California Meal and Rest Period Premium Payments Are Wages; How Does This Impact your Retirement Plan?
Under California law, employers who fail to provide the legally mandated meal or rest periods are required to pay nonexempt employees a meal and rest period “premium” payment equal to one hour of wages at the employee’s regular rate of pay. A number of lower court decisions in California were split as to whether such meal and rest period premium payments constituted a penalty payment or wages. In Naranjo v. Spectrum Security Services, Inc., the California Supreme Court settled the issue by holding that meal and rest period premium payments do constitute wages. As such, meal and rest period premium payments may also be covered under an employer’s retirement plan’s definition of compensation, meaning, among other things, that the meal and rest period premium payments may be subject to participant 401(k) deferrals and employer matching contributions. In light of this decision, any plan sponsor with employees in California should review… Continue Reading
Proposed Required Minimum Distribution Regulations Clarify Application of Ten-Year Rule for Designated Beneficiaries
The IRS recently issued proposed regulations interpreting the changes in the required minimum distribution requirements resulting from enactment of the SECURE Act. Under the ten-year rule, a distribution of the participant’s entire interest must be made to a designated beneficiary who is not an eligible designated beneficiary within ten years after the death of the participant, regardless of whether the owner died before reaching his or her required beginning date. Among the proposed regulations, the IRS clarified that if a participant dies following his or her required beginning date, in addition to satisfying the ten-year rule, the participant’s benefit must also continue to be distributed to the beneficiary at least as rapidly as it was being distributed when the participant died. The IRS Proposed Regulations are available here.
The DOL issued guidance reminding responsible 401(k) plan fiduciaries of their ongoing duty to monitor investments and cautioning that the DOL “has serious concerns about the prudence of a fiduciary’s decision to expose a 401(k) plan’s participants to direct investments in cryptocurrencies, or other products whose value is tied to cryptocurrencies.” The DOL listed five reasons why cryptocurrency investments and their derivatives (collectively, “Crypto”) may not be a prudent selection at this time and threatened that 401(k) plan fiduciaries who allow Crypto as an investment option (even if through a brokerage window) “should expect to be questioned about how they can square their actions with their duties of prudence and loyalty.” Accordingly, 401(k) plan fiduciaries who are contemplating including or retaining Crypto as a plan investment option should factor this DOL guidance into their decision-making process. Compliance Assistance Release No. 2022-01 is available here.
The DOL recently published a supplement statement (the “Supplement Statement”) relating to its June 3, 2020 Information Letter (the “Letter”) regarding the use of private equity investments in designated investment alternatives for individual account retirement plans. The Letter stated that a plan fiduciary would not violate the fiduciary duties under ERISA solely due to the plan fiduciary’s offering of a professionally managed asset allocation fund with a private equity component as a designated investment alternative, subject to the conditions set forth in the Letter. The DOL noted that the Letter was not an endorsement of such private equity investments and that plan fiduciaries must determine whether such an investment is prudent and made solely in the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries. Our prior blog post regarding the Letter is available here. The Supplement Statement clarified that plan fiduciaries should not misread the Letter “as saying that [private equity]—as a… Continue Reading
When a retirement plan participant dies without a valid beneficiary designation on file, death benefits will typically be paid pursuant to the plan’s default beneficiary provisions. These provisions should be drafted to avoid placing an undue burden on the plan administrator (which is often the plan sponsor). When the plan document requires the plan administrator to determine a participant’s heirs, the process of administering the death benefit can be costly and time-consuming and may lead to the risk that the plan will have to pay a duplicate benefit. For example, a duplicate payment could result because children from a previous marriage were overlooked, the participant remarried after terminating employment, or competing heirs provide incomplete or misleading information. However, plans can be drafted to provide that the default beneficiary is the participant’s surviving spouse, and if there is no spouse, the participant’s estate. If the estate is not probated, the risk should be shifted from… Continue Reading
Recent IRS Snapshot Regarding Deemed Distributions for Participant Loans Reminds Employers of Risk of Plan Loan Errors
