Category Archives: Benefit Plan Design

Offer Opt-Out Payments? Don’t Get Snared in Overtime Liability

aaron-burden-27662.jpg

If you are an employer within the jurisdiction of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and offer cash payments to employees who opt out of group health coverage (“opt-out payments”), what you don’t know about the court’s 2016 opinion in Flores v. City of San Gabriel may hurt you.

Specifically, the Ninth Circuit court held that opt-out payments had to be included in the regular rate of pay used to calculate overtime payments under the federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). In May 2017 the U.S. Supreme Court declined to review the opinion, making it controlling law within the Ninth Circuit, and hence in the states of Alaska, Arizona, California, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Washington.

The Flores case arose when a group of active and former police officers in the City of San Gabriel sought overtime compensation based on opt-out payments they received between 2009 and 2012 under a flexible benefits plan maintained by the City.  The plan required eligible employees to purchase dental and vision benefits with pre-tax dollars; they could also use the plan to purchase group health insurance.  Employees could elect to forgo medical benefits upon proof of alternative coverage; in exchange they received the unused portion of their benefits allotment as a cash payment added to their regular paycheck.  The opt-out payments were not insubstantial, ranging from $12,441 annually in 2009 to $15,659.40 in 2012.  The City’s total expenditure on opt-out payments exceeded $1.1 million dollars in 2009 and averaged about 45% of total contributions to the flexible benefits plan over the three years at issue.

The court held that the City had not properly excluded the opt-out payments from the regular rate of pay for overtime purposes under the FLSA, as they were items of compensation even though not tied directly to specific hours of work, and further that the “bona fide” benefit plan exception did not apply, because, inter alia, the cash opt-out payments received under the flex plan comprised far more than an “incidental” portion of the benefits received.

Despite the significant potential impact of getting this classification wrong, the City appears not to have sought a legal opinion on whether it could permissibly exclude the opt-out payments under the FLSA. Instead, a City employee testified that it followed its normal process of classifying the item of pay through joint decision by the payroll and human resources departments, without any further review of the classification or other due-diligence.  For this oversight, the court awarded liquidated damages against the City for failure to demonstrate that it acted in good faith and on the basis of “reasonable grounds” to believe it had correctly classified the opt-out payments under the FLSA.  Further, the court approved a three-year statute of limitations for a “willful” violation of the FLSA, rather than the normal two year period, on the grounds that the City was on notice of its FLSA requirements, yet took “’no affirmative action to ensure compliance with them.’”

Although Flores involved a benefit plan maintained by a public entity, there is nothing in the Ninth Circuit’s opinion that limits its scope to public entity employers.

Therefore employers within the Ninth Circuit who offer opt-out payments should review their payroll treatment of these amounts and seek legal counsel in the event there if potential overtime liability under the FLSA. They should also confirm that cash opt-out payments remain an “incidental” percentage of total flex benefits, which the Department of Labor has defined in a 2003 opinion letter as no more than 20% of total plan benefits.  In Flores the Ninth Circuit found the 20% threshold to be arbitrary, but suggested that it was likely lower than 40% of total benefits.  Finally, employers offering opt-out payments should also revisit the other legal compliance hurdles that these payments present under the ACA, which after its recent reprieve from repeal/replace legislation, remains, for now, the law of the land.

Leave a comment

Filed under Benefit Plan Design, Cafeteria Plans, FLSA, Fringe Benefits, Health Care Reform, Overtime, Post-Election ACA, PPACA, Uncategorized

Beyond the 403(b) Plan: Top 5 Things to Know About Deferred Compensation for Non-Profit Executives

Tax-exempt employers may offer deferred compensation plans to their select executives to allow for retirement savings over and above the dollar limits applicable under a Section 403(b) plan. However the rules governing these arrangements, which fall under Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code (Code), are complex and often misunderstood.  Below are five things top things to keep in mind in this area, to get the most that the law offers without unpleasant tax surprises along the way.

1.  It’s complicated……

First, there are two types of 457 plans: 457(b) plans and 457(f) plans.  A tax-exempt employer can use both for the same executives but careful planning is advised.  The (b) plans allow set-aside (in the form of employee deferrals or employer contributions) of only $18,000 (in 2017) per year, with no age 50+ catch-up allowance.  Amounts set aside under a (b) plan are not taxed until they are distributed to the executive, an event which must be delayed until termination of employment/retirement, or on the occurrence of unforeseeable circumstances (narrowly defined).  Taxation is delayed until distribution even though the amounts are generally “vested” (no longer subject to forfeiture) when they are contributed.  By contrast there is no dollar limit on the amount that may be set aside under a 457(f) plan (subject to item no. 4, below), but the amounts are taxable upon completion of a vesting schedule (e.g., from 3 to 10 years).  Therefore distribution in full almost always happens upon completion of vesting.  Put most simply, (b) plans are a good way to double an executive’s 403(b) deferral budget, and (f) plans are a good way to help an executive catch up on retirement savings when a retirement or other departure date is within a 3 to 10 year time horizon. Further, in order for an exemption from ERISA to apply, participation in these plans must be limited to a “select group of management or highly compensated employees,” comprising no more than 5% – 10% of the total workforce, referred to as the “top-hat” group.  In a small tax-exempt employer with 10 or 20 employees this may mean only 1 or 2 executives may participate.

