Category Archives: 401(k) Plans

IRS Announces New Benefit Limits for 2018

olga-delawrence-386839On October 19, 2017 the IRS announced 2018 cost-of-living adjustments for annual contribution and other dollar limits affecting 401(k) and other retirement plans.   Salary deferral limits to 401(k) and 403(b) plans increased $500 to $18,500, but other dollar limits remained unchanged, including the compensation threshold for highly compensated employee status. Specifically, an employee will be a highly compensated employee (HCE) in 2018 on the basis of compensation if he or she earned more than $120,000 in 2017.  Citations below are to the Internal Revenue Code.

 

In a separate announcement, the Social Security Taxable Wage Base for 2018 increased to $128,700 from $127,200.

1 Comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, COLA Increases, ERISA, IRA Issues, Nondiscrimination Testing for Qualified Retirement Plans, Profit Sharing Plan, Section 457(b) Plans

You Just Formed a New Business Entity. What Could Possibly Go Wrong?

What if a somewhat arcane area of tax law had potentially serious ramifications for attorneys and other tax advisors across a broad range of practices, but was not consistently identified and planned for in actual practice? That is an accurate description of the rules surrounding “controlled group” status between two or more businesses, which I have seen arise in business formation/transactions, estate planning, employment and family law settings.  The purpose of this overview is to briefly survey controlled group rules for non-ERISA practitioners, so that they can become aware of the potential complications that controlled group rules can create.

  1. Why Do Controlled Groups Matter?

The main reason they matter is because the IRS treats separate businesses within a controlled group as a single employer for almost all retirement and health benefit plan purposes. In fact, annual reporting for retirement plans (and for health and welfare plans with 100 or more participants) requires a statement under penalty of perjury as to whether the employer is part of a controlled group.  Therefore controlled groups are most frequently a concern where business entities have employees and particularly when they sponsor benefit plans, whether retirement/401(k), or health and welfare plans.  Note, however, that creation of a business entity that has no employees can still create a controlled group issue when it acts as a conduit to link ownership of two or more other entities that do have employees.

Being part of a controlled group does not always mean that all employees of the member companies have to participate in the same benefit plan (although it can sometimes mean that). However it generally means that separately maintained retirement plans have to perform nondiscrimination testing as if they were combined, which not infrequently means that one or more of the plans will fail nondiscrimination testing.  This is an event that usually requires the employer sponsoring the plan to add more money to the plan on behalf of some of the additional counted employees, or to pay penalty taxes in relation to same.  Similar complications can arise in Section 125 cafeteria or “flexible benefit plans,” and for self-insured group health plans, which are subject to nondiscrimination requirements under Code § 105(h).  Nondiscrimination rules are meant to apply to insured group health plans under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), so additional complications could arise in that context when and if the rules are enforced by the IRS, following publication of regulatory guidance.

Controlled group status can also mean that several small employers together comprise an “applicable large employer” subject to the ACA “pay or play rules,” and related annual IRS reporting duties. Small employer exceptions under other laws, including COBRA and the Medicare Secondary Payer Act, reference controlled group status when determining eligibility for the exception.

  1. How Do I Identify a Controlled Group?

 Determining controlled group status requires synthesizing regulations and other guidance across multiple Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) provisions and therefore is a task for a specialized ERISA or tax practitioner.  What follows are very simplified definitions aimed at helping advisors outside that specialized area flag potential controlled group issues for further analysis.

Strictly speaking, the term “controlled group” refers to shared ownership of two or more corporations, but this article uses the term generically as it is the more familiar term.  “Ownership” in this context means possession of the voting power or value of corporate stock (or a combination thereof).  Shared ownership among other types of business entities is described as “a group of trades or businesses under ‘common control.’”  Ownership in this context refers to ownership of a capital or profits interest in a partnership or LLC taxed as a partnership.   Controlled groups can also arise in relation to tax-exempt entities, for instance if they own 80% or more of a for-profit entity, or even between two tax-exempt entities where there is substantial overlap of board membership or board control.

Complex interest exclusion rules mean that not all ownership interests are counted towards common control; exclusion may turn on the nature of the interest held (e.g., treasury or non-voting preferred stock) or on the party holding the ownership interest (e.g, the trust of a tax-qualified retirement plan).

The two main sub-types of controlled group are: parent-subsidiary, and “brother-sister,” although a combination of the two may also exist.  A parent-subsidiary controlled group exists when one business owns 80% or more of another business, or where there is a chain of such ownership relationships. As that is a fairly straightforward test, I will focus on the lesser known, but more prevalent, brother-sister type of controlled group.