The IRS recently released an Issue Snapshot (the “Snapshot”) focusing on participant loans from retirement plans and when certain compliance errors could trigger deemed distributions with respect to such loans. Specifically, the Snapshot lists the following requirements, which if not satisfied, will cause a participant loan to be treated as a deemed distribution: Enforceable agreement requirement, which generally requires a participant loan to be a legally enforceable agreement (which may include more than one document) and the terms of the agreement demonstrate compliance with the applicable requirements of the Code. Maximum loan amount limit requirement, which generally limits the maximum amount of a participant loan to the amount specified under the Code. The Snapshot also noted the CARES Act allowed modifications to the loan limit for certain loans to “qualified individuals.” Repayment period requirement, which generally requires the repayment period of a loan be limited to five years, unless the loan… Continue Reading
The DOL, PBGC, and IRS (the “Agencies”) recently issued a Notice of Proposed Revision (the “Notice”) to update the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report filed for employee pension and welfare benefit plans. The DOL simultaneously issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking to implement the revisions proposed in the Notice. These proposed revisions primarily relate to certain statutory amendments to ERISA and the Code enacted as part of the SECURE Act and include other changes intended to improve Form 5500 reporting. Specifically, the Notice describes the following proposed revisions to the Form 5500 Annual Return/Report: Consolidation of the Form 5500 reporting requirement for defined contribution retirement plan groups by (i) adding a new type of direct filing entity called a “defined contribution group” reporting arrangement, and (ii) establishing a new reporting schedule for such arrangement; Modifications to reflect pooled employer plans as a type of multiple employer pension plan (“MEP”) and implement… Continue Reading
Periodically, the IRS will release guidance that highlights compliance issues that are either common issues found on audits or current concerns of the IRS. The IRS recently issued the following Issue Snapshots highlighting certain compliance issues for retirement and deferred compensation plans: IRC Section 457(b) Eligible Deferred Compensation Plan – Written Plan Requirements, Application of IRC Section 415(c) When a 403(b) Plan is Aggregated with a Section 401(a) Defined Contribution Plan, Church Plans, Automatic Contribution Arrangements, and the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2016, and Preventing the Occurrence of a Nonallocation Year under Section 409(p). If your company currently sponsors an employee benefit plan that could be impacted by the issues highlighted in these snapshots, these snapshots are a good reminder to make sure your plan is in compliance. The Issue Snapshots are available here.
As Plan Administrator, the Employer is Liable – Not the Service Provider (i.e., What Kind of Indemnification Are You Getting?)
The plan administrator of an employee benefit plan (employee welfare or retirement) has the general fiduciary responsibility under ERISA to ensure the operational and documentary compliance of the plan. Under ERISA, the sponsoring employer is the plan administrator unless another person or entity is named in the plan. This generally means the employer retains ultimate responsibility and liability for legal compliance even though the employer may rely heavily on the plan’s third-party service providers. One way to mitigate this liability is to obtain indemnification from a service provider for the service provider’s errors, for which the employer (as plan administrator) would still be legally liable. The default language in third-party service provider contracts often provides indemnification only for the service provider’s “gross negligence”, but not its “ordinary negligence”, thus leaving the employer responsible for correcting (and paying for) errors caused by the service provider that do not amount to “gross negligence” or “intentional… Continue Reading
At a time when digital security and cyberattacks are key concerns for individuals and businesses alike, plan sponsors and other plan fiduciaries have a key role to play in protecting retirement plan assets and data. Otherwise known as “responsible plan fiduciaries,” these individuals and certain plan service providers have a fiduciary duty to ensure there is a robust cybersecurity program in place to keep plan assets and data secure. As we previously reported on our blog here, the DOL recently issued guidance in this arena to keep employers and plan fiduciaries compliant. The DOL is now specifically targeting employers and plan fiduciaries who fail to adequately protect employee retirement plan assets from hackers and cyberthieves, so the time to act is before the DOL issues a plan audit and before participants are victimized by cybercriminals or hackers. The DOL requires that plan fiduciaries responsible for prudently selecting and monitoring service… Continue Reading