457(b) plans – Page 3 – Benefits Law Group Blog

I’m Just Waiting on an… End to the Extended ERISA Deadline Periods

by Brenda Berg

Early in the pandemic, the IRS and DOL issued a temporary rule (published May 4, 2020) extending certain deadlines applicable to retirement plans and health and welfare plans. (See Deadlines and Commitments: DOL and IRS Temporary Rule for COVID for more information about that extension.) Under that temporary rule, the deadlines were generally extended until 60 days after the announced end of the National Emergency due to COVID-19, which was referred to as the “Outbreak Period.” The deadlines are essentially “tolled” during the Outbreak Period. The National Emergency began on March 1, 2020, as declared by President Trump’s Proclamation.

The examples in the temporary rule assumed an end date of April 30, 2020 for the National Emergency, which would have extended the Outbreak Period through June 29, 2020. As we all now know, this National Emergency did not end on April 30, and in fact it is still in place. So we are still waiting for the National Emergency period to end and trigger the normal deadlines.

Staring at the Stars Above, Wonder What [Fiduciary Duties] Are We Made Of – Cybersecurity for Retirement Plans

September 22, 2020/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, 457(f) plans, Defined Benefit Plans, DOL, ERISA, Fiduciary Duties, Governmental Plans, Investments, IRS, PBGC, Retirement Plans

by John Ludlum

Noting that there has been an increase in computer crime in connection with the economic disruption caused by COVID-19, companies should remember that retirement plan accounts are attractive targets for cyber thieves because of the often larger account balances relative to ordinary financial accounts, the infrequency of checking on accounts by many of their owners, and the potential for some account owners to rely on the plan sponsor and record-keeper to provide security.

ERISA fiduciaries generally are subject to the prudent expert standard of care, and they owe a duty of loyalty to the plan participants. A prudent expert acts with the care, skill, and diligence that the circumstances call for a person of like character and like aims to use.

Don’t You . . . Forget About Special Tax Notices

September 16, 2020/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, Defined Benefit Plans, ESOPs, Governmental Plans, IRS, Retirement Plans

by Leslie Thomson

The Internal Revenue Code requires plan administrators of qualified retirement plans (e.g., 401(k) plans, defined benefit plans and ESOPs), 403(b) plans, and eligible 457(b) plans maintained by a governmental employer to provide a written explanation to any recipient of an eligible rollover distribution. This notice is typically referred to as the Special Tax Notice.

Back in the Saddle Again … How Rehired Employees Affect Partial Termination Analysis

August 18, 2020/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, 457(f) plans, Defined Benefit Plans, ESOPs, Governmental Plans, IRS, Retirement Plans

by Beth Nedrow

In June, we wrote about one of the multitude of issues raised by COVID-19 furloughs – the possibility of triggering vesting in the company’s qualified retirement plan under the partial plan termination rules. Recently the IRS issued new guidance that will be relevant to employers who might be rehiring employees before the end of 2020. On its website, the IRS posed this question: “Are employees who participated in a business’s qualified retirement plan, then laid off because of COVID-19 and rehired by the end of 2020, treated as having an employer-initiated severance from employment for purposes of determining whether a partial termination of the plan occurred?” The IRS then answered the question, “Generally, no.” This means that the employer may be able to continue to maintain vesting (and enforce forfeitures) in its retirement plan if enough formerly furloughed employees are brought back before the end of the year. While this answer isn’t earth-shattering or even frankly surprising, it’s welcome clarity in a time of so many uncertainties.

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

March 10, 2020/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, Defined Benefit Plans, ERISA, Governmental Plans, Legislation, Retirement Plans, SECURE Act

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.

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

December 23, 2019/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, Benefits Plan Creation, Defined Benefit Plans, ERISA, Governmental Plans, Health & Welfare Plans, Legislation, Retirement Plans, SECURE Act

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).

Friends in Low Places . . . IRS focusing on late contributions too

November 11, 2019/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, DOL, ERISA, Fiduciary Duties, Governmental Plans, IRS, Retirement Plans

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.

It’s been a hard day’s night: final hardship distribution rules issued

September 23, 2019/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, ERISA, IRS, Retirement Plans

by Brenda Berg

If you are one of those plan sponsors who was waiting for the final hardship regulations to be issued before making any changes to hardship distributions in your plans – your time has come. The Treasury Department and IRS issued the final regulations on September 19, 2019 for publication today, September 23, 2019.

These regulations finalize the proposed regulations issued on November 14, 2018, and they are essentially the same with some clarifications. Plans that made changes in compliance with the proposed regulations will be deemed to have complied with the final regulations. Overall the rules – which generally apply to 401(k) plans, 403(b) plans, and 457(b) plans – ease some of the restrictions on taking hardship distributions.

I can’t drive 55 – or classify my workers

September 18, 2019/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, 457(f) plans, Benefits Plan Creation, Cafeteria Plans, Defined Benefit Plans, DOL, Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs), ERISA, ESOPs, Fringe Benefits, Governmental Plans, Health & Welfare Plans, IRS, Litigation, PBGC, Retirement Plans, Severance Plans, State Benefits Laws

by John Ludlum

Making correct classifications between independent contractors and employees is not getting simpler with flexible, geographically-distributed workforces. For those with long memories, a key case in the area of worker classification was issued by the Ninth Circuit in Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation, 97F.3d 1187 (CA-9, 1996). Vizcaino v. Microsoft held that certain workers, originally hired as independent contractors, were actually employees who were entitled to benefits under Microsoft’s 401(k) plan and Microsoft’s Employee Stock Purchase Plan. Determinations like this can lead to substantial corrections costs to fix tax-qualified benefit plans as well as to make the contributions required under plan terms to the improperly excluded employees.

Sunshine … on my controlled group makes me happy

September 12, 2019/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, 457(f) plans, Benefits Plan Creation, Cafeteria Plans, Defined Benefit Plans, Employee Stock Purchase Plans (ESPPs), ERISA, ESOPs, Fringe Benefits, Governmental Plans, Health & Welfare Plans, Retirement Plans

by John Ludlum

The controlled group rules under the IRC are possibly one of the driest and most technical areas in benefits practice, but mistakes in controlled group status can be very expensive and complicated to correct. The problem we are seeing is that in too many cases, it is not clear whether the plan sponsor or the plan’s service providers have responsibility for monitoring which entities are in the plan sponsor’s controlled group.