A brother-sister controlled group exists when the same five or fewer individuals, trusts, or estates (the “brother-sister” group) have a “controlling interest” in, and “effective control” of, two or more businesses.

  • A controlling interest exists when the brother-sister group members own, or are deemed to own under rules of attribution, at least 80% of each of the businesses in question.
  • Effective control exists when the brother-sister group owns or is deemed to own greater than 50% of the businesses in question, looking only at each member’s “lowest common denominator” ownership interest. (So, a group member that owed 20% of one business and 40% of another business would be credited only with 20% in the effective control test.)
  • In order to pass the 80% test, you must use the interests of the same five or fewer persons (or trusts or estates) used for purposes of the greater than 50% test.  See US v. Vogel Fertilizer, 455 US 16 (1982). Put otherwise, the two tests consider only owners with a greater-than-zero interest in each of the businesses under consideration. If, under this rule, you disregard shares adding up to more than 20% of a business, the 80% test won’t be met and that business generally won’t form part of the controlled group. (Although the remaining businesses may do so.)

The controlled group attribution rules are quite complex and can only be touched on here. Very generally speaking, an ownership interest may be attributed from a business entity to the entity’s owner, from trusts to trust beneficiaries (and to grantors of “grantor” trusts as defined under Code § 671-678), and among family members. Stock options can also create attributed ownership under some circumstances.  The attribution rules can have surprising consequences. For instance, a couple, each with his or her wholly-owned corporation, will be a controlled group if they have a child under age 21 together, regardless of their marital status, because the minor child is attributed with 100% of each parent’s interests under Code §1563(e)(6)(A).  Community property rights may also give rise to controlled group status. Careful pre-marital planning may be necessary to prevent unintended controlled group status among businesses owned separately by the partners to the marriage.

This is the first part of a two-part discussion that was first published as an article in the Santa Barbara Lawyer Magazine for October 2017.  The second half will address a variation of these rules that are specific to businesses formed by doctors, dentists, accountants, and other service providers.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, ADP and ACP Testing, Affordable Care Act, Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, COBRA, Common Control Issues, Employer Shared Responsibility, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Nondiscrimination Rules for Insured Health Plans, Nondiscrimination Testing for Qualified Retirement Plans, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties

The Emerging Benefit Trend of Student Loan Assistance

Employers are by now familiar with the scary statistics on mounting student loan indebtedness, including that approximately 71% of 2015 college seniors graduated with a student loan, and almost 80% of millennials believe that student loan debt will make it harder for them to meet their financial goals.  Per Mark Kantrowitz of Cappex.com, the average student loan balance increased by almost 50% between 2005 and 2015, and now hovers around $35,000 per graduate.

Large student loan debt impacts current employees and prospective new hires in many ways: it may cause rejection of a desired position or promotion due to income needs, it may postpone retirement plan participation due to cash flow needs, and it may delay or even rule out home ownership or starting families, leading to a less stable and community-involved workforce.

Employers want to be able to help mitigate some of the downside of high student loan debt among their employees, but their efforts are hindered by the fact that employer loan payments on behalf of an employee are currently taxable to the employee.

Several pieces of new legislation proposed for the 2017-2018 Congressional term encourage or facilitate employer assistance with student loan repayments through tax incentives. A survey of some of these measures follows:

The Higher Education Loan Payments (HELP) for Students and Parents Act (H.R. 1656)

  • This measure would permit employers to make up to $5,250 per year in tax-free student loan repayments on behalf of employees, and provide an employer tax credit based on 50% of contributions made within that dollar limit.
  • It would also permit employers to make up to $5,250 per year in the form of “qualified dependent 529 contributions” direct to employees’ tax-exempt tuition savings accounts set up on behalf of their children (up to age 19; students up to age 24), and would provide a corresponding 50% employer tax credit.
  • If passed it would thereby double the current $5,250 limit on employer education assistance under Internal Revenue Code (“Code) § 127.
  • Significant for smaller employers, the HELP for Students and Parents Act would treat sole proprietors and partners as employees for purposes of the excludible contributions.

The Student Loan Repayment Act (H.R. 615)

  • This bill would offer employers a 3-year business tax credit equal to 50% of startup costs for a student loan program (up to $500 per participating employee) under which the employer matches employees’ student loan repayments, up to $2,000 per year.
  • The startup costs are program creation costs, not amounts used for employer matching contributions.
  • The bill would also allow employers who hire “qualified student loan repayers” to claim the Work Opportunity Tax Credit, which encourages hiring of select populations such as veterans and recipients of certain types of public assistance. A “qualified student loan repayer” must have at least an associate’s degree, and outstanding education loans of at least $10,000.

