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.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2020-01-09 11:11:262020-03-10 14:20:49We Interrupt This Program – Is a Multiple Employer Plan In Your Future?
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).
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-12-23 09:27:192020-03-10 14:23:10A Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action: Major retirement plan legislation is finally signed into law
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.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-12-03 10:05:362019-12-03 11:15:07Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin’… into the future with an extended deadline for Form 1095-C and Form 1095-B reporting
“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.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-11-11 13:22:182019-11-11 13:22:20Friends in Low Places . . . IRS focusing on late contributions too
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!
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-11-06 09:23:392019-11-06 09:23:41Take it to the limit one more time…IRS announces cost-of-living adjustments for 2020!
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act
(“HIPAA”) was created for one specific reason – evolution of technology. Today,
health care providers are using online clinical applications and electronic
health records; also, health plans are offering online access to claims and
care management. This evolution of technology, while incredible and
appropriate, raises several security risks that could, if not appropriately
addressed, lead to HIPAA penalties.
Health care providers and group health plans (“covered
entities”) deal with highly sensitive and protected health information (“PHI”).
The HIPAA privacy, security, and breach rules were adopted to make sure covered
entities protect and safeguard PHI. Although employers/plan sponsors are not
directly subject to the HIPAA rules; if the covered entity is a self-funded
group health plan, complying with the myriad of HIPAA rules will likely fall on
the plan sponsor.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-10-22 09:38:352019-10-22 09:40:09It’s HIP(AA) to be square… making sure you are HIPAA compliant
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.
https://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.png00adminhttps://www.employeebenefitslawblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/logo_vertical-v2.pngadmin2019-09-26 11:22:492019-09-26 11:22:51Start spreading the news…student loan 401(k) match revenue ruling in the works
We Interrupt This Program – Is a Multiple Employer Plan In Your Future?
/in 401(k) Plans, Benefits Plan Creation, DOL, ERISA, Fees, Fiduciary Duties, Investments, IRS, Legislation, Retirement Plans, SECURE Actby 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 moreA Little Less Conversation, a Little More Action: Major retirement plan legislation is finally signed into law
/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 Actby 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).
Time keeps on slippin’, slippin’, slippin’… into the future with an extended deadline for Form 1095-C and Form 1095-B reporting
/in Health & Welfare Plans, IRSby 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 furnish the 2019 Form 1095-B within 30 days of a
request.
Read moreFriends in Low Places . . . IRS focusing on late contributions too
/in 401(k) Plans, 403(b) plans, 457(b) plans, DOL, ERISA, Fiduciary Duties, Governmental Plans, IRS, Retirement Plansby 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 moreTake it to the limit one more time…IRS announces cost-of-living adjustments for 2020!
/in 401(k) Plans, Defined Benefit Plans, ESOPs, IRS, Retirement Plansby 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!
It’s HIP(AA) to be square… making sure you are HIPAA compliant
/in Health & Welfare Plansby Hector A Beason
The Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (“HIPAA”) was created for one specific reason – evolution of technology. Today, health care providers are using online clinical applications and electronic health records; also, health plans are offering online access to claims and care management. This evolution of technology, while incredible and appropriate, raises several security risks that could, if not appropriately addressed, lead to HIPAA penalties.
Health care providers and group health plans (“covered entities”) deal with highly sensitive and protected health information (“PHI”). The HIPAA privacy, security, and breach rules were adopted to make sure covered entities protect and safeguard PHI. Although employers/plan sponsors are not directly subject to the HIPAA rules; if the covered entity is a self-funded group health plan, complying with the myriad of HIPAA rules will likely fall on the plan sponsor.
Read moreStart spreading the news…student loan 401(k) match revenue ruling in the works
/in 401(k) Plans, IRS, Retirement Plansby 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