We Interrupt This Program – Is a Multiple Employer Plan In Your Future?

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Kevin Selzer

We interrupt our usual Benefits Dial programming – to take a closer look at developments affecting multiple employer plans (MEPs) as part of our series of posts on the recently enacted benefit plan legislation, including the SECURE Act (background here).  The reform to MEPs is seen by many as the biggest disruptor to the retirement plan industry.  Why?  It facilitates the banding together of retirement plan assets from unrelated employers, helping employers punch above their weight.  By combining together to form a larger plan, smaller employers can leverage assets with regard to plan services, and maybe most importantly, investment fees paid by participants. 

MEPs have long been permitted but many employers have been unwilling to participate in those plans.  The biggest deterrent has been the “one bad apple rule.”   That rule provides that a defect in any participating employer’s portion of the MEP can impact the tax qualification of the entire MEP for other participating employers.  In other words, if one participating employer in the MEP is unwilling (or maybe unable) to correct an error, the whole plan can be disqualified by the IRS.  The SECURE Act helps solve this issue with a special kind of MEP called a pooled employer plan (PEP).  PEPs have a specific procedure for dealing with tax qualification defects.  In short, a participating employer in a PEP who refuses to correct the error, can be discharged (spun off) from the PEP to isolate the disqualification impact. The SECURE Act grants relief under ERISA to boot.  Historically, MEPs were treated as a collection of separate plans unless the underlying employers met a commonality standard.  A PEP (called a “Group of Plans” under ERISA) is also treated as a single plan for ERISA purposes under the SECURE Act.  This means, for example, that such plans would be allowed to file a single Form 5500. 

Read more

A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action: Major retirement plan legislation is finally signed into law

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

After being on the verge of enactment last spring but failing to pass, the SECURE Act will become law after all. Congress included the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (H.R. 1994) (the SECURE Act) in the year-end spending legislation needed to keep the government running. The House passed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 1865) – which included the SECURE Act provisions – on December 17, 2019. The Senate followed on December 19, 2019, and President Trump signed it on the last day possible for the spending bill – December 20, 2019.

For a summary of the major SECURE Act provisions that impact retirement plans, see our previous article. In addition to including the SECURE Act provisions, the year-end legislation adds a few other provisions impacting retirement plans and other benefits. Defined benefit plans such as cash balance plans can now allow in-service withdrawals once a participant reaches age 59-1/2, instead of age 62. The minimum age for in-service withdrawals from 457(b) plans is also lowered to 59-1/2.

For welfare benefits, the year-end legislation repeals the “Cadillac Tax” which would have otherwise taken effect in 2022. The Cadillac Tax was part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and would have imposed a 40% excise tax on the insurer or employer for any “high cost” employer-provided health plan coverage.

Many of the benefits provisions are effective in 2020, although some are optional. The legislation generally provides time to amend retirement plans until the last day of the plan year that begins in 2022, and some governmental plans and collectively bargained plans have later deadlines until as late as 2024.

We will be covering many of the specific changes in more detail in upcoming blog posts. Sign up to regularly receive our blog posts (which come more often and on more varied topics than our Alerts).

Walk this way…to avoid the pitfalls of ERISA

/in , , , , , , , , , ,

by John Ludlum

Companies implement bonus plans to meet a variety of business objectives:  retention, specific company business goals, change of control, and others.  In designing bonus plans, there are a variety of legal fields that must be understood for exemption or compliance including securities, tax, ERISA, and employment.  Many times, bonus plans that pay only in cash for achieving specific corporate objectives and which require services through the date of payment are exempt from onerous compliance mandates; however, if a bonus plan is found to provide retirement income or “results in a deferral of income by employees for periods extending to the termination of covered employment or beyond,” then that arrangement may be found to be a “pension plan” under ERISA Section 3(2) (29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A)).  Once a bonus plan is subject to ERISA, it must comply with ERISA’s annual reporting, participant communications, funding, participation, vesting, and fiduciary duty requirements. 

Read more

Wake me up when September ends

/in , , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

Final rules released by the Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Treasury on June 13, 2019 have the potential to transform how employers pay for health care coverage for employees.  The rules permit the use of a new type of health plan called an individual coverage health reimbursement arrangement (“ICHRA”).   Under an ICHRA, the employer provides an amount that can be used by the workers to pay for all or some of health coverage obtained in the individual market.  These plans will presumably be utilized by employers that want to offer a health benefit to employees without maintaining a full (major medical) group health plan.  However, an important notice deadline is approaching.   Employers that want to adopt an ICHRA for 2020 (effective January 1, 2020) must provide a notice to employees by no later than October 3, 2019.  The new ICHRA guidance is complex and includes rules related to enrollment, classes of employees, opting out, substantiation of expenses and the annual notice requirement described above.   Given the short time frame to analyze whether to proceed under the new rules, work out the details and issue the required notice, many employers may take a wait and see approach and defer this decision to the 2021 plan year or beyond.  Early adopters, however, need to act soon if this is on their agenda for 2020. 

If you have questions about the new ICHRA health plans, reach out to a member of the Benefits Law Group and we will be glad to assist. 

I can’t drive 55 – or classify my workers

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by John Ludlum

Making correct classifications between independent contractors and employees is not getting simpler with flexible, geographically-distributed workforces.  For those with long memories, a key case in the area of worker classification was issued by the Ninth Circuit in Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation, 97F.3d 1187 (CA-9, 1996).  Vizcaino v. Microsoft held that certain workers, originally hired as independent contractors, were actually employees who were entitled to benefits under Microsoft’s 401(k) plan and Microsoft’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan.  Determinations like this can lead to substantial corrections costs to fix tax-qualified benefit plans as well as to make the contributions required under plan terms to the improperly excluded employees. 

Read more

Sunshine … on my controlled group makes me happy

/in , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

by John Ludlum

The controlled group rules under the IRC are possibly one of the driest and most technical areas in benefits practice, but mistakes in controlled group status can be very expensive and complicated to correct.  The problem we are seeing is that in too many cases, it is not clear whether the plan sponsor or the plan’s service providers have responsibility for monitoring which entities are in the plan sponsor’s controlled group.

Read more

Come together, right now . . . and join a MEP?

/in , , , , , ,

by Beth Nedrow

In late July, the Department of Labor released a rule allowing small businesses to more easily band together in a joint retirement plan. The idea is that a larger plan will have more leverage to obtain better pricing and better service from vendors. Equally important is the ability of employers to offload some or all of the responsibility for maintaining retirement plans.

The final rule alters the definition of “employer” in ERISA for purposes of who may establish and maintain an individual account defined contribution retirement plan. Under the new rule, a group or association, or a PEO (professional employer organization) can sponsor what the DOL refers to as a “MEP” – a “multiple employer plan.” The regulation is limited to “bona fide” groups, associations and PEOs – which means they must have a business purpose or other common connection, and not merely have the purpose of providing the retirement plan. In this way, the new rule mirrors the DOL’s regulations intended to expand the availability of association health plans (“AHPs”), which is currently stalled due to litigation.

Read more