The Student Loan Repayment Assistance Act (H.R. 108)

  • This bill would amend the Code to allow businesses a tax credit for employer-paid student loan repayments made direct to the lender, equal to 10% of the amounts that the employer pays on behalf of any employee, not to exceed $500 per employee per month.
  • The credit would be refundable for small businesses and non-profits who cannot use the credit against taxes.
  • The bill would require a written plan document, notice to employees, annual reporting to IRS and must be made “widely available” to employees (not discriminate in favor of “highly compensated employees”).

The Retirement Improvement and Savings Enhancement (RISE) Act of 2016

  • This measure took the form of a discussion draft in the 2014-2016 Congress but likely will be re-introduced in the current 115th Congress.
  • It would permit employers to make matching contributions to an employee’s 401(k) or SIMPLE IRA account based on his or her student loan repayments, essentially treating employee student loan repayment as equivalent of a 401(k) salary deferral.
  • Its retirement provisions would also curtail currently permissible IRA strategies including “mega Roth IRAs” and stretch IRAs, and would permit IRA contributions after reaching age 70 1/2.

As legislative efforts progress, vendors are already stepping in to the breach. Tuition.io provides a software interface that permits employer money to go direct to repay student loans, without going through employee pay.  The average employer contribution per paycheck is $50 – $200.   Other vendors include Student Loan Genius, PeopleJoy, Peanut Butter, and Gradifi.

One compliance question that these programs raise is whether student loan repayment programs would comprise ERISA plans, subject to trust and reporting requirements, or simply be viewed as “payroll practices” exempt from Title I of ERISA.  They do not provide retirement income or defer compensation to retirement age, thus would not likely be an ERISA pension plan, and do not provide benefits within the definition of ERISA “health and welfare” plans, so probably would not fall within ERISA’s scope.  This should help encourage formation of these programs by employers, as ERISA compliance burdens can be complicated and costly. Employers may still need to meet certain requirements in order to ensure tax-qualified status, however, as in the case of the Student Loan Repayment Assistance Act, which imposes documentation, notice and reporting duties.

Employers that want to address their employees’ student loan debt through workplace financial assistance can take the following steps to help select the program or policy that best suits their needs:

  • Talk to your recruiters and use other methods to estimate the student loan burden faced by your staff and new hire candidates.
  • Carefully evaluate various student loan aid vendors and identify those with the best fit for your organization.
  • Invest time in plan design and scheduling a roll out.
  • Remember that communication and ease of use are both key success factors.
  • Continue to monitor legislation for new assistance options.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, IRA Issues

Using Forfeitures for Corrective Contributions: Look Before You Leap

kn8atn5_zgq-matthew-sleeper

When a 401(k) plan fails nondiscrimination testing that applies to employee salary deferrals, one way to correct the failure is for the plan sponsor to make qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs) on behalf of non-highly compensated employees. The same approach may apply to matching contribution failures, but in that instance the corrective contributions are called qualified matching contributions or QMACs.   QNECs and QMACs must satisfy the same vesting and distribution restrictions that apply to employee salary deferrals – they must always be 100% vested and must not be allowed to be distributed prior to death, disability, severance from employment, attainment of age 59.5, or plan termination (i.e., they may not be used for hardship distributions).

Existing Treasury Regulations provide that QNEC and QMAC contributions must be 100% vested at when they are contributed to the plan, not just when they are allocated to an account.

Forfeitures are unvested employer contributions when originally contributed to the plan, and for this reason the IRS has taken the position that a plan sponsor may not use forfeitures to fund QNECs or QMACs. And in fact, the prohibition on using forfeitures to make QNECs or QMACs is reflected in the Internal Revenue Manual, and the IRS Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) which outlines voluntary correction methods for plan sponsors.

On January 18, 2017, the IRS changed course by publishing a proposed regulation requiring that QNECs and QMACs be 100% vested only when they are allocated to an account, and need not be 100% vested when originally contributed to a plan. This means that forfeitures may be used to make QNECs and QMACs if the underlying plan document permits.  It would logically follow that other employer contributions that are not fully vested when made may be re-designated as QNECs to satisfy ADP testing for a plan year.

The proposed regulation is applicable for plan years beginning on or after January 18, 2017 (January 1, 2018 for calendar year plans) but may be relied upon prior to that date.

