Category Archives: Benefit Plan Design

2020 Benefits Update

lora-ohanessian-16rIhtV42yA-unsplash

This PowerPoint deck covers:

  • SECURE Act mandatory and optional changes for employers that currently sponsor 401(k) or other defined contribution plans,
  • Proposed Department of Labor Regulations creating a safe harbor for posting certain retirement plan disclosures online, and
  • A quick update on the statuses of ACA repeal and the CalSavers program, respectively.

It was originally presented on March 4, 2020 as part of my firm’s 24th annual Employment Law Conference, held at the Four Seasons Biltmore, Santa Barbara, California.  As with all information posted here, it is provided general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.  Readers should not apply the information to any specific factual situation other than on the advice of an attorney engaged specifically for that or a related purpose.  © 2020 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo by Lora Ohanessian on Unsplash

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, ADP and ACP Testing, Affordable Care Act, Benefit Plan Design, California Insurance Laws, California Secure Choice Retirement Savings Program, CalSavers Program, ERISA, Health Care Reform, Profit Sharing Plan, Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution, SECURE Act, State Auto-IRA Programs

As Out-of-Pocket Childbirth Costs Soar, SECURE Act Offers Relief

randy-rooibaatjie-yDJCs77BAu0-unsplash

Effective January 1, 2020, the SECURE Act exempts new parents from the 10% penalty tax that ordinarily would apply to retirement plan or IRA withdrawals before age 59.5, for distributions of up to $5,000 on account of a “qualified” birth or adoption.  This new optional plan feature is called a “Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution” or QBAD.

The timing could not be more apt.  The out-of-pocket costs of childbirth for women with health insurance have been reported to have increased 50% between 2008 and 2015 (citing Health Affairs study; subscription required.)  The same sources report that, with employee health insurance, the average out-of-pocket cost for hospital-assisted childbirth is approaching $5,000.  The costs of a domestic, private adoption can be much higher, approaching $40,000, although parents who adopt may qualify for an adoption tax credit of up to $14,300 per child in 2020, or tax-qualified employer provided adoption benefits under Internal Revenue Code Section 137.

How will the new QBAD work?

  • As mentioned, the distribution cannot exceed $5,000 per child
  • Children must not have attained age 18 (or, if older, be physically or mentally incapable of self-support) and must not be the child of the taxpayer’s spouse
  • The dollar limit applies per parent, so a couple could each qualify for the dollar limit unless an employer plan provides otherwise
  • The distribution must be taken after the date of birth or date on which adoption is finalized and within one year of the birth or adoption event.
  • Distributions can be repaid back to the qualified plan or IRA notwithstanding normal contribution dollar limits; the repayment will be treated as the equivalent of a rollover contribution for these purposes
  • Future regulations may specify timing rules for the repayment process
  • The parent must include the name, age, and taxpayer ID (SSN) of the child on his or her tax return.

Plans and IRA custodian/trustees will likely allow the distributions to occur in 2020 but ultimately a plan amendment – or amendment to an IRA custodial account or trust agreement – is required for this option to be available.  For qualified plans, the amendment deadline will generally be the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 and the amendment must be effective retroactively to January 1, 2020, or a later date on which the date the QBAD is first implemented.

The above information is provided for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.  Readers should not apply the information to any specific factual situation other than on the advice of an attorney engaged specifically for that or a related purpose.  © 2020 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo credit:  Randy Rooibaatjie (Unsplash)

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, ERISA, Fringe Benefits, IRA Issues, QBAD, Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution, SECURE Act

Does Your Retirement Plan Incorporate State Law Into the Plan?  Check Your Spousal Benefit Obligations!

jordan-mcdonald-766295-unsplashRetirement plan documents are contracts and generally they contain a “choice of law” provision.  The choice of law provision dictates what laws will govern interpretation of the contract, for instance in the event of a dispute over the contract’s application.  A recent, unpublished Ninth Circuit court opinion held that the Plan’s choice of California law required the plan to provide spousal survivor rights to registered domestic partners, because California law affords registered domestic partners the same legal status as spouses, and because doing so did not conflict with any provision of the plan document, ERISA or the Internal Revenue Code.  In light of the opinion, plan sponsors should examine their plan documents to determine whether or not choice of law provisions carry state domestic partner rights into their plan document, and if this is the case, should consult with counsel as to how that might impact their plan distribution and plan loan approval procedures, and QDRO procedures as well.

In Reed v. KRON/IBEW Local 45 Pension Plan, No. 4:16-cv-04471-JSW (9th Cir. May 16, 2019), plaintiff David Reed entered into a long-term relationship with Donald Gardner in 1998.  Gardner was an employee at KRON-TV and a participant in the KRON/IBEW Local 45 Pension Plan, a union-management sponsored defined benefit pension plan.  In addition to a choice of law provision that invoked California law, to the extent consistent with ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code, the KRON plan document did not limit the term “spouse” or “married” to opposite-sex spouses.

In 2004, Reed and Gardner registered as domestic partners under California law.  Registered domestic partners have had the same status under California law as legally married spouses since the California Domestic Partnership Rights and Responsibilities Act of 2003 went into effect on January 1, 2005.[1]

Gardner retired in 2009 and began receiving pension benefits under the plan.  Prior to retiring he attended meetings with KRON-TV’s human resources department together with Reed.  Although HR knew that the couple were registered domestic partners (Reed, for example, received benefits under the group health plan), the HR personnel did not mention the availability of a joint-and-survivor form of benefit under the Plan.  Gardner accordingly elected a single life annuity form of benefit.  He also designated Reed as his beneficiary under the Plan.

