ERISA, ERISA…Just an Old Sweet Song Keeps ERISA on my Mind

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Becky Achten

“Georgia” on your mind? As we look towards the upcoming Masters golf tournament weekend, our minds turn to the condition of the greens (exquisite), the players tee off order (does afternoon help or hinder Tiger on an expected rainy day?), and who will make that amazing chip shot out of the bunker to save par. It may not get quite the level of TV viewership of other sporting events, but benefit plan administration is a lot like golf: a series of pars, birdies and bogies, and—oh my, not a double bogie!

If you’re hitting par with your benefit plans, they’re operating smoothly, participants are happy with the offerings, and you’re in compliance with the most obvious regulations. All is good, but you probably won’t earn a green jacket. Read more

Go Your Own Way (Or Maybe Not): New Heightened Fiduciary Standards are Coming to Group Health Plans

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

by Bret Busacker

There has been a shift taking place in ERISA litigation and compliance that could significantly impact group health plan fiduciary requirements. We anticipate group health plan fiduciary standards will evolve along the same lines as what occurred in the 401(k) industry after the ERISA 408(b)(2) rules became effective in 2012.

401(k) plans for years have been subject to fee disclosure and relatively well-defined fiduciary standards of conduct. Much of the improvement in 401(k) fiduciary practices over the past decade can be attributed to the ERISA 401(k) fee disclosure requirements that went into effect in 2012 under ERISA 408(b)(2) and the resulting fee litigation fueled by the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure rules. As a result of the ERISA 408(b)(2) and the related litigation, employers and plan fiduciaries, often with the aid of counsel, have become significantly more proficient in monitoring fees and negotiating agreements with 401(k) plan TPAs and investment service providers.

The Consolidated Appropriations Act (CAA) in 2021 extended the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure requirements to group health plans. Based on what took place in the 401(k) industry after 2012 when the ERISA 408(b)(2) disclosure went into effect, we anticipate the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure requirement, now also applicable to group health plans, will make it easier for plan participants to bring breach of fiduciary duty claims against employer and plan fiduciaries. There are already several such cases currently making their way through the courts.

In addition to the ERISA 408(b)(2) fee disclosure requirement, group health plan fiduciaries now have a better line of sight into the structure and economics of their group health plans than ever before. This insight comes in the form of a series of new disclosure requirements that require plans to obtain and publish network and out of network payment rates, and to report plan drug and service cost information to HHS. Further, the CAA now requires employers to prepare periodic reports demonstrating compliance with the Mental Health Parity rules. These new rules give employers and plan fiduciaries unprecedented leverage with their service providers through increased transparency and improved awareness of the structure and economics of their group health plans.

With this greater knowledge and understanding comes more risk of criticism that an employer or plan fiduciary could have looked closer—and should have looked closer—at fees and plan design in carrying out their fiduciary responsibilities. We think these new group health plan transparency and disclosure rules will drive new litigation against group health plan fiduciaries similar to what occurred in the retirement plan industry after ERISA 408(b)(2) became effective for 401(k) plans.

Employers and plan fiduciaries should be considering now how to formalize appropriate compliance structures to ensure that reasonable fiduciary standards are being applied to group health plan administration. Our general recommendation is to adopt similar group health plan governance structures and practices that are now common in 401(k) plan administration. These governance structures may take on different forms than what we see in the 401(k) industry, but employers should be thinking now how best to match step with the shifting fiduciary standards applicable to group health plans.

You Live, You Learn… Correcting “Qualification Failures” under the Self-Correction Program

/in , ,

by Leslie Thomson

 The Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (“EPCRS”), as set forth in Revenue Procedure 2021-30, allows plan sponsors to correct “Qualification Failures,” which are defined as any plan document, operational, demographic or employer eligibility failures. Failure to follow the terms of a plan constitutes an operational failure.

Operational Failures can be corrected without IRS supervision under the Self-Correction Program (“SCP”) of EPCRS without paying a fee or sanction in two circumstances: (1) insignificant operational defects can be corrected at any time, even if the plan is under an IRS audit; and (2) significant operational defects can be corrected by the end of the third plan year following the plan year in which the defect arose. EPCRS summarizes the factors a plan sponsor may use to determine if a failure is insignificant or not. Moreover, SCP is only available if the plan sponsor has established practices and procedures reasonably designed to promote and facilitate overall compliance with applicable Internal Revenue Code requirements, and the failure occurred through an oversight or mistake in applying the procedures or because the procedures were not sufficient to prevent the occurrence of the failure. Read more

Deferred Compensation Arrangements for Non-Profits: What I’ve Felt, What I’ve Known, Is Not Consistent with the Code

/in , , ,

by Benjamin Gibbons

Deferred compensation options for executives of tax-exempt entities are often misunderstood by those organizations who have not previously delved into them. Traditional tax-exempt organizations – think charities and non-profits – are subject not only to the deferred compensation rules of Section 409A of the tax code, but also Section 457 (though note that Section 457 does not apply to deferred compensation arrangements of churches). Section 457-subject organizations without deferred compensation experience are often under the impression that they are able to establish deferred compensation arrangements that are similar to those of for-profit entities, in that the right to deferred compensation can vest now and be taxed at a later date. When such organizations begin moving forward to put a deferred compensation arrangement place, they are often surprised to learn that Section 457 generally limits their ability do so.

