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

Take a Bow For the New Revolution, and don’t let the same tax mistakes fool you again

/in , ,

by John Ludlum

As we enjoy the Silicon Slopes Tech Summit 2020, it has been great to catch up with executives, investors, and entrepreneurs working to build the next technology ideas into successful companies.  It is interesting to think that we don’t quantify the economic benefits that one great company, which brings together a talented team of founders and executives, finds a successful exit, and then comes back together to do it again at another company, has on an area.  There are many legendary technology companies that have had this effect, creating places like Silicon Valley and other areas in the country known for incubating technology companies and ideas.

One great thing about knowing and working with the seasoned investors and entrepreneurs is their ability to help the new generation see how to solve problems that these companies encounter, and how to avoid the mistakes that some people have made.  In my small part of this world, the conversations in 2001-2002 with employees and executives who were too optimistic in the first internet bubble will never be forgotten.  Yes, you can exercise equity awards like an incentive stock option (ISO) with a promissory note, second mortgage, or personal bank loan, and if the stock price goes up from there and the company achieves liquidity in an IPO or acquisition, you could win big with large gains all taxed at the long-term capital gains rate.  I know a number of people who had this great outcome.  However, the other side is that if the price does not go up, or if the company does not achieve liquidity, then there can be tax problems.  Exercising an ISO will result in an alternative minimum tax (AMT) adjustment in the year of exercise for the spread on the date of exercise.  If an optionee is subject to the AMT, then this tax is due to the IRS based on the value at the date of exercise.  There is no consideration for the fact that the shares are not liquid and have not been sold at the time of or at the value of the corresponding tax obligation, meaning the optionee is gambling that the value the shares will continue to go up and that there will be liquidity.

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

Sitting On a Dock of the Bay, watching my post-termination exercise period, roll away

/in , ,

Tax considerations for modifying stock options to extend the post-termination exercise period

by John Ludlum

We are often asked by our private company clients about making changes to outstanding stock options.  In some cases, changes to the number of shares subject to an option are needed, or to the vesting schedule, or to the allowed payment forms for exercising the option.  The rules affecting these decisions come from several, primarily tax, authorities, and the implications to the option and the company are quite varied depending on the change being made. 

Read more

Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin’… into the future with an extended deadline for Form 1095-C and Form 1095-B reporting

/in ,

by Becky Achten and Bret Busacker

The Internal Revenue Service has extended the due date for providing the 2019 Form 1095-C (applicable to large employers as explained below) and the Form 1095-B (generally applicable to insurance carriers) to participants from January 31, 2020 to March 2, 2020.  The deadlines for filing the 2019 Forms 1094-B, 1095-B, 1094-C and 1095-C with the IRS remain at February 28, 2020, for paper submissions, or March 31, 2020, if filing electronically.

In addition, the IRS has issued relief for insurance carriers generally required to provide the Form 1095-B.  Because there is no individual penalty for not having minimum essential coverage in 2019, individuals don’t need the 1095-B in order to calculate a tax penalty or file an income tax return.  Therefore, the IRS will not assess a penalty to entities that do not provide a Form 1095-B if they meet the following conditions:

  • The reporting entity must post a prominent notice on its website stating that individuals may receive a copy of their 2019 Form 1095-B upon request, along with contact information to make such a request; and
  • The reporting entity must furnish the 2019 Form 1095-B within 30 days of a request.
Read more

Walk this way…to avoid the pitfalls of ERISA

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

by John Ludlum

Companies implement bonus plans to meet a variety of business objectives:  retention, specific company business goals, change of control, and others.  In designing bonus plans, there are a variety of legal fields that must be understood for exemption or compliance including securities, tax, ERISA, and employment.  Many times, bonus plans that pay only in cash for achieving specific corporate objectives and which require services through the date of payment are exempt from onerous compliance mandates; however, if a bonus plan is found to provide retirement income or “results in a deferral of income by employees for periods extending to the termination of covered employment or beyond,” then that arrangement may be found to be a “pension plan” under ERISA Section 3(2) (29 U.S.C. § 1002(2)(A)).  Once a bonus plan is subject to ERISA, it must comply with ERISA’s annual reporting, participant communications, funding, participation, vesting, and fiduciary duty requirements. 

Read more

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

/in , , , , , , , ,

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. 

Read more

Take it to the limit one more time…IRS announces cost-of-living adjustments for 2020!

/in , , , ,

by Becky Achten & Lyn Domenick

The Internal Revenue Code imposes dollar limitations on various compensation, benefit and contribution levels under qualified retirement plans. Today, the Internal Revenue Service announced the 2020 cost-of-living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for qualified retirement plans. Check out our chart for easy reference!

Start spreading the news…student loan 401(k) match revenue ruling in the works

/in , ,

by Ben Gibbons

As you may recall, Private Letter Ruling 201833012 (the “PLR”), concerning the IRS’ approval of Abbott Laboratories’ plan to implement 401(k) matching contributions on student loan repayments, was released to much fanfare in the summer of 2018.  We’ve learned that at last week’s annual NASPP conference in New Orleans, Stephen Tackney, Deputy Associate Chief Counsel of the IRS Office of Chief Counsel (and author of the Section 409A deferred compensation regulations) announced that the IRS is working on converting the PLR into a revenue ruling that can be relied upon by all employers.

Read more