Relief . . . Just a Little Bit – IRS Notice 2020-23: Limited Extensions of Form 5500

/in , , , , , , , ,

By Kevin Selzer and Lyn Domenick

In the midst of everything going on, we wanted to point out a few “under the radar” implications of IRS Notice 2020-23.  The Notice, issued on April 9th, provides that tax-related deadlines that fall between April 1, 2020 and July 14, 2020 (the “delay period”) are automatically extended to July 15, 2020. 

Delayed 5500s.  Most plan sponsors hoping for Form 5500 relief will have to wait for additional guidance since only a small group of plans have Form 5500 deadlines fall during the delay period.  For example, the regular Form 5500 due date for calendar year plans (July 31st) falls just outside of the delay period.  We note that the DOL has authority under the CARES Act to provide additional Form 5500 relief.

Read more

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

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

Friends in Low Places . . . IRS focusing on late contributions too

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Kevin Selzer

“I was the last one you’d thought you’d see there…”

We tend to think of untimely remittances to retirement plans as primarily an ERISA issue, and certainly, the cause of many DOL audits. Lately, however, it seems the IRS also sees late contributions as an invitation to examine the plan. 

Read more

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

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