One Last Time: The DOL Returns to the Fiduciary Rule for Retirement Plans

/in , , , , , ,

by Bret Busacker

The Department of Labor has returned to the Fiduciary Rule once again with its third attempt to provide a regulatory framework that protects retirement investors while not imposing unnecessary burdens on investment advisors and consultants. 

Plan sponsors of 401(k) plans should be aware that the DOL will once again apply the historical “five-part-test” in evaluating whether 401(k) advisors are plan fiduciaries.  The return of the five-part-test is the result of the Fifth Circuit invalidating the DOL’s 2016 version of the fiduciary rule, which had temporarily replaced the five-part-test.  Under the “new-again” five-part-test, an investment advisor to a 401(k) plan or plan participant is deemed to be a plan fiduciary if the advisor makes investment recommendations on a regular basis pursuant to an agreement or understanding with the 401(k) plan or plan participant and the advisor’s recommendations serve as the primary basis for making the decision to invest in specific investment options.  A 401(k) plan advisor determined to be a fiduciary under the five-part-test cannot receive variable compensation tied to a 401(k) participant’s investment decision (generally, referred to as conflicted compensation).

Read more

If a Tree Falls in the Forest – Employee Benefits in Mergers and Acquisitions Workforce Integration

/in , , , , , , ,

by John Ludlum

We are aware of several business studies that conclude that a high percentage, between 70-90%, of corporate acquisitions fail to meet their business objectives. When looking at why the time, effort, and expense invested in a corporate acquisition turn out not to achieve the business synergies and value creation that were expected, it is apparent that workforce integration and commitment after the transaction closes often is a contributing factor to why these acquisitions fail.

Read more

Tell Me Something Good: IRS Eases Restrictions on Mid-Year Changes to Safe Harbor Contributions

/in , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The IRS has eased the restrictions on mid-year changes to safe harbor contributions, in response to the hardships caused by the coronavirus pandemic.

Employers are generally not allowed to reduce or suspend safe harbor matching or nonelective contributions mid-year unless either (1) the annual safe harbor notice included a statement that the employer could amend the plan mid-year to reduce or suspend the safe harbor contribution, or (2) the employer can demonstrate that it is operating at an economic loss during the plan year. Even if the employer satisfies one of these requirements, the employer must provide a 30-day advance notice before the effective date of the suspension. The suspension of the safe harbor contribution will also mean that the plan becomes subject to nondiscrimination testing for the current plan year.

Read more

Into the Mystic . . . Employee Benefit Considerations for Returning Workers

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Kevin Selzer

Many employers are venturing into uncharted waters as significant numbers of employees are being rehired or returning from extended leaves of absence (e.g., furloughed employees). In this environment, it can be easy to overlook the employee benefit plan implications of this workforce shift. Below are some best practices for employers faced with employees returning to work.

Ensure that retirement plans are crediting service for returning employees correctly. In most cases, employers will not be able to treat a rehired employee as a new employee for retirement plan purposes. This means that the employer will have to consider the employee’s prior service for purposes of determining proper eligibility and vesting credit. This is a good time for employers to check and confirm that any systems that track service (e.g., payroll systems and the retirement plan administrator’s systems) are configured correctly to credit prior service.

Read more

You Gotta Keep ’Em Separated . . . IRS Permits Remote Signatures and Notarization

/in , ,

by Rebecca Hudson and Lyn Domenick

In response to the global novel coronavirus pandemic, the Internal Revenue Service released welcome guidance in Notice 2020-42 granting temporary relief from the physical presence requirement for participant elections (including spousal consent) that must be witnessed by a notary public or plan representative.  Social distancing recommendations and stay at home orders have resulted in a dire need for this relief, which is intended to facilitate the payment of coronavirus-related distributions and plan loans to qualified individuals.  For the period January 1, 2020 through December 31, 2020, under certain conditions, qualified plans may permit remote electronic approval by a notary public or plan representative for participant elections and spousal consent.

Read more

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

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