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 moreby Brenda Berg
If you are one of those plan sponsors who was waiting for the final hardship regulations to be issued before making any changes to hardship distributions in your plans – your time has come. The Treasury Department and IRS issued the final regulations on September 19, 2019 for publication today, September 23, 2019.
These regulations finalize the proposed regulations issued on November 14, 2018, and they are essentially the same with some clarifications. Plans that made changes in compliance with the proposed regulations will be deemed to have complied with the final regulations. Overall the rules – which generally apply to 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, and 457(b) plans – ease some of the restrictions on taking hardship distributions.
Read moreby 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.
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 moreby 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 moreThe Ninth Circuit handed Charles Schwab & Co., Inc. a victory this week that could impact plan sponsors by ordering individual arbitration of ERISA claims. A three-judge panel unanimously reversed a California federal judge’s decision denying Schwab’s Motion to Compel individual arbitration of its workers ERISA breach of fiduciary duty claims. The Court overturned Amaro v Continental Can Co. 724 F.2d 747 (9th Cir. 1984), in light of more recent precedent, including the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2013 opinion in American Express v. Italian Colorado Restaurant, 570 U.S. 228, 233 (2013).
Read moreby Beth Nedrow
The IRS issued a ruling earlier this summer that serves as a reminder of how important it is to maintain the distinction between an election for health plan coverage and an election on how to pay for such coverage.
In practice, virtually all employees (and frankly, many employers) forget there is a distinction between electing coverage and electing how to pay for it. It is usually automatically assumed that when an employee elects medical coverage, they will pay for that coverage pre-tax under a Section 125 cafeteria plan. Indeed, IRS guidance and proposed regulations permit the employer to default an employee into paying for medical coverage pre-tax under a cafeteria plan. But if an employee makes this election (either affirmatively or by default), they may come to regret it, as demonstrated in the IRS Chief Counsel letter issued May 8, 2019.
Read moreby 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