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

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

COVID-19: Retirement Plan Considerations

/in

By Kevin Selzer and Brenda Berg

We’re interrupting our regular programming to let you know that Holland & Hart has launched a new Coronavirus Resource Site.

The Resource Site offers practical guidelines and proactive solutions to help companies protect their business interests and their greatest asset – their workforce. With timely content authored by a multidisciplinary team of experienced practitioners across the firm, the Resource Site consolidates information and resources in one place to help businesses identify questions and address challenges to manage the legal, human, and safety threats of COVID-19.

We’re regularly updating the Resource Site with fresh content as the COVID-19 outbreak itself and the legal and regulatory responses continue to evolve. We encourage you to visit the Resource Site and welcome you to subscribe to receive alerts from Holland & Hart’s Coronavirus Task Force.

Hardship Distributions. It is becoming clearer that COVID-19 may present serious financial difficulties for individuals and employees. Employers and plan administrators should expect to receive inquiries from participants regarding access to retirement savings. COVID-19 could form the basis for a hardship distribution depending upon the terms of the employer-sponsored retirement plan. Most plans limit hardship distributions to the IRS “safe harbor” reasons. The safe harbor definition of permissible hardship expenses includes expenses for medical care (for the employee, employee’s spouse, employee’s dependents or employee’s primary beneficiary) to the extent the care would be deductible under Code Section 213(d). The safe harbor definition also includes expenses and losses incurred by the employee as a result of a FEMA declared disaster.

Read more

We Interrupt this Program – What in the SECURE Act Do Retirement Plan Sponsors Need to Pay Attention to in 2020?

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

After being on the verge of enactment last spring but failing to pass, the SECURE Act is now law. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 – the SECURE Act – was enacted on December 20, 2019 as part of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020.

Although this legislation is considered major retirement plan legislation, it doesn’t have many immediate impacts on most employer retirement plans. Plan sponsors need to pay attention to the following items – for the most part, the other changes (such as pooled employer plan opportunities and annuity payouts) do not require immediate action.

Read more

The Long and Winding Road… of 401(k) plan compensation definitions

/in , ,

by Ben Gibbons

A plan’s definition of “compensation” tends to be one of the trickier aspects of 401(k) administration.  Having been asked multiple times in the past 12-months whether deferrals to a nonqualified deferred compensation plan need to be deducted before determining eligible compensation for 401(k) deferrals (spoiler: they do), it seems a blog post on the subject is in order.

The vast majority of 401(k) plan documents define compensation by starting with one of the following base definitions: W-2 (Box 1) compensation; Section 3401(a) compensation; or Section 415 compensation (the specifics of these base definitions are beyond the scope of this post).  Each definition has its nuances with respect to whether certain types of compensation should be either included or excluded from the base definition (e.g., fringe benefits or amounts realized from the exercise of stock options).

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

A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action: Major retirement plan legislation is finally signed into law

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

by Brenda Berg

After being on the verge of enactment last spring but failing to pass, the SECURE Act will become law after all. Congress included the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (H.R. 1994) (the SECURE Act) in the year-end spending legislation needed to keep the government running. The House passed the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2020 (H.R. 1865) – which included the SECURE Act provisions – on December 17, 2019. The Senate followed on December 19, 2019, and President Trump signed it on the last day possible for the spending bill – December 20, 2019.

For a summary of the major SECURE Act provisions that impact retirement plans, see our previous article. In addition to including the SECURE Act provisions, the year-end legislation adds a few other provisions impacting retirement plans and other benefits. Defined benefit plans such as cash balance plans can now allow in-service withdrawals once a participant reaches age 59-1/2, instead of age 62. The minimum age for in-service withdrawals from 457(b) plans is also lowered to 59-1/2.

For welfare benefits, the year-end legislation repeals the “Cadillac Tax” which would have otherwise taken effect in 2022. The Cadillac Tax was part of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and would have imposed a 40% excise tax on the insurer or employer for any “high cost” employer-provided health plan coverage.

Many of the benefits provisions are effective in 2020, although some are optional. The legislation generally provides time to amend retirement plans until the last day of the plan year that begins in 2022, and some governmental plans and collectively bargained plans have later deadlines until as late as 2024.

We will be covering many of the specific changes in more detail in upcoming blog posts. Sign up to regularly receive our blog posts (which come more often and on more varied topics than our Alerts).

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

Take it to the limit one more time…IRS announces cost-of-living adjustments for 2020!

/in , , , ,

by Becky Achten & Lyn Domenick

The Internal Revenue Code imposes dollar limitations on various compensation, benefit and contribution levels under qualified retirement plans. Today, the Internal Revenue Service announced the 2020 cost-of-living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for qualified retirement plans. Check out our chart for easy reference!