[firm] blog logo

Reminders About Required Minimum Distributions

Under Section 401(a)(9)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code, qualified employer-sponsored retirement plans must commence payment of required minimum distributions to a participant by no later than the participant’s “required beginning date” (“RBD”). A participant’s RBD is defined as April 1 of the calendar year following the later of (i) the calendar year in which the participant attains age 70.5 or (ii) the calendar year in which the participant retires from the employer-plan sponsor. However, the “still-working” exception in the second clause of the previous sentence does not apply to a “five-percent owner” of the employer. Additionally, special rules apply for making required minimum distributions to beneficiaries of deceased participants. With April 1, 2019 around the corner, the following list contains a few reminders for employers regarding required minimum distributions: Once a participant has commenced required minimum distributions from the plan, the participant must continue to receive them even if the… Continue Reading

IRS Highlights Circumstances Permitting Recoupment of Erroneous HSA Contributions

Section 223 of the Internal Revenue Code provides that an individual’s interest in the balance of her health savings account (“HSA”) is not subject to forfeiture. Consequently, contributions made by an employer to an employee’s HSA may be recouped only in very limited circumstances. In IRS Notice 2008-59 (the “Notice”), the IRS described several specific circumstances in which an employer may recoup contributed amounts from the HSA trustee. However, in its recently released Information Letter 2018-0033 (the “Letter”), the IRS confirmed that the circumstances discussed in the Notice were not intended to be exclusive and clarified that if there is clear documentary evidence demonstrating an administrative or process error on the part of the employer or the HSA trustee (an “HSA Process Error”), an employer may request that the HSA trustee return the amounts to the employer, with any correction needed to put the parties in the same position they… Continue Reading

IRS Permits Lump Sum Window Programs for Retirees in Pay Status

Section 401(a)(9) of the Internal Revenue Code provides that, by the required beginning date, an employee’s accrued benefit in a tax-qualified retirement plan must either be paid in full or commence to be distributed as a nonincreasing annuity. The Treasury Regulations issued under Code Section 401(a)(9) contain an exception to the nonincreasing annuity requirement which permits increases due to a plan amendment that increases plan benefits. Some practitioners have interpreted the exception to permit sponsors to amend a plan to offer a lump sum window program to retirees already in pay status (i.e., the option for a retiree to convert the unpaid portion of her existing annuity into a one-time, lump-sum payment during a specified window period). In Notice 2015-49, the IRS announced its intent to amend the Treasury Regulations to expressly prohibit defined benefit plans from offering such lump sum window programs to retirees in pay status. In Notice… Continue Reading

Invention by Another – How the Prior Art Status of a Reference Can Be Affected by the Significance of a Joint Inventor’s Contribution to that Reference

Invention by Another – How the Prior Art Status of a Reference Can Be Affected by the Significance of a Joint Inventor’s Contribution to that Reference

At times, a patent owner’s previous patent can be used as a prior art reference against their later filed patents. A reference is prior art under pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102(e) if it was “described in … an application for patent … by another.” A patent is “by another” if it lists a different set of inventors than the patent at issue. In other words, if a patent owner’s previously filed patent lists one inventor that is not listed on their later filed patent, the previously filed patent is “by another” and may qualify as prior art for the later filed patent. This issue was explored further in Duncan Parking Technologies, Inc., v. IPS Group Inc., (Appeal No. 2018-1205, Fed. Cir. Jan. 31., 2019), where the Federal Circuit overturned the PTAB’s finding that portions of the anticipatory reference used in an Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceeding were not by another and… Continue Reading

Does Our Compensation Committee Still Need to Certify Performance Goals for Code Section 162(m)?

Under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “Act”), Congress broadened the $1 million deduction limitation under Code Section 162(m) for a public company’s top executives by, among other things, broadening the scope of who are “covered employees” and by eliminating the performance-based compensation exception. Prior to the changes made by the Act, in order for compensation payable to a covered employee in excess of $1 million to be deductible under Code Section 162(m), the company’s compensation committee had to certify that the performance goals were met following the end of the performance period and before any payouts were made. Any misstep would disqualify the compensation awards. Beginning in 2018, there is no particular tax benefit for companies to follow the certification procedures, as any compensation over $1 million will not be deductible if paid to a covered employee. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Act grandfathered some incentive compensation… Continue Reading

March 2019
S M T W T F S
« Feb   Apr »
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  

Archives