The most analogous deferred compensation arrangement for tax-exempt executives compared to a traditional for-profit deferred compensation plan is what’s generally known as a Section 457(f) plan. While there are a number of differences between a Section 457(f) plan and a for-profit deferred compensation plan, the biggest is the timing of the taxation of the deferred compensation. A for-profit deferred compensation plan can be designed so that once the right to deferred compensation vests, it can be taxed (for income tax purposes) on the date that it is paid, which can be many years in the future. With a Section 457(f) plan, once the deferred compensation vests, it becomes immediately taxable, even if the plan provides for payment of the deferred compensation in a future year. Read more

A Change Would Do You Good, But Do The Section 125 Cafeteria Plan Rules Permit It?

/in , , ,

by Elizabeth Nedrow

Inevitably, an employee will wake up from their holiday food coma and realize that they made a mistake in open enrollment. “But I didn’t mean to elect family coverage! My spouse is covering the kids this year!” Employers are allowed to set enrollment rules for their self-funded medical plans. One response to the employee is the hard line that the door was closed at the end of the enrollment period. But what if you want to be more flexible?

If the employee catches their mistake before the ball drops on New Year’s Eve, the IRS won’t care. But if the question comes up in January, it’s likely too late. The IRS’s rules on cafeteria plan elections don’t make any exception for mistake. Elections can only be changed if the employee has a change in status event like a divorce or new dependent. Read more

Bring me a Higher Limit…2024 IRS Limits Announced

/in , , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

The IRS has announced the 2024 cost of living adjustments to qualified plan limits. Below are the highlights, and our full historical chart can be found here for easy reference. Read more

Don’t Think Twice, It’s All Right to Ignore That Late Form 8955-SSA Notice

/in , ,

by Benjamin Gibbons

I have heard from a couple of clients recently who have received a penalty notice from the IRS for purportedly filing a late or incomplete 2022 Form 8955-SSA (the IRS form that plan sponsors use to report terminated participants with vested benefits), despite having timely filed Form 8955-SSA earlier this summer. While initially causing some concern, the IRS recently announced that due to a programming error, the IRS’s system automatically sent out Form 8955-SSA penalty notices to those plan sponsors who had already timely filed their 2022 Form 8955-SSA. Read more

You Make My Dreams Come True! IRS Delays Roth Catch-Ups

/in ,

by Elizabeth Nedrow

You don’t have to be a connoisseur of 1980s pop (we see you, Hall & Oates fans!) to appreciate the relief the IRS granted the retirement industry. In Notice 2023-62, the IRS announced a two-year delay on the Roth catch-up requirements for those earning more than $145,000. All eligible participants – regardless of income – may make catch-up contributions on a pre-tax basis (or Roth basis, at participant election but not required) until January 1, 2026. Read more

Simply Irresistible…To Not Seek Recoupment of Overpayments

/in , , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

Many retirement plan errors are inadvertent and involve small dollar amounts. However, the work involved in correcting such errors can be time consuming and burdensome. Fortunately, SECURE 2.0 provides that for certain overpayment errors a responsible plan fiduciary can now decide not to seek repayment. While plan fiduciaries are entitled to seek recoupment of overpayments, subject to some limitations, many plan sponsors will welcome this guidance since it allows them to forego seeking recoupment of overpayment errors.

For example, if a 401(k) plan incorrectly included PTO payouts upon termination in eligible compensation, and thus, applied plan contributions to such ineligible portion, the affected participants would probably not notice and in fact might not reasonably be expected to know whether or not the PTO payout should have been included in eligible compensation in their final paycheck. The dollar amounts of the overpayments would in many cases be small and also would include the participants’ own deferrals. In such a case, the plan fiduciary might reasonably choose to not seek recoupment, while correcting the payroll error going forward. Read more

You Can Count On Me…But Check Your Math When Counting Participants for the 5500 Audit Rule!

/in , , , ,

by Becky Achten

Bruno Mars may be crooning “Count on me,” but make sure you don’t overcount your retirement plan participants! New rules may allow you to leave some employees out of the count, which could save you the expense of the annual audit.

If your retirement plan is considered “large” – generally 100 or more participants – you’re probably in the middle of the Department of Labor required annual independent audit of the financial statements that must accompany the Form 5500. There are a few exceptions to the audit requirement – plans that have less than 100 participants at the beginning of the year and those with between 80 and 120 who filed as a small plan in the prior year. If your plan is just over that 100-participant level, there may be relief on the horizon from the required audit and another reason to keep track of those separated participants. Read more