2.  You (usually) can’t roll to an IRA.

Generally when an executive is ready to take distribution of benefits from a 457(b) or (f) plan a taxable cash distribution is required, and rollover to an IRA is not an option. (One exception is when the executive moves to a new employer that maintains a 457(b) plan that accepts rollover contributions).  Under a (b) plan, which may allow installment distributions over a period of years, the lack of an IRA rollover option is not so severe, but in a 457(f) plan setting, which generally calls for lump-sum distributions, the tax impact can be severe and the executives should be advised to do advance tax planning with their own CPAs or other tax advisors, well ahead of their planned retirement date or other vesting trigger.  In my experience, lack of the IRA rollover option often comes as an unwelcome surprise to the covered executives.

3.  The assets belong to the organization.

Section 457 plans are non-qualified meaning in relevant part that they assets the plans hold belong to the tax-exempt organization that sponsors the plan until the date(s) they are paid out to the participants. The assets must be held in an account in the name of the organization “FBO” the 457 plan account for the name of the executive.  There is no form of creditor protection but it is possible to put in place a “rabbi trust,” so called because the trust format was first approved by the IRS on behalf of a synagogue for its spiritual leader.  The rabbi trust will not protect the 457 assets from the organization’s creditors, but it will prevent the organization from reneging on the deferred compensation promise to an executive.  This is particularly helpful for an organization that anticipates changes in its board structure after approval of a 457 arrangement.

4.  The normal “reasonable compensation” rules still apply.

Tax-exempt organizations must pay only reasonable compensation, in light of the services provided, to employees and other individuals who comprise “disqualified persons,” a category that includes executive directors and other “C-suite” members. Under the “intermediate sanction” regime the IRS imposes excise taxes on individuals who benefit under, and organization managers (e.g., board members) who approve, compensation arrangements that fail the reasonableness standard.  Deferred compensation arrangements must be reasonable in light of all other compensation and benefits provided to the executives in question and in most cases this will require a third-party compensation consultant’s evaluation and review.  This is a vitally important and often-overlooked piece of deferred compensation compliance in the tax-exempt arena.

5.  DOL notification is required.

As part of the ERISA exemption for top-hat deferred compensation plans, a tax-exempt organization must provide a “top-hat notification letter” to the Department of Labor within 120 days of implementing such a plan. Top-hat letters must be filed electronically.  Failure to timely file a top-hat letter could mean that your deferred compensation plan is liable for ERISA penalties for failure to file annual information returns (Form 5500), to hold plan assets in trust, to make certain disclosures to participants, and on a host of other compliance points.  The Department of Labor permits late filing of top-hat notification letters for payment of a modest fee.  If your organization has a deferred compensation plan in place you should have ready access to a copy of the top-hat notification letter (or confirmation of its online filing) and should consider the DOL correction program if you cannot do so.

Having practiced law in Santa Barbara, California, a haven for charitable organizations, for over 20 years I have had the privilege of working with these special deferred compensation plan rules in many different factual settings and would be happy to help your organization navigate them in order to best retain and reward your valued executives.

Leave a comment

Filed under 403(b) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, Section 457(b) Plans, Section 457(f) Plans, Tax-Exempt Organizations, Top-Hat Exemption

5 Things California Employers Should Know About the Current State of Health Care Reform

by Amy Evans, HIP, President, Colibri Insurance Services and Christine P. Roberts, Mullen & Henzell L.L.P.

There is still a lot of debate going on at the federal and state levels about health care reform. In Washington, D.C., the Senate is working on a second round of revisions to the American Health Care Act (AHCA), but there is lack of alignment within the Republican party about the new plan, and the current administration is now occupied by other items. At the state level, a Senate bill proposing a state-wide single-payer health care system is making its way through the legislature and generating a lot of conversation about a complete overhaul of health care financing and delivery. With all of the uncertainty and political noise, it can be difficult for employers to know where to put their attention and resources. Here are five things California employers should know about the current state of health care reform.

