[firm] blog logo

New Legislation Extends Relief for Telehealth Coverage Prior to Satisfying HDHP Deductible

The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2022 (“CAA”), enacted on March 15, 2022, extends the optional relief previously provided under the CARES Act regarding the ability of a high deductible health plan (“HDHP”) to cover telehealth services without application of the deductible. Under the CARES Act relief, which applied to plan years beginning on or before December 31, 2021, a participant in an HDHP that adopted the relief could obtain pre-deductible telehealth services without compromising his or her ability to make contributions, or have contributions made, to a health savings account. See our prior blog post about the CARES Act relief here. The extension of the telehealth relief under the CAA is not retroactive to January 1, 2022, but instead is effective only for months beginning after March 31, 2022, and before January 1, 2023, thus creating a gap in the relief for calendar year plans (and certain non-calendar year plans)… Continue Reading

Eleventh Circuit Affirms Summary Judgment Because ERISA Plan Included Unambiguous Reservation of Rights Language

In Klaas v. Allstate Ins. Co., Allstate sponsored an employee welfare benefit plan subject to ERISA that paid life insurance premiums for certain retirees. Allstate made various representations that this benefit would continue for the remaining lives of the retirees. In 2013, Allstate informed the retirees that it would stop paying their life insurance premiums. The retirees sued alleging Allstate violated ERISA by no longer paying those premiums after making representations that the benefit would continue for a lifetime. The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the district court’s ruling, holding that no ERISA violation occurred because Allstate’s plan documents contained a no-vesting clause and an unambiguous reservation of rights provision that gave Allstate the right to modify or terminate retiree life insurance at any time.  This case is a good reminder to pay careful attention to what insurers and third-party administers put into your plan documents. Unlike retirement plans subject to ERISA,… Continue Reading

Reminder About Key 2021 Year-End Amendments

As the end of the calendar year approaches, plan sponsors are reminded to adopt certain amendments that may be required for their benefit plans to conform to regulations or reflect certain legal and/or plan design changes. Retirement Plans 2019 Required Amendments List In Notice 2019-64, the IRS published the 2019 Required Amendments List (the “List”), which lists the amendments required to be adopted by December 31, 2021. Pursuant to the List, plans offering hardship distributions must be amended in accordance with the final regulations issued under the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018. In addition, the List provides that collectively bargained cash balance/hybrid defined benefit plans maintained pursuant to collective bargaining agreements ratified on or before November 13, 2015 must be amended to comply with the final cash balance/hybrid plan regulations. The List also includes certain periodic changes that took effect in 2019, such as adjustments to various dollar limits for… Continue Reading

Benefit Compliance Tip: Be Sure to Sign on the Dotted Line

Benefit plan administration can be complicated and challenging, but sometimes it is not the complex issues that cause the biggest problems; it’s the simplest, such as remembering to ensure plan documents and amendments are actually signed. Far too often, when new plans or plan amendments are adopted, the board or a plan committee will adopt resolutions approving the new plan or amendment, but the actual documents are never signed. Unfortunately, this area of non-compliance may go unnoticed until an IRS or DOL audit or the sale of the plan sponsor, where signed documents are requested but the plan sponsor cannot find them. To avoid being caught with unsigned plan documents, plans sponsors should: Adopt procedures so that immediately after new plans or amendments are adopted, the documents are signed and dated by an authorized signer; After documents are signed, maintain the executed documents in an easy to find location, and… Continue Reading

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

Updates to Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System

In Revenue Procedure 2021-30 (“Rev. Proc. 2021-30”), the IRS made certain updates to the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (“EPCRS”), including updates to the Self-Correction Program (“SCP”) and the Voluntary Correction Program under EPCRS. Among other updates, Rev. Proc. 2021-30 expands the correction methods for benefit overpayments by adding (i) the “funding exception correction method,” which provides an exception to corrective payments for plans that meet certain funding requirements, and (ii) the “contribution credit correction method,” which prescribes the amount of overpayments required to be repaid to the plan under certain circumstances. Further, Rev. Proc. 2021-30 (i) expands the circumstances under which plan sponsors may correct operational failures under the SCP by plan amendment, and (ii) extends, by one year, the end of the SCP correction period for significant failures. Rev. Proc. 2021-30 is available here. 

IRS Publishes Updated Operational Compliance Checklist

The IRS recently updated its Operational Compliance Checklist (the ?Ç£Checklist?Ç¥) to include qualification requirements that will become effective during the 2021 and 2022 calendar years. Examples of items added to the Checklist for 2021 and 2022 include, among other things: Final regulations relating to updated life expectancy and distribution tables used for determining minimum required distributions; The SECURE Act requirement that qualified cash or deferred arrangements must allow long-term employees (i.e., employees who work at least 500 but less than 1,000 hours per year for three consecutive 12-month periods beginning on or after January 1, 2021) to participate; and Temporary relief from the physical presence requirement for spousal consents under qualified retirement plans. The Checklist is only available online and is updated periodically to reflect new legislation and IRS guidance. The Checklist does not, however, include routine, periodic changes, such as cost-of-living increases, spot segment rates, and applicable mortality tables,… Continue Reading

Reminder: Employer Obligations Regarding Employee Life Insurance Coverage

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

Reminder: A Release of Claims May Not Offer Blanket Protection Against Potential ERISA Claims

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

Voluntary Correction Program Applications ?Çô Best Practices

The IRS recently issued a list of the top errors it finds in Voluntary Correction Program (?Ç£VCP?Ç¥) submissions, which is available here. The errors listed generally relate to issues associated with the submission of files in the correct PDF format, failing to pay the correct user fee, or the incorrect submission of the Form 8950. Filing a VCP application can be a useful method for plan sponsors to correct operational issues that have spanned numerous years or?á other issues for which self-correction is unavailable. Errors in the submission can delay resolution of the application or, in some cases, cause a rejection of the application. In addition to the common errors outlined by the IRS, plan sponsors should also use care to avoid the following additional common issues: Failure to Submit a Comprehensive Filing ?Çô If one operational error is found, plan sponsors should conduct a self-audit prior to filing a… Continue Reading

September 2022
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Archives