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
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 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
The Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 and Benefits Changes Employers Need to Focus on Right Now
Retirement Plans Additional Relief May Help Prevent Partial Plan Terminations The recently adopted Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (the ?Ç£CAA?Ç¥) provides relief for qualified retirement plans of employers that had to reduce their workforce as a result of the pandemic (through furloughs, layoffs, or terminations) for plan years that include the period beginning on March 13, 2020 and ending on March 31, 2021. Specifically, these plans shall not be treated as incurring a partial plan termination if the number of active participants covered by the plan on March 31, 2021 is at least 80% of the number of active participants that were covered by the plan on March 13, 2020. A partial plan termination generally occurs when more than 20% of a plan?ÇÖs participants are terminated in a plan year. If a partial plan termination occurs, then the plan is required to 100% vest any ?Ç£affected employees?Ç¥. ?Ç£Affected employees?Ç¥ are… Continue Reading
The IRS recently issued final regulations relating to amendments made to Code Section 402(c) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the ?Ç£TCJA?Ç¥).?á The TCJA provides an extended rollover period for plan loan offset amounts that are treated as distributed from a qualified plan due to (i) termination of the plan or (ii) failure to repay the loan due to the participant?ÇÖs severance from employment, each a ?Ç£qualified plan loan offset?Ç¥ (?Ç£QPLO?Ç¥).?á Although most of the general rules relating to plan loan offsets apply to QPLO amounts, the permissible rollover period is extended.?á Generally, a participant has only 60 days to contribute the loan offset amount in a tax-free rollover to another qualified retirement plan.?á However, a participant may roll over QPLO amounts into another qualified retirement plan until the due date for his or her personal income tax return for the year in which the QPLO occurred.… Continue Reading
Under current IRS guidance, when a ?Ç£significant?Ç¥ number of participants cease to be eligible to participate in a tax qualified retirement plan, such as due to involuntary terminations of employment, a partial plan termination has occurred, and the affected participants must be made 100% fully vested in their account balances. The IRS considers an involuntary reduction in the number of plan participants by more than 20% in a given plan year to be significant for that purpose. In light of the significant disruptions to many employers?ÇÖ businesses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, the question arises whether any of their workforce reductions also triggered a partial plan termination. The IRS recently issued FAQs which clarify that employees who are laid off or terminated in 2020 but are rehired by their employer by the end of 2020 will not have incurred an involuntary termination of employment for purposes of determining whether a… Continue Reading
Employee Payroll Tax Holiday or Looming Tax Nightmare: Unanswered Questions on the Payroll Tax Deferral Executive Order
Employee Payroll Tax Holiday or Looming Tax Nightmare: Unanswered Questions on the Payroll Tax Deferral Executive Order.
In light of the recent economic developments stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic, many employers are evaluating their employee benefit plans and how employee and employer costs will be impacted. The following summary provides a list of questions we have been receiving from clients over the past week, along with action items to help employers address these issues. Health and Welfare Plans and Fringe Benefits Should benefits coverage continue while an employee is on an unpaid furlough? If so, how would the employee pay the employee?ÇÖs portion of the premium? Could the employee elect to drop coverage due to the reduction in hours of active service? Could the employer pay for coverage for some or all of its furloughed employees? Continued eligibility for benefits will depend on whether the employer treats the furlough as a termination of employment or as an unpaid leave of absence. The terms of the plan, including… Continue Reading
Employers have increasingly closed their defined benefit plans to new employees and placed those new employees in defined contribution plans. ?áThose closed defined benefit plans may, over time, tend to cover primarily employees who are highly compensated, which risks those plans becoming discriminatory in favor of highly compensated employees. In Notice 2014-5, the IRS provided temporary nondiscrimination relief for many of those defined benefit plans, if certain conditions were met. ?áNotice 2015-28 extends the nondiscrimination relief provided in Notice 2014-5 in anticipation of issuing amendments to the Code Section 401(a)(4) regulations. IRS Notice 2015-28 can be found here. IRS Notice 2014-5 can be found here.