The DOL recently released its Spring Regulatory Agenda, and it contains several important retirement and welfare plan initiatives for this year. Below is a summary of some of the material items that plan sponsors should be aware of, along with the DOL’s proposed schedule of rulemaking: Final Pension Benefit Statement Lifetime Illustrations Rule (Final Rule scheduled for August 2022). Note: Under the DOL’s previously issued Interim Final Rule, the inclusion of lifetime illustrations once per year on pension benefit statements became effective in June 2022. Revised procedures for granting prohibited transaction exemptions (the DOL is currently reviewing comments from its Proposed Rule from March 2022). Amendment and restatement of the DOL’s Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program to expand the scope of eligible transactions and to streamline correction procedures (Interim Final Rule scheduled for July 2022). Amendment of the regulatory definition of the term “fiduciary” under ERISA for those persons who render investment… Continue Reading
As discussed in our prior blog post here, the SECURE Act requires plan administrators to provide annual statements illustrating participants’ accrued benefits in two lifetime income stream illustrations: (i) a single life annuity, and (ii) a qualified joint and survivor annuity. The statements must include a clear and understandable explanation of the assumptions underlying the illustrations. Participant-directed individual account plans that furnish quarterly benefit statements to participants must include a participant’s lifetime income illustrations on at least one statement in any 12-month period. The initial lifetime income illustrations must be included on the quarterly statement for the second calendar quarter of 2022 if the illustrations were not included on an earlier statement. A DOL fact sheet on Lifetime Income Illustrations is available here. A list of FAQs implementing the DOL interim final rule is available here.
In a time when most employees make their 401(k) plan elective deferral elections electronically, plan sponsors often do not think twice about maintaining records of employee deferral elections, since they expect their third party administrators (“TPAs”) will retain such electronic records. However, this confidence in the TPA’s records can be a trap for the unwary, as mistakes in the transmission of elections from the TPA to the employer’s payroll can easily occur, and the elections for long-standing employees may have been entered manually based on paper election forms that could have long since been misplaced (or destroyed in accordance with a TPA’s record retention policies). Further, if the plan sponsor has changed TPAs, the current TPA’s records for participants prior to the conversion are based on the records of the prior TPA and may no longer be accessible following conversion to the new TPA. A lack of reliable records can… 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
During the pandemic, many employers laid off and terminated employees as businesses shut-down and then rehired employees when businesses reopened. Employers who sponsored retirement plans and incurred these fluctuations in their workforce risked that the layoffs and terminations could trigger partial retirement plan terminations, which would require 100% vesting of affected participants. Whether a partial plan termination has occurred is generally based on the facts and circumstances, but there is a rebuttable presumption that a partial plan termination has occurred if 20% or more of a plan?ÇÖs active participants have had an employer-initiated termination within a given plan year. In September of 2020, the IRS issued FAQs to clarify that when an employee was terminated and rehired within 2020, they would not be counted for purposes of determining whether a partial plan termination occurred (we reported on this guidance here). Section 209 of the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief… Continue Reading
In our prior blog post here, we discussed the case of Anastos v. IKEA Property, Inc., which highlighted the importance of an employer?ÇÖs understanding of how its group term life insurance coverage is impacted by changes in employment status, such as termination of employment, retirement, or a leave of absence. This understanding is necessary for the employer to correctly communicate to employees when life insurance coverage will end, when evidence of insurability will be required, and the requirements necessary to convert coverage. In Anastos, the employer drafted its retiree benefit plan to state that eligible retirees could continue life insurance and that, in most cases, coverage would be guaranteed with no medical certification required. When a retiree attempted to obtain this coverage, the employer admitted that its plan was misleading and that it could not obtain underwriting to provide that kind of life insurance continuation benefit. The retiree sued, and… Continue Reading
A recent federal district court case,?áAnastos v. IKEA Property, Inc., illustrates that a release agreement executed upon employment termination may not offer blanket protection for employers against potential future ERISA or other claims that arise after termination (and after the release agreement has been executed). In Anastos, an employee sued his former employer alleging the information provided to him about the employer?ÇÖs retiree life insurance program led him to believe that no medical certification would be required to continue his life insurance coverage post-retirement. After the employee retired, his employer informed him that life insurance coverage was not available post-termination under the employer-provided plan and that, instead, he would have to convert the coverage to a whole life insurance policy with MetLife. MetLife required a medical examination before it would issue the policy, and the employee would not be able to satisfy the medical examination requirement. The employer filed a… Continue Reading
The safe harbor rules for hardship withdrawals from a retirement plan permit such withdrawals for expenses and losses incurred by a participant due to a natural disaster declared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (?Ç£FEMA?Ç¥) under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act, provided the participant?ÇÖs principal residence or principal place of employment at the time of the disaster was located in an area designated by FEMA for individual assistance related to that disaster. FEMA issued a series of disaster declarations as a result of the February 2021 winter storms that impacted portions of Texas, Louisiana, and Oklahoma. A list of counties that have been designated by FEMA for individual assistance in those states can be found on FEMA?ÇÖs website here. Those disaster declarations mean that affected participants may be eligible for hardship distributions from their 401(k) plan accounts. Plan sponsors with participants who live or work… Continue Reading
The DOL issued guidance today stating that the one-year limit on the suspension of COBRA, special enrollment, and claims deadlines during the COVID-19 outbreak period applies on an individual basis.?á This means those deadlines do not resume running as of March 1, 2021.?á Instead, each individual has up to a one-year suspension as long as the COVID-19 national emergency continues.?á As discussed in our prior blog post here, it was unclear whether those deadlines were to resume running as of March 1, 2021.?á Employers should contact their service providers to ensure they are aware of this new guidance and to issue new participant communications as needed. Notice 2021-01 is available here.
The SECURE Act and CARES Act made significant changes to required minimum distributions (?Ç£RMDs?Ç¥). What should you be doing to ensure your retirement plans are administered correctly? The first step is to understand your options. SECURE Act Shifts the Start Before the SECURE Act, RMDs had to begin by April 1st of the calendar year following the later of (i) the calendar year during which the participant retires or (ii) the calendar year in which the participant turns age 70??.?á Following the passage of the SECURE Act, the age cutoff in that rule changed from age 70?? to age 72, but only for individuals who turned age 70?? on or after January 1, 2020 (i.e., individuals born on or after July 1, 1949). In short, those terminated vested participants born before July 1, 1949 had to start their RMDs by April 1 of the year after turning 70??, while those… Continue Reading