1) California is leading the discussion about single-payer. California Senate Bill 562 is currently making its way through the state legislation. If enacted, SB 562 would eliminate the private health insurance system in California, including health insurance carriers, health insurance brokers and employer-sponsored health insurance benefits. It would replace them with a state-run, “single-payer” system called the Healthy California program, which would be governed by a 9-member executive board, and guided by a 22-member public advisory committee. At this juncture, funding measures for the bill are vague but include appropriation of existing federal funding for Medicare, Medi-Cal, CHIP and other health benefits provided to California residents, as well as an increase in payroll taxes. The estimated cost for this system is $400 billion annually, which is twice the size of the current budget for the entire state. SB 562 is widely popular in concept but also widely misunderstood, with many confusing it for a universal coverage system that would be supplemented by private and employer-sponsored coverage. The bill is currently in suspense with the Appropriations Committee in Sacramento. The committee chair (who is also the author of the bill) may wait for the results of a detailed study on the bill’s cost and impact, or he may choose to send it to the Senate for a vote. If the bill makes it through the Senate and the Assembly (which it is likely to do because it is such a popular concept), it is anticipated that it will be vetoed by Governor Jerry Brown, who has already expressed concerns about the bill’s financing. Alternatively, the legislature could vote on the bill and then table it until a new governor takes office in 2018. Either way, the bill would become a ballot measure to be approved by voters. Progress of the American Health Care Act in Washington, D.C. will impact SB 562 because the state bill would make use of state innovation waivers, which are slated to expand under the AHCA, but federal retooling of health care reform won’t impede SB 562’s progress to the Governor’s desk. Employers who offer health insurance as a benefit to attract and retain quality employees should be aware of the meaning and impact of this single-payer bill and should continue to track its progress.

 2) “Play or Pay” is still in play. The Affordable Care Act (ACA)’s “play or pay” penalties are still in place, so Applicable Large Employers are required to offer affordable, minimum value health insurance to eligible employees or pay a penalty. The current administration has suggested that they will reduce the penalties to $0 retroactive to 2016, but that has not happened yet. The 1094/1095 reporting requirements also remain in place. There has been some recent talk that penalty notices for 2015 and 2016 may be going out soon, perhaps first to the employers who have the largest penalty assessments.†  However, the Internal Revenue Service is also significantly understaffed so the availability of resources to enforce these penalties remains in doubt. Applicable Large Employers should continue to assess their play or pay options, track employee hours and offers of coverage, and complete 1094/1095 reporting for 2017. They should also address any penalty notifications from the IRS in a timely manner.

3) If there are no penalties, revenue has to come from another source. The extremely unpopular revenue-generating pieces of the ACA, including the individual mandate, the employer mandate, and the Cadillac Tax (currently delayed to 2020) are likely to be cut from the new AHCA, but that would create a shortfall in revenue that would need to made up elsewhere. The employer exclusion is a popular target in current discussions – this is the tax benefit that allows employer contributions to health insurance to be considered separate from employee income. If the employer exclusion is capped or eliminated, it will effectively increase taxes on the approximately 50% of U.S. residents who receive health insurance through their employers, and deliver a huge blow to the employer-sponsored health insurance system. Employers who offer health insurance as a benefit to attract and retain quality employees should be aware of the meaning and impact of capping or eliminating the employer exclusion.

4) 2018 Health insurance renewals will be business as usual. Insurance carriers filed their health insurance plan designs and rates with the regulatory agencies (Department of Insurance and Department of Managed Health Care) for 2018, so any substantive changes to plans (for example, removing Essential Health Benefits) won’t happen until 2019. For employers offering coverage, this means business as usual for 2018 health insurance renewals. Expect increases to premiums to average 10-15%. Also expect lots of plan changes – some plans may be discontinued and participants will be mapped to new plans; benefits many change even if plan names remain the same; carriers may reduce networks and pharmacy benefits and increase deductibles and out of pocket maximums to keep premiums in check.

5) Cost-containment tools are gaining in popularity. As out of pocket costs continue to increase for health insurance participants, we will continue to see a move towards consumer-driven health care, where participants are encouraged to be more involved in the spending of their health care dollars. Health Savings Accounts (HSAs) are growing in popularity again, carriers are providing tools to promote transparency for comparison shopping, and alternative delivery systems like telehealth, nurse on call, minute clinics, free-standing urgent care centers, and even flat-fee house calls are gaining in popularity. Health Reimbursement Arrangements (HRAs), self-funding arrangements and cash-benefit policies can also be effective tools for cost containment. Employers should work with their health insurance brokers and other benefit advisers to assess the value of these tools in their current employee benefits programs.

