Oh Won’t You Stay…Until the Bonus is Paid

/in , ,

by Brenda Berg

A new interpretation by the Colorado Department of Labor and Employment (CDLE) could have significant tax impacts under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (409A). Many bonus and incentive programs require that the intended recipient remain employed with the employer through the date of payment. If the employee quits before the payment date, the employee is not entitled to receive the bonus. In fact, many bonuses are granted specifically in order to retain the employee.

In Interpretative Notice and Formal Opinion (INFO) #17, the CDLE interprets the Colorado Wage Act as prohibiting an employer from requiring the employee be employed on a certain date in order to receive a bonus, if all other conditions to receive the bonus have been met. See my colleague’s article here for more discussion about the new guidance in general.

If the CDLE interpretation is applied to retention bonuses, the bonuses might not, in fact, be forfeitable if the employee quits before the payment date. Since these bonuses are typically designed to be exempt from 409A tax rules under the “short term deferral” exception which requires there to be a “substantial risk of forfeiture,” this could mean that there is no longer a substantial risk of forfeiture. The amount could be considered deferred compensation that is subject to 409A – and all of 409A’s restrictions and an extra 20% tax for any violation. Earlier “vesting” and disregard of “substantial risk of forfeiture” could have other tax and accounting impacts as well, including the timing of federal/state income taxation and FICA taxation, and which taxable year is allocated the company deduction under the “all-events test” for liabilities. Read more

You Can’t Touch That: Permitting Cashouts of PTO May Create Tax Traps for Employees and Employers

/in , , ,

by Bret F. Busacker

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

I’m Leaving On A Jet Plane…Is Abortion Care Travel a Covered Benefit?

/in , , , ,

by Benjamin Gibbons

The focus of this week’s post is on an emerging hot topic, abortion care travel reimbursement. Reimbursement for travel to obtain abortion care was already something being considered by a number of companies in response to the recent Texas fetal heartbeat law and similar laws in other states. With the recently leaked Supreme Court draft opinion that stands to overturn Roe v. Wade, both the need for such a benefit and employers’ interest in offering travel reimbursements has increased significantly. If Roe is overturned, access to abortions will be largely prohibited in the 13 states with so called “trigger laws” and could be significantly restricted in at least 13 other states. Read more

Write This Down … Participants Have to Follow the Plan’s Beneficiary Designation Procedures

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

by Elizabeth Nedrow

The principles governing how ERISA plans determine a participant’s beneficiary haven’t changed much since the country singer George Strait sang “Write this down” in 1999. In short, the participant has to write it down … on the forms and following the procedures established by the plan.

Recently we’ve seen several examples of family members of deceased employees who are surprised by the plan’s record of who was designated as beneficiary. They have tried to argue that the deceased employee’s will should be allowed to designate a beneficiary, or that the plan should look to state laws regarding estates. However, the courts have clearly established that those extraneous sources do not affect the plan’s process. (Most famous are the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2001 Egelhoff decision, and its 2009 Kennedy v. DuPont decision.) Read more

Here Comes the Sun: The DOL Intends to Shine the Light on Mental Health Parity

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

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.

The DOL has recently signaled its intent to focus on MHPAEA issues in filing suit against United Healthcare Insurance Company (“UHIC”) and United Behavioral Health (“UBH”).   Read more

Lean on Me . . . New Guidance on Federal COBRA Subsidy

/in , , , ,

By Kevin Selzer

We posted on April 6th about the COBRA subsidy that was made available through the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA).  In short, the law gives certain individuals who are entitled to COBRA due to a reduction of hours or involuntary termination of employment a 100% subsidy for health coverage that is continued under COBRA or equivalent state laws. 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

But I Said No, No, No . . . New Requirement for Mental Health and Substance Abuse Benefits

/in , , , ,

By Kevin Selzer

Employee benefit plans are subject to numerous laws that restrict, or at least limit, discrimination within the plans.  Many benefit plan nondiscrimination rules focus on whether highly and non-highly compensated employees are receiving equal treatment under those plans; however, the recently enacted Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (CAA) is bringing some attention to an often-overlooked discrimination rule that prohibits group health plans from discriminating with respect to mental health and substance use disorder benefits (MH/SUD benefits). Read more

Your [es]Cheating Heart … Might Be Useful to Retirement Plans Dealing With Missing Participants

/in , , , ,

by Beth Nedrow

Retirement plan administrators have for years sung the sad lament of what to do with missing participants. Ol’ Hank Williams himself could have written a hit song about the problem. Recent guidance from the IRS may have the retirement community singing a slightly different tune, however.

The hassle of keeping plan accounts open for lost or deceased former employees can be a real problem, especially for terminating plans. When participants go missing, retirement plan administrators have few alternatives. One alternative that has been discussed is the use of state unclaimed property funds (sometimes called by their old-fashioned name, “escheat” law). Plans previously were reluctant to escheat unclaimed retirement accounts to state funds due to concerns over how to report tax and withholding. But recent guidance from the IRS (Revenue Ruling 2020-24) makes clear that if a plan escheats funds to the state, it is appropriate for the plan to treat the payment as being includible in gross income and subject to federal income tax withholding, reportable on a Form 1099-R.

Read more

US District Court Pushes Back on DOL’s ERISA Plan Ruling Finding It Arbitrary and Capricious

/in , , , , ,

by Bret Busacker

As with many of the issues at stake in the upcoming Presidential election, the future of how Americans will obtain healthcare is a core issue this November. The Trump administration previously outlined its view that healthcare could be provided through Association Health Plans that consist of loosely related employer groups, including self-employed individuals. This Association Health Plan rule was then struck down by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, which concluded the Rule was too aggressive; and exceeded the scope of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

A recent US District Court case in Texas throws new fuel on the debate fire of whether healthcare coverage may be offered through ever-more expansive and creative employer sponsored arrangements; or whether ERISA should be interpreted to limit employer coverage to more traditional employer-employee structures.

Read more