Caution is advised, however, for plan sponsors wanting to make immediate use of forfeiture accounts for QNECs and QMACs. First, they must confirm that their plan document does not prohibit use of forfeitures for this purpose.  In the author’s experience, master and prototype and volume submitter basic plan documents may expressly prohibit use of forfeitures for QNECs and QMACs.  The language below was taken from a master and prototype basic plan document:

7) Limitation on forfeiture uses. Effective for plan years beginning after the adoption of the 2010 Cumulative List (Notice 2010-90) restatement, forfeitures cannot be used as QNECs, QMACs, Elective Deferrals, or Safe Harbor Contributions (Code §401(k)(12)) other than QACA Safe Harbor Contributions (Code §401(k)(13)). However, forfeitures can be used to reduce Fixed Additional Matching Contributions which satisfy the ACP test safe harbor or as Discretionary Additional Matching Contributions.

Plan sponsors that locate a similar prohibition in their plan document should contact the prototype plan sponsor to determine whether they will be amending their plan document to permit use of forfeitures for QNECs and QMACs and when such an amendment will take effect.

In instances where there is no express plan prohibition, plan sponsors that are making use of EPCRS to correct plan failures should try to ascertain from the IRS whether or not they may use forfeitures to fund QNECs or QMACs as part of a self-correction or VCP application, as the most recently updated EPCRS Revenue Procedure (Revenue Procedure 2016-51, 2016-41 I.R.B. 465), expressly disallows this at Section §6.02(4)(c) and Appendix A §.03. Hopefully, the IRS will issue some guidance on this point without too much delay.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, ADP and ACP Testing, Benefit Plan Design, Nondiscrimination Testing for Qualified Retirement Plans, Uncategorized

State Auto-IRA Programs: What Employers Need to Know

pelskgra2nu-fabian-blank

California and four other states (Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland and Oregon) have passed legislation requiring employers that do not sponsor employee retirement plans to automatically withhold funds from employees’ pay, and forward them to IRAs maintained under state-run investment programs. Provided that these auto-IRA programs meet safe harbor requirements recently defined by the Department of Labor in final regulations, the programs will be exempt from ERISA and employers cannot be held liable for investment selection or outcome.  The DOL has also finalized regulations that would permit large cities and other political subdivisions to sponsor such programs where no statewide mandate exists; New York City has proposed its own such program, tentatively dubbed the New York City Nest Egg Plan.

In light of this growing trend, what do employers need to know about auto-IRA programs?   Some key points are listed below:

  1. Some Lead Time Exists. Even for state auto-IRA programs that become effective January 1, 2017 (e.g., in California and Oregon), actual implementation of employee contributions is pushed out to July 1, 2017 (in Oregon) and, in California, enrollment must wait until regulations governing the program are adopted. The California program, titled the California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, also phases in participation based on employer size. Employers with 100 or more employees must participate within 12 months after the program opens for enrollment, those with 50 or more within 24 months, and employers with fewer than 50 employees must participate within 36 months. These deadlines may be extended, but at present the earliest round of enrollment is anticipated to occur in 2019.
  2. Employer Involvement is Strictly Limited. The DOL safe harbor prohibits employer contributions to auto-IRAs and requires that employers fulfill only the following “ministerial” (clerical) tasks:
    • forwarding employee salary deferrals to the program
    • providing notice of the program to the employees and maintaining contribution records
    • providing information to the state as required, and
    • distributing state program information to employees.  Note that in California, the Employment Development Department will develop enrollment materials for employers to distribute, and in addition a state-selected third party administrator will collect and invest contributions, effectively limiting the employer role to forwarding salary deferrals.
  3. Employers Always Have the Option of Maintaining their Own Plan. Generally the state auto-IRA programs established to date exempt employers that maintain or establish any retirement plan (401(k), pension, SEP, or SIMPLE), even plans with no auto-enrollment feature or employer match used to encourage employee salary deferrals. Therefore employers need not be significantly out of pocket (other than for administrative fees) to avoid a state auto-IRA mandate. Employers should bear in mind that an employer-sponsored retirement program, even if only a SEP or SIMPLE IRA, helps to attract and retain valued staff, and should consider establishing their own plan in advance of auto-IRA program effective dates for that reason.
  4. Penalties May Apply. California’s auto-IRA program imposes a financial penalty on employers that fail to participate.   The penalty is equal to $250 per eligible employee if employer failure to comply lasts 90 or more days after receipt of a compliance notice; this increases to $500 per employee if noncompliance extends 180 or more days after notification. The Illinois auto-IRA program imposes a similar penalty.
  5. Voluntary Participation in Auto-IRA Program May Create an ERISA Plan. One of the requirements of the DOL safe harbor is that employer participation in auto-IRA programs (referred to as “State payroll deduction savings programs” be compulsory under state law. If participation is voluntary, an employer will be deemed to have established an ERISA plan. In theory, this rule could be triggered when an employer that was mandated to participate later drops below the number of employees needed to trigger the applicable state mandate (for instance, a California employer that drops below 5 employees), but continues to participate. The DOL leaves it to the states to determine whether participation remains compulsory for employers despite reductions in the number of employees.   The DOL also notes that, under an earlier safe harbor regulation from 1975, an employer that is not subject to state mandated auto-IRA programs can forward employees’ salary deferrals to IRAs on their behalf without triggering ERISA, provided that the employee salary deferrals are voluntary and not automatic.   The DOL final regulations can be read to suggest that a payroll-to-IRA forwarding arrangement that is voluntary and that meets the other requirements of the 1975 safe harbor will constitute a pre-existing workplace savings arrangement for purposes of exempting an employer from a state-mandated auto-IRA program.
  6. The Trump Administration Will Likely Support Auto-IRA Programs. Early and necessarily tentative conclusions are that the Trump Administration will continue to support the DOL’s safe harbor regulation exempting auto-IRA programs from ERISA, as well as other state-based efforts to address the significant savings gap now known to confront much of the country’s workforce.   One unknown variable is the degree to which the Trump Administration will be influenced by opposition to the programs mounted by the financial industry. Until the direction of the Trump Administration becomes clearer, employers that do not currently maintain a retirement plan should track auto-IRA legislation in their state or city and otherwise prepare to comply with a state or more local program in the near future, ideally by adopting their own retirement plan for employees.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, ERISA, Fiduciary Issues, Payroll Issues, State Auto-IRA Programs