In closing, employer-provided health benefits rest on shifting legal sands and that is likely to remain the case for some time.   Planning opportunities, and pitfalls, will arise as the reform process moves forward and the informed employer will be in the best position to navigate the changes ahead.

†Hat tip to Ryan Moulder, Lead Counsel at Accord-ACA for this detail.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, American Health Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, California Insurance Laws, California SB 562, Employer Shared Responsibility, Health Care Reform, Post-Election ACA, Single Payer Health Systems

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

Qualified Small Employer HRAs Face Steep Compliance Path

Co-authored by
Christine P. Roberts, Mullen & Henzell L.L.P and
Amy Evans of Colibri Insurance Services, Inc.

climbing

Passed in December 2016, the 21st Century Cures Act backtracked in part on an abiding ACA principle – namely, that employers could not reimburse employees for their individual health insurance premiums through a “standalone” health reimbursement account (HRA) or employer payment plan (EPP).  Specifically, the Cures Act carves “Qualified Small Employer Health Reimbursement Arrangements” or QSE HRAs — out from the ACA definition of group health plan subject to coverage mandates, permitting their adoption by eligible small employers, subject to a number of conditions.  The provisions are effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2016.

The compliance path for QSE HRAs is steep enough that they may not be adopted by a significant number of eligible employers. Below we list the top five compliance hurdles that small employers will face:

1.   Requirement that no group health plan be maintained.

In order to be eligible to maintain a QSE HRA an employer must not have more than 50 full-time employees, including full-time equivalents (measured over the preceding calendar year), and in addition it must not maintain any group health plan for employees.  Small businesses are more likely than not to offer some health coverage to employees, although eligibility may be limited as in a “management carve-out” arrangement.  Business owners may be reluctant to part with group coverage, such that QSE HRAs may have most appeal to small employers that never offered coverage at all.

2.  Confusion over impact on premium tax credits.

A significant amount of confusion exists as to whether QSE HRA benefits impact an employee’s eligibility for premium tax credits on a health exchange.  The confusion is natural as the applicable rules are quite confusing.  Fundamentally, if a QSE HRA benefit constitutes “affordable” coverage to an employee (which requires a fairly complicated calculation), then the employee will be disqualified from receiving premium tax credits.  If a QSE HRA is not affordable (that calculation again), then the QSE HRA benefit will reduce, dollar for dollar, the premium tax credit amount for which the employee qualified.  We have only statutory text at this point and regulations will no doubt provide more clarity, but small employers may still struggle to understand the interplay of these rules and may be even less equipped to assist employees with related questions.

3.  Annual notice requirement.

A small employer maintaining a QSE HRA must provide a written notice to each eligible employee 90 days before the beginning of the year that:

  • Sets forth the amount of permitted benefit, not to exceed annual dollar limits that are adjusted for inflation (currently $4,950 for individual and $10,000 for family coverage);
  • Instructs the employee to disclose the amount of their QSE HRA benefit when applying for premium tax credits on a health insurance exchange; and
  • Reminds the employee that, if he or she is not covered under minimum essential coverage (MEC) for any month a federal tax penalty may apply, and in addition contributions under the QSE HRA may be included in their taxable income. (The QSE HRA is not itself MEC.)

If compliance with the annual notice requirements under SEP and SIMPLE plans is any guide, small employers may find it difficult to consistently provide the required written notice. The Cures Act imposes a $50 per employee, per incident penalty for notice failures, up to $2,500 per person.  Penalty relief is available if the failure is demonstrated to have been due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

4.  Annual tax reporting duties.

Small employers must report the QSE HRA benefit amount on employees’ Forms W-2 as non-taxable income.   ACA tax reporting for providers of “minimum essential coverage” (MEC), namely, providing Form 1095-B to each eligible employee and transmitting  copies of all employee statements to the IRS under transmittal Form 1094-B  –would not appear to be required for sponsors of QSE HRAs, as MEC reporting will be done by the individual insurance carriers.  Clarity on this point would be welcome.

5.  Lack of financial incentive for benefit advisers.

Small employers will (reasonably) look to health insurance brokers for guidance and clarification on these complex issues. They will also need assistance with QSEHRA set-up, including shopping TPAs to compare services and fees, educating employees on enrollment and use, handling service issues during the year, and satisfying the annual notice requirement and annual tax reporting duties. Unfortunately, the benefit broker and adviser community has little financial incentive to recommend QSEHRAs, because commissions are based on a relatively low annual administrative fee and do not provide reasonable compensation for this work.  This in turn could result in low uptake by small employers.

1 Comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Benefit Plan Design, Health Reimbursement Accounts, Health Reimbursement Arrangements, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, PPACA, Premium Tax Credits, Qualified Small Employer HRAs

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

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