Secure Act 2.0 requires certain plans to automatically enroll participants once they become eligible to participate. Plans that were established prior to December 29, 2022 are exempt from this new requirement. Plans that are established after December 29, 2022 are subject to the automatic enrollment requirement but not until the 2025 plan year. Read more
Today’s Benefits Dial post was written in part by a special guest author, ChatGPT. With all of the buzz surrounding AI chatbots, I decided to see how ChatGPT would do composing a blog post on a somewhat technical but fairly common executive compensation scenario. As discussed below, the results were not so good. Here is our guest author’s blog on the ability to make subsequent deferral elections in a nonqualified deferred compensation plan:
Making a Section 409A subsequent deferral election can be a complex process, but it is an important step for individuals who have previously deferred compensation under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. The subsequent deferral election allows these individuals to change the timing of their future payments, providing greater flexibility and control over their income streams.
To make a subsequent deferral election under Section 409A, an individual must first meet certain eligibility requirements. Specifically, the individual must have originally deferred compensation under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that complies with Section 409A, and the election must be made at least 12 months before the original payment date. Once eligibility is established, the individual must submit a written election to the plan administrator outlining the new deferral election terms.
It is important to note that making a subsequent deferral election is not a decision to be taken lightly. There may be significant tax consequences associated with a change in payment timing, and it is important to consult with a tax professional before making any changes to a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. In addition, the plan document may contain specific rules and procedures for making a subsequent deferral election, and failure to follow these rules could result in adverse tax consequences.
In summary, a subsequent deferral election under Section 409A can provide valuable flexibility for individuals who have previously deferred compensation under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. However, it is important to carefully consider the tax implications and procedural requirements before making any changes to a plan. For more information on making a subsequent deferral election, consult with a benefits attorney or tax professional.
by Lyn Domenick
If you remember that title song then you might remember a time before RMDs. Required minimum distributions (RMDs) have been a fixture of retirement plan operations ever since passage of the Tax Reform Act of 1986. One of the provisions in that law was the implementation of the RMD age starting with age 70-1/2; this partially offset lost revenue from the tax cuts in the bill. Many years later SECURE 1.0 increased the RMD age to 72 effective January 1, 2020. SECURE 2.0 increased the RMD age yet again and enacted other RMD-related changes that impact plan operations as described below. Read more
by Becky Achten
On February 27, 2023, the Treasury issued proposed regulations intended to simplify and clarify the rules relating to forfeitures within qualified retirement plans.
Defined Benefit Plans
Similar to defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans may use forfeitures to pay eligible plan expenses. However, unlike defined contribution plans, defined benefit plans are prohibited from using forfeitures to reduce required employer contributions. In addition, forfeitures must be used as soon as possible. The proposed regulations eliminate this timing requirement because it conflicts with the minimum funding requirements. Instead, reasonable actuarial assumptions are to be used to determine how expected forfeitures will affect the present value of plan liabilities. The difference between expected and actual forfeitures will then increase or decrease the plan’s minimum funding requirement in future years. Read more
The Biden administration announced on January 30 that the COVID-19 national emergency and the public health emergency will be coming to an end after May 11, 2023. The national emergency is currently set to expire on March 1, while the public health emergency is set to expire on April 11. The President intends to extend both of these emergency declarations through May 11, at which point in time he will issue a declaration to end the emergencies. Read more
by Lyn Domenick
By now you have probably seen countless summaries of the recently enacted legislation that includes what is commonly known as SECURE 2.0. One of the new features that has been brewing for a while is the concept of a 401(k) plan match based on qualified student loan payments for its eligible employees. Because this is effective January 1, 2024, interested plan sponsors should begin now evaluating the merits of adding such a program. The student loan match provision permits (but does not require) a plan to contribute matching contributions based on the amount of qualified student loan payments made by its employees who are otherwise eligible to make deferrals under the 401(k) plan. The plan must match qualified student loan payments on the same basis as elective deferrals under the plan, including the application of any plan or IRS limits on the amount that is matched and on the match itself. If a participant is making both elective deferrals and paying on a student loan, the matching formula would be applied to both (subject to applicable limits). Eligible participants would self-certify that they are making qualified student loan payments, which avoids the need for the sponsor to verify payment. Student loan matching contributions may also be implemented in a 403(b) plan or governmental 457(b) plan. Read more
During the pandemic, the IRS on multiple occasions provided relief from the requirement that a person be physically present for certain paperwork associated with retirement plan distributions. (See our blog posts of June 4, 2020 and January 25, 2021, and also IRS Notices 2020-42, 2021-3, 2021-40 and 2022-27.) Apparently acknowledging that the new remote procedures are sufficiently reliable, the IRS is proposing to make them permanent. Read more
by Becky Achten
Plan sponsors are ultimately responsible for compliance with the Prescription Drug Data Collection (RxDC) required reporting for their group health plans—and there’s no time to waste since the reporting is due by December 27, 2022. But information to complete one of the data files, the D1 (premium/cost information), may not be available to the Third Party Administrator (TPA) filing the report and, thus, may be incomplete. What’s a plan sponsor to do?
As background, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) requires group health plans and health insurance issuers to submit certain information about health care and prescription drug spending to the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Labor, and Department of the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) annually. The reporting consists of a plan identifier file, eight separate data files, and a narrative response. Read more
One of the key remaining features of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) is that certain employers must offer their employees medical coverage, or else pay a penalty. The details of that “employer shared responsibility payment” (ESRP) are many. One of those details is that the employer coverage must be “affordable.” Affordability looks at how much of an employee’s household income goes toward premiums.
As originally implemented, affordability was measured by reference to the premiums charged for employee-only coverage. The premium cost for family or other tiers of coverage wasn’t taken into account. Some critics called this the “family glitch.” Starting in 2023, that changes. New IRS regulations require that in 2023, affordability is measured by looking at the employee’s premium cost for family coverage. Read more
As we approach year end, employers should give some thought to reviewing their PTO policies for the coming year. One of the most common tax traps that we see is employers offering employees the right to cash out their PTO.
“It’s their PTO, and if they have accumulated a large balance, then we want to encourage them to get the large PTO accrual off the books,” is a common explanation we hear from employers.
Not so fast. Giving an employee a choice between current cash and rolling over PTO hours accelerates the taxation of the employee’s PTO hours (even if the employee never elects to cash them out). Many employers are surprised to learn that an obscure IRS rule known as “constructive receipt” generally requires an employer to treat PTO as taxable wages at the earliest time the employee is able to elect to cash out the PTO. Read more