IRS Announces New Benefit Limits for 2017

dollar-1362244_960_720

On October 28, 2017 the IRS announced 2017 cost-of-living adjustments for annual contribution and other dollar limits affecting 401(k) and other retirement plans.   Salary deferral limits to 401(k) and 403(b) plans remained unchanged for the second year in a row, but other dollar limit adjustments were made. Citations below are to the Internal Revenue Code.

Limits That Remain the Same for 2017 Are As Follows:

–The annual Salary Deferral Limit for 401(k), 403(b), and most 457 plans, currently $18,000, stays the same.

–The age 50 and up catch-up deferral limit, currently $6,000, also remains the same. For 2017 as in this year, the maximum salary deferral an individual age 50 or older may make is $24,000.

–The compensation threshold for determining a “highly compensated employee” remains unchanged at $120,000.

–Traditional and Roth IRA contributions and catch-up amounts remain unchanged at $5,500 and $1,000, respectively.

–The compensation threshold for SEP participation remained the same at $600.

–The SIMPLE 401(k) and IRA contribution limit remained the same at $12,500.

Limits That Changed for 2017 Are As Follows:

–The maximum total annual contribution to a 401(k) or other “defined contribution” plan under 415(c) increased from $53,000 ($59,000 for employees aged 50 and older) to $54,000 ($60,000 for employees aged 50 and olded).

–The maximum annual benefit under a defined benefit plan increased from $210,000 to $215,000.

–The maximum amount of compensation on which contributions may be based under 401(a)(17) increased from $265,000 to $270,000.

-The compensation dollar limit used to determine key employees in a top-heavy plan increased from $170,000 to $175,000.

In a separate announcement, the Social Security Taxable Wage Base for 2017 increased from $118,500 to $127,200.  

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, COLA Increases, ERISA, IRA Issues, Profit Sharing Plan, Section 457(b) Plans

Webinar: Dept. of Labor 401(k) Audits – How Not to Get Selected (and How to Survive if You Do) UPDATED

 Y01VDYAX63Please join Christine Roberts and former DOL investigator David Kahn for a free, one-hour webinar on Wednesday, Aug 24, 2016 at 10:00 AM PDT which will provide tips on how to reduce the risk of audit, and how to survive an audit if one occurs. We will cover investigation triggers and issues that the DOL targets once an audit is underway. This no-charge webinar qualifies for continuing education credits for California CPAs and ASPPA. Join us for a webinar. Register now! https://lnkd.in/b-58niA

For those of you who missed the event, the PowerPoint and audio file are found here.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, DOL Audit, Fiduciary and Fee Issues, Fiduciary Issues, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, Profit Sharing Plan