Once in a Lifetime – Make that a Year – for Lifetime Income Illustrations of 401(k) Plan Benefits

/in , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

Plan sponsors of defined contribution plans such as 401(k) plans will soon have to provide participants with illustrations of just how much a participant’s account balance might produce on a monthly basis if converted to a single life annuity and, for married participants, a qualified joint and survivor annuity. Many plan sponsors already provide some sort of income illustration on their quarterly benefit statements to help participants with their retirement planning.

Read more

I Just Called to Say…I Have a Benefit Claim

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

ERISA provides that when an individual makes a claim for benefits under an employer’s plan, they are entitled to copies of all documents, records, and other information relevant to the claimant’s claim for benefits. The Department of Labor (DOL) recently issued an information letter that concludes that an audio recording of a telephone conversation (in this case, between the claimant and a representative of the plan’s insurer) must be among the materials provided to a claimant upon request. The DOL letter was provided in response to a request from a representative of a claimant who was denied an audio recording because the plan administrator considered it to be made only for quality assurance purposes, and not “created, maintained or relied upon for claim administration purposes.” Read more

Are You Ready to Provide Your MHPAEA Disclosure?

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

DOL and HHS FAQs Provide Important Insights

by Bret F. Busacker

We previously blogged about the new Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (MHPAEA) reporting and disclosure requirements established by the Consolidated Appropriation Act, 2021 (CAA). As a refresher, employers and carriers that sponsor group health plans are now required to provide upon request a full analysis of the process followed by the plan in establishing non-quantitative treatment limitations (NQTLs) for the plan and the impact these NQTL’s have on mental health and substance use disorder (MH/SUD) benefits provided by the plan. This disclosure requirement went into effect on February 10, 2021. Read more

In the Darkness at the Edge of Town…Cybersecurity Guidance for Plan Participants, Record-Keepers, and Plan Sponsors From The EBSA

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by John Ludlum

On April 14, 2021, the Employee Benefits Security Administration (“EBSA”) published guidance for plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries, record-keepers, and plan participants on best practices for maintaining cybersecurity. This is the first time that the EBSA has given cybersecurity guidance to the estimated 34 million defined benefit plan and the 106 million defined contribution plan participants with an estimated $9.3 trillion in assets. Read more

If I Could Turn Back Time… And Then Add a Year

/in , , ,

by Leslie Thomson and Brenda Berg

Last October, Brenda Berg posted a blog titled “I’m Just Waiting on an… End to the Extended ERISA Deadline Periods.” In that blog, Brenda explained that the IRS and DOL extended certain deadlines applicable to retirement plans and health and welfare plans.

In sum, under last year’s DOL guidance, employers were required to disregard the period from March 1, 2020 until 60 days after the president declared the COVID Pandemic National Emergency over (the “Outbreak Period”) in calculating employee notices and election deadlines for deadlines including the following:

  • The 30-day period (or 60-day period, if applicable) to request special enrollment under ERISA
  • The 60-day election period for COBRA continuation coverage
  • The date for making COBRA premium payments
  • The date for individuals to notify the plan of a qualifying event or determination of disability under COBRA
  • The date within which individuals may file a benefit claim under the plan’s claims procedures
  • The date within which claimants may file an appeal of an adverse benefit determination under the plan’s claims procedure
  • The date within which claimants may file a request for an external review after receipt of an adverse benefit determination or final internal adverse benefit determination
  • The date within which a claimant may file information to perfect a request for external review upon a finding that the request was not complete
  • With respect to group health plans, and their sponsors and administrators, the date for providing a COBRA election notice

Read more

Staring at the Stars Above, Wonder What [Fiduciary Duties] Are We Made Of – Cybersecurity for Retirement Plans

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

by John Ludlum

Noting that there has been an increase in computer crime in connection with the economic disruption caused by COVID-19, companies should remember that retirement plan accounts are attractive targets for cyber thieves because of the often larger account balances relative to ordinary financial accounts, the infrequency of checking on accounts by many of their owners, and the potential for some account owners to rely on the plan sponsor and record-keeper to provide security.

ERISA fiduciaries generally are subject to the prudent expert standard of care, and they owe a duty of loyalty to the plan participants. A prudent expert acts with the care, skill, and diligence that the circumstances call for a person of like character and like aims to use.

Read more

That’s Life . . . New Defined Contribution Plan Disclosures

/in , , , ,

By Kevin Selzer 

What’s in a number?  Retirement plan participants may soon better understand how account balances translate to retirement readiness.  The SECURE Act enacted last December requires defined contribution plans to show participants the value of their account balances if converted into a monthly lifetime stream of income.  The disclosures are aimed at reminding participants that retirement plan balances are meant to last for life – and busting the “wealth illusion” that single sum account balances present.  

The details on the disclosures are starting to take form following an interim final rule recently released by the Department of Labor (“DOL”).  Under the interim final rule, plans must provide participants with two lifetime income illustrations: the value of the benefit converted to (1) a single life annuity, and (2) a qualified joint and 100% survivor annuity (assuming the participant is married with a spouse of equal age). The DOL clarified in the final rule that the projections will be based on the participant’s current account balance (rather than a future projected value) and will show what that balance would buy purchasing an annuity at age 67 (or the participant’s actual age, if older).

Read more

One Last Time: The DOL Returns to the Fiduciary Rule for Retirement Plans

/in , , , , , ,

by Bret Busacker

The Department of Labor has returned to the Fiduciary Rule once again with its third attempt to provide a regulatory framework that protects retirement investors while not imposing unnecessary burdens on investment advisors and consultants. 

Plan sponsors of 401(k) plans should be aware that the DOL will once again apply the historical “five-part-test” in evaluating whether 401(k) advisors are plan fiduciaries.  The return of the five-part-test is the result of the Fifth Circuit invalidating the DOL’s 2016 version of the fiduciary rule, which had temporarily replaced the five-part-test.  Under the “new-again” five-part-test, an investment advisor to a 401(k) plan or plan participant is deemed to be a plan fiduciary if the advisor makes investment recommendations on a regular basis pursuant to an agreement or understanding with the 401(k) plan or plan participant and the advisor’s recommendations serve as the primary basis for making the decision to invest in specific investment options.  A 401(k) plan advisor determined to be a fiduciary under the five-part-test cannot receive variable compensation tied to a 401(k) participant’s investment decision (generally, referred to as conflicted compensation).

Read more

Might as Well Face It… Your Annual Retirement Plan Audit is Not a Clean Bill of Health

/in , , , , , ,

by Ben Gibbons

With calendar year-end Form 5500s due on July 31, or October 15 with an extension (and still no COVID-19 filing relief as of the date this blog was published), it’s that time of year where plan sponsors begin thinking about their annual retirement plan independent audits.  However, these are not the only audits companies should be thinking about.

Both the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and the Department of Labor (DOL) routinely select qualified retirement plans for examination.  In the event of an audit by either agency, a plan’s records, procedures and processes will be examined.  If errors or deficiencies are found, at a minimum, corrections will be required, and in some instances, fines or sanctions will be levied.

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