BCR Add-on
2.7% or more
Year 9
2.4%
BCR Add-on
3.0% or more
Year 10
2.7%
BCR Add-on
3.3% or more
Year 11
3.0%
BCR Add-on
3.6% or more
Year 12
3.3%
BCR Add-on
3.9% or more
Year 13
3.6%
BCR Add-on
4.2% or more
Year 14
3.9%
BCR Add-on
4.5% or more
Year 15
4.2%
BCR Add-on
4.8% or more
Year 16
4.5%
BCR Add-on
5.1% or more
Year 17
4.8%
BCR Add-on
5.4% or more
Year 18
5.1%
BCR Add-on
5.7% or more
Year 19
5.4%
BCR Add-on
6.0%
Source: U.S. Department of Labor, Employment and Training Administration.
Notes: 2.7 Add-on = [(2.7% x 7000/ U.S. Annual Average Wage)- - Average Annual State Tax Rate on Total
Wages] x State Annual Average Wage/7000.
Benefit Cost Ratio (BCR) Add-on = Max [five-year State Average Cost/Taxable Wages, 2.7] - Average Annual
State Tax Rate on Total Wages.
How the Credit Reduction May be Mitigated: Avoidance or Cap
Section 272 of P.L. 97-248 allows a delinquent state the option of repaying—on or before
November 9—a portion of its outstanding loans each year through transfer of a specified amount
from its account in the UTF to the FUA. If the state complies with all the requirements listed
below, the potential credit reduction is avoided (there is no reduction):
•
. The state also must repay
all loans for the most recent one-year period ending on
November 9, plus the potential additional
taxes that would have been imposed
for the tax year.
based upon a state tax credit reduction.
•
In addition, the state must have sufficient amounts in the state account of the
UTF to pay all compensation for the last quarter of that calendar year without
receiving a loan.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
•
Finally, the state must also have altered its state law to increase the net solvency
of its account with the UTF.
In FY2011, South Carolina was the only state with outstanding advances to meet these
requirements. As a result, employers in South Carolina were not subject to a state tax credit
reduction in the calculation of their FUTA taxes. (Employers in South Carolina would have
generally paid more in state unemployment taxes to meet these requirements.)
Cap
Once a state begins to have a credit reduction, the state may apply to have the reductions capped
if the state meets four criteria:
•
No legislative or other action in 12 months ending September 30 has been taken
to decrease state unemployment tax effort.
•
No legislative or other action has been taken to decrease the state trust account’s
net solvency.
Congressional Research Service
11
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
•
Average state unemployment tax rate on total wages must exceed the five-year
average benefit cost rate on total wages.
•
Balance of outstanding loans as of September 30 must not be greater than the
balance three years before.
Waiving the BCR Add-on
The BCR add-on may be waived if the Secretary of Labor determines that the state did not take
legislative or other actions to decrease the state trust account’s net solvency. The 2.7 add-on
would then replace the BCR add-on.
Congressional Research Service
12Current Status of Outstanding Loans, Accrued Interest Owed, and
State Tax Credit Reductions
Table 3 lists all states that have outstanding loans. The table also includes information on accrued
interest payments for FY2012. The third column provides information on whether a state was
subject to a credit reduction for 2011. The last column provides the net FUTA tax faced by
employers in each state that had an outstanding loan. This table was created on December 30,
2011, and may change based upon state actions in the following weeks. If a state is not listed on
this table, the state did not have outstanding loans on December 28, 2011, did not have
outstanding interest accruals, and was not subject to a state tax credit reduction on the calculation
of the net FUTA tax.
Congressional Research Service
12
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Table 3. Outstanding Loan Balances, Interest Owed,
and Potential State Tax Credit Reduction
State
Outstanding Balance
January 9, 2012
Accrued FY2012
Interest
2011 State Tax
Credit Reduction
2011 Net
FUTA Taxa
Alabama
$41,171,959.18
$301,264.18
N.A.b
0.6
Arizona
375,494,654.70
3,762,253.61
N.A.
0.6
Arkansas
330,853,382.53
3,647,631.74
0.3
0.9
California
9,989,135,462.02
103,208,378.26
0.3
0.9
Colorado
353,527,081.05
4,107,288.26c
N.A.
0.6
Connecticut
709,875,582.98
8,811,655.92
0.3
0.9
62,523,367.88
689,315.07
N.A.
0.6
1,792,100,000.00
18,956,417.80
0.3
0.9
721,080,472.00
7,949,853.80
0.3
0.9
Illinois
2,185,410,158.28
22,095,629.00
0.3
0.9
Indiana
1,994,007,775.40
21,164,706.91
0.6
1.2
Kansas
70,976,936.12
541,659.71
N.A.
0.6
Kentucky
948,700,000.00
6,048,353.63
0.3
0.9
Michigan
26,124,483.61
31,634,097.32
0.9
1.5
Minnesota
202,787,883.60
1,909,248.21
0.3
0.9
Missouri
739,476,912.89
8,002,565.35
0.3
0.9
780,799,054.49
30,711,423.52c
0.3
0.9
New Jersey
1,513,819,882.72
15,288,754.70
0.3
0.9
New York
3,516,408,575.89
35,264,826.86
0.3
0.9
North Carolina
2,702,990,739.25
16,302,399.67
0.3
0.9
Ohio
2,095,695,131.00
10,529,287.30
0.3
0.9
Pennsylvania
3,347,251,595.03
34,396,333.98
0.3
0.9
Rhode Island
237,983,447.28
2,400,748.62
0.3
0.9
South Carolina
782,456,436.93
8,920,201.67
N.A.
0.6
77,731,860.63
856,987.47
N.A.
0.6
288,253,000.00
2,687,021.89
0.3
0.9
30,799,690.81
317,112.57
0.3
0.9
1,268,412,281.85
13,092,878.76
0.3
0.9
$37,185,847,808.12
$413,598,295.78c
21
Delaware
Florida
Georgia
Nevada
Vermont
Virginia
Virgin Islands
Wisconsin
Totals
—
Source: Congressional Research Service table prepared using data from the U.S. Bureau of Public Debt,
http://www.treasurydirect.gov/govt/reports/tfmp/tfmp_advactivitiessched.htm, and the U.S. Department of Labor
http://ows.doleta.gov/unemploy/content/reduced_credit_states_2011.xls.
a.
b.
c.
These net rates uses a net FUTA rate of 0.6% that was effective beginning in July 2011 for states that did
not have outstanding loans on two consecutive January 1s. For earnings before July 2011, the underlying net
FUTA rate was 0.8%.
N.A. = not applicable because the state has not had outstanding balance on two consecutive January 1s.
Includes differed interest from FY2011.
Congressional Research Service
13
The Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF): State Insolvency and Federal Loans to States
Author Contact Information
Julie M. Whittaker
Specialist in Income Security
jwhittaker@crs.loc.gov, 7-2587
Congressional Research Service
14