The IRS issued a ruling earlier this summer that serves as
a reminder of how important it is to maintain the distinction between an
election for health plan coverage and an election on how to pay for such
coverage.
In practice, virtually all employees (and frankly, many
employers) forget there is a distinction between electing coverage and electing
how to pay for it. It is usually automatically assumed that when an employee
elects medical coverage, they will pay for that coverage pre-tax under a
Section 125 cafeteria plan. Indeed, IRS guidance and proposed regulations
permit the employer to default an employee into paying for medical coverage
pre-tax under a cafeteria plan. But if an employee makes this election (either
affirmatively or by default), they may come to regret it, as demonstrated in
the IRS Chief Counsel letter issued May 8, 2019.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-08-13 09:48:032019-08-16 10:06:09Ch-ch-ch-changes . . . cafeteria plan change in status rules are sometimes surprisingly restrictive
In late July, the Department of Labor released a rule
allowing small businesses to more easily band together in a joint retirement
plan. The idea is that a larger plan will have more leverage to obtain better
pricing and better service from vendors. Equally important is the ability of
employers to offload some or all of the responsibility for maintaining
retirement plans.
The final rule alters the definition of “employer” in
ERISA for purposes of who may establish and maintain an individual account
defined contribution retirement plan. Under the new rule, a group or
association, or a PEO (professional employer organization) can sponsor what
the DOL refers to as a “MEP” – a “multiple employer plan.” The regulation is
limited to “bona fide” groups, associations and PEOs – which means they must
have a business purpose or other common connection, and not merely have the
purpose of providing the retirement plan. In this way, the new rule mirrors
the DOL’s regulations intended to expand the availability of association
health plans (“AHPs”), which is currently stalled due to litigation.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-08-08 09:15:072019-08-16 10:06:18Come together, right now . . . and join a MEP?
Welcome to the Benefits Dial, a new blog authored by members of Holland & Hart’s Benefits Law Group. We will share our insights on current trends, pending legislation, regulatory developments, and practical tips about common situations that arise in employee benefits and executive compensation. Tune in to the Benefits Dial for the best in benefits law news. Come for the catchy tunes, stay for the legal insights.
Ch-ch-ch-changes . . . cafeteria plan change in status rules are sometimes surprisingly restrictive
/in Cafeteria Plans, ERISA, Health & Welfare Plans, IRSby Beth Nedrow
The IRS issued a ruling earlier this summer that serves as a reminder of how important it is to maintain the distinction between an election for health plan coverage and an election on how to pay for such coverage.
In practice, virtually all employees (and frankly, many employers) forget there is a distinction between electing coverage and electing how to pay for it. It is usually automatically assumed that when an employee elects medical coverage, they will pay for that coverage pre-tax under a Section 125 cafeteria plan. Indeed, IRS guidance and proposed regulations permit the employer to default an employee into paying for medical coverage pre-tax under a cafeteria plan. But if an employee makes this election (either affirmatively or by default), they may come to regret it, as demonstrated in the IRS Chief Counsel letter issued May 8, 2019.
Read moreCome together, right now . . . and join a MEP?
/in 401(k) Plans, Benefits Plan Creation, DOL, ERISA, IRS, Legislation, Retirement Plansby Beth Nedrow
In late July, the Department of Labor released a rule allowing small businesses to more easily band together in a joint retirement plan. The idea is that a larger plan will have more leverage to obtain better pricing and better service from vendors. Equally important is the ability of employers to offload some or all of the responsibility for maintaining retirement plans.
The final rule alters the definition of “employer” in ERISA for purposes of who may establish and maintain an individual account defined contribution retirement plan. Under the new rule, a group or association, or a PEO (professional employer organization) can sponsor what the DOL refers to as a “MEP” – a “multiple employer plan.” The regulation is limited to “bona fide” groups, associations and PEOs – which means they must have a business purpose or other common connection, and not merely have the purpose of providing the retirement plan. In this way, the new rule mirrors the DOL’s regulations intended to expand the availability of association health plans (“AHPs”), which is currently stalled due to litigation.
Read moreThere’s something happenin’ here . . . introducing the Benefits Dial
/in UncategorizedWelcome to the Benefits Dial, a new blog authored by members of Holland & Hart’s Benefits Law Group. We will share our insights on current trends, pending legislation, regulatory developments, and practical tips about common situations that arise in employee benefits and executive compensation. Tune in to the Benefits Dial for the best in benefits law news. Come for the catchy tunes, stay for the legal insights.