Money’s Too Tight to Mention…But Maybe a Student Loan Match Would Help

/in , , , , , , ,

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

You’re So Far Away From Me … But You Can Still Sign This Retirement Plan Distribution Form

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Elizabeth Nedrow

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

It’s All About the Benjamins…2023 IRS Limits Announced

/in , , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

The IRS has announced the 2023 cost of living adjustments to qualified plan limits. As expected, many of the limits increased substantially compared with prior years. Below are the highlights, and our full historical chart can be found here for easy reference.

2023 2022 2021
Annual Compensation 330,000 305,000 290,000
Elective Deferrals 22,500 20,500 19,500
Catch-up Contributions 7,500 6,500 6,500
Defined Contribution Limit 66,000 61,000 58,000
ESOP Distribution Limits 1,330,000
265,000		 1,230,000
245,000		 1,165,000
230,000
Defined Benefit Limit 265,000 245,000 230,000
HCE Threshold 150,000 135,000 130,000
Key Employee 215,000 200,000 185,000
457 Elective Deferrals 22,500 20,500 19,500
Taxable Wage Base 160,200 147,000 142,800

The Times They Are A-Changin’…IRS Provides Further Retirement Plan Amendment Deadline Relief

/in , , , , ,

by Benjamin Gibbons

The IRS has picked up where it left off last month with additional retirement plan amendment deadline extensions. As you may recall from our August 5, 2022 blog post, Time Is On My Side: Some Retirement Plan Amendment Deadlines Pushed Back, the IRS recently extended certain SECURE Act, Miner’s Act, and CARES Act amendment deadlines for retirement plans but notably did not extend the deadline for coronavirus-related distributions and loan plan loan relief under the CARES Act. While it is unclear whether those omissions were intentional or an oversight, the IRS has rendered that question moot in IRS Notice 2022-45. Read more

You Spin Me QPAM Baby QPAM: DOL’s Proposed QPAM Rule May Mean Changes to Collective Trust Agreements for Plan Sponsors

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

by Bret F. Busacker

The DOL published on July 27, 2022 a proposed change to the QPAM Exemption (“Proposed QPAM Amendment”) that may require retirement plan sponsors to update their collective trust agreements in order to satisfy the new DOL requirements.  Collective trusts have become an increasingly common way for qualified retirement plan committees/plan sponsors to achieve lower investment expenses for some of the investment options in their plans.

These collective trusts are managed by investment managers who often engage other financial institutions to execute trades involving the pension assets held by the collective trust. These trades involving retirement plan assets may at times be executed by a financial institution that is also providing services (such as recordkeeping services) to the same retirement plan.  Absent an exemption, these sorts of related party transactions may violate the ERISA prohibited transaction rules.   Read more

Time Is On My Side: Some Retirement Plan Amendment Deadlines Pushed Back

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The IRS has given plan sponsors more time to adopt some – but apparently not all – retirement plan amendments reflecting law changes in the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act), the Bipartisan Miners Act of 2019 (Miners Act), and the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (CARES Act). Notice 2022-23, issued August 3, 2022, generally provides that the deadline to adopt these amendments is extended to December 31, 2025. This is the deadline for qualified plans regardless of the plan year, and this deadline also applies to 403(b) plans and collectively bargained plans. Governmental plans generally have until 90 days after the third regular legislative session of the body with the authority to amend the plan that begins after December 31, 2023. Read more

We Just Need Your Compliance…IRS Announces Pilot Pre-Examination Program for Qualified Plans

/in , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

IRS Employee Plans has just announced a pilot program for pre-examination compliance checks of qualified retirement plans, beginning this month. If your plan is targeted, you will receive a letter from the IRS notifying you that your retirement plan has been selected for an upcoming IRS examination. What’s new under the pilot program is that the IRS will give you 90 days to perform your own self-compliance check and determine if the plan is in compliance with current IRS guidance, with the enticement that this self-review may avoid an IRS examination.

During the 90 days, you would complete a compliance review of your plan and, if you do not find any errors, you would assert to the IRS that the plan meets current tax law requirements. Or, if you discover some matters that need correction, you may correct mistakes using the self-correction principles or the voluntary compliance program (VCP) under the IRS correction program, EPCRS. If the errors are eligible for self-correction under EPCRS, it appears that no penalty will apply. If the errors are eligible for VCP but not self-correction, the IRS may issue a closing agreement and assess a fee based on the VCP fee that would otherwise have been charged if the plan had filed a VCP application under EPCRS before this process had begun. If the IRS disagrees with the correction–or if you fail to respond to the IRS within the 90-day period–the IRS will likely schedule a limited or full-scope examination. Read more

How Much is that (Investment) in the Window…A Higher Level of Fiduciary Oversight Could be Required for 401(k) Plan Brokerage Windows

/in , , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

Fiduciaries of 401(k) plans and other retirement plans know that they must prudently monitor the investment options available to participants in the plan, but are they monitoring participants’ investments made through a plan’s brokerage window? Recent commentary from the Department of Labor (DOL) on cryptocurrency investments suggests maybe fiduciaries should be – and that the DOL may check in on that soon.[i]

A “brokerage window” or “self-directed brokerage account” can allow participants access to a broad array of investments beyond the regular investment menu under the plan. Most plan fiduciaries have not paid much attention to the actual brokerage window investments. This is not surprising given the DOL’s relative lack of focus on the matter. The DOL had issued guidance in 2012 that the investment disclosure portion of the fee disclosure rules could apply to brokerage window investments in certain cases but after pushback due to the administrative burdens, the DOL withdrew that guidance. In 2014 the DOL issued a Request for Information about brokerage window practices but no further guidance was issued. Read more

It’s [Not] Too Late Baby, Now It’s [Not] Too Late…for Required Minimum Distributions

/in , , , , ,

by Lyn Domenick

If you have participants in your retirement plan who are old enough to identify Carole King as the artist who released the song “It’s Too Late” some 50 years ago, this blog’s for you. Late payment of required minimum distributions (RMDs) is an ongoing source of plan sponsor headaches. What do you do when they occur?  As background, qualified plans are subject to the minimum distribution rules that generally require participants to commence payments no later than the April 1st following the year in which the participant attains age 72 (prior to January 1, 2020, age 70-1/2) unless the participant is still actively employed and is not a 5% owner. For various reasons the RMD deadline is sometimes missed and the plan administrator is faced with how to correct the late RMD error. Proper correction of missed RMDs is essential to ensure continued plan qualification. However, plan participants are also subject to stiff penalty taxes equal to 50% of the missed RMD amounts, which is a headache of a different sort.

Read more

The Tide is High…Keep Holding On For More Retirement Plan Fee Litigation

/in , , , , , , , ,

by Brenda Berg

The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling this week in Hughes v. Northwestern University will do nothing to stem the rising tide of retirement plan fee litigation. But the ruling doesn’t mean fiduciary breach claims are more likely to be successful either. Instead, the Court kept its ruling very narrow: a broad investment menu with some prudent funds will not automatically mean the fiduciaries are off the hook for offering imprudent funds.

 

The plaintiffs in Hughes were participants in two 403(b) retirement plans sponsored by Northwestern University. The participants brought claims for breach of fiduciary duty against the University, the retirement plan committee, and the individuals who administered the plans. The participants alleged the fiduciaries breached their duty of prudence by: (1) allowing recordkeeping fees that were too high; (2) allowing plan investments with excessive investment fees; and (3) providing participants too many investment options (over 400!) which resulted in participant confusion and poor investment decisions. Read more