Gardner and Reed married in May 2014, five days before Gardner passed away.  Reed submitted a claim for survivor’s benefits under the plan.  Although the Pension Committee of the Plan never formally responded to Reed’s claim, Reed was deemed to have exhausted his administrative remedies and filed suit in federal court against the Plan, the Pension Committee, and the parent company of KRON-TV.  The federal trial court granted the Plan Committee’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, finding that it did not abuse its discretion in denying Reed’s benefit claim.

On appeal, a three-judge panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed the trial court and remanded the case with instructions to determine the payments owed to Reed.  The panel stated:

“The Committee abused its discretion by denying benefits to Reed. During either time the Committee evaluated the Plan’s benefits in this case—in 2009 or in 2016—California law afforded domestic partners the same rights, protections, and benefits as those granted to spouses. See Cal. Fam. Code § 297.5(a); see also Koebke v. Bernardo Heights Country Club, 36 Cal. 4th 824, 837-89 (2005). Neither ERISA nor the Code provided binding guidance inconsistent with applying this interpretation of spouse to the Plan. See United States v. Windsor, 570 U.S. 744 (2013) (striking down the Defense of Marriage Act’s definitions of “spouse” and “marriage” as unconstitutional); cf.26 C.F.R. § 301.7701-18(c) (as of September 2, 2016, the Code excludes registered domestic partners from the definition of “spouse, husband, and wife”). Therefore, because Reed and Gardner were domestic partners at the time of Gardner’s retirement, the Committee should have awarded Reed spousal benefits in accordance with California law, as was required by the Plan’s choice-of-law provision.”

Despite the fact that the Internal Revenue Code does not recognize domestic partners as equivalent to spouses, this did not limit the terms of the plan document; in this regard Reed successfully argued that federal law established a floor, but not a ceiling, for drafting the terms of the plan.  This case is of particular relevance to plan sponsors in California and Hawaii, as both states fall within the Ninth Circuit, and both states grant domestic partners the same rights as married couples.[2]  As mentioned, if domestic partner rights are imported into the plan document, they may be implicated even in the absence of joint and survivor annuity provisions.  For instance, if the plan document expressly requires spousal consent for a loan or hardship withdrawal, domestic partner approval in such instances may be required, and QDRO procedures may have to be expanded.

For this to be the case, the plan’s choice of law provision must invoke the law of a state which grants to domestic partners rights equal to those of spouses, and the plan must also not define “spouse” in a more limiting way, for instance by limiting the term to legally married couples. These factors are more likely to be present in individually drafted retirement plans, whether in a “Taft-Hartley” plan such as the KRON plan, or in a document drafted specifically for a unique single employer.

The situation posed in the Reed case is not as likely to occur under a pre-approved plan document.  Fidelity’s Volume Submitter Defined Contribution Plan (Basic Plan Document No. 17), for instance, defines “spouse” as “the person to whom an individual is married for purposes of Federal income taxes.”  This, then, would include same-sex and opposite-sex spouses, but would exclude domestic partners, irrespective of the Fidelity plan document’s choice of law provision (which invokes the laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts).

By contrast, the Empower basic plan document (formally, the Great-West Trust Company Defined Contribution Prototype Plan and Trust (Basic Plan Document #11)) allows the plan sponsor to define “spouse” in Appendix B to the Adoption Agreement.  If the plan sponsor fails to specify a definition, the basic plan document choice of law clause (Section 7.10(H)) defaults to the law of the state of the principal place of business of the employer, to that of the corporate trustee, if any, or to that of the insurer (for a fully insured plan).  Plan sponsors using an Empower prototype document may want to consult benefits counsel as to the consequences of the default language as applied to their specific factual circumstances.

The above information is provided for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.  Readers should not apply the information to any specific factual situation other than on the advice of an attorney engaged specifically for that or a related purpose.  © 2019 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, Defense of Marriage Act, ERISA, GINA/Genetic Privacy, Profit Sharing Plan, Qualified Domestic Relations Orders, Registered Domestic Partner Benefits, Same-Sex Marriage, Uncategorized

VP of HR Sued Over 401(k) Operational Error

A proposed class action lawsuit in the Northern District of Illinois involving a failure to follow the terms of a 401(k) plan personally names the Vice President of Human Resources for Conagra Brands, Inc. Karlson v. Conagra Brands, Case No. 1:18-cv-8323 (N.D. Ill., Dec. 19, 2018) as a defendant, and, as it happens, the lead plaintiff is the former senior director of global benefits at the company. Other named defendants included the benefits administrative and appeals committee of the Conagra board, both of which committees included the named VP of Human Resources among its members.

Generally, class action litigation over 401(k) plans has alleged fiduciary breaches over plan investments, such as unnecessarily expensive share classes, undisclosed revenue sharing, and the like. However a failure to follow the written terms of a plan document is also a fiduciary breach under ERISA § 404(a)(1)(D), which requires fiduciaries to act “in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan” insofar as they are consistent with ERISA.

In the Conagra case, the plan document defined compensation that was subject to salary deferrals and employer matching contributions to include bonus compensation that was paid after separation from employment provided that it would have been paid to the participant, had employment continued, and further provided that the amounts were paid by the later of the date that is 2 ½ months after the end of employment, or end of the year in which employment terminated. Post-severance compensation was included in final regulations under Code § 415 released in April 2007 and is generally an option for employers to elect in their plan adoption agreements.  Note that, when included under a plan, post-severance compensation never includes actual severance pay, only items paid within the applicable time period that would have been paid in the course of employment had employment not terminated.

Karlson was terminated April 1, 2016 and received a bonus check 3 ½ months later, on July 15, 2016, and noted that the Company did not apply his 15% deferral rate to the bonus check and did not make a matching contribution. Because the bonus check fell squarely within the definition of “compensation” subject to contributions under the plan, Karlson filed an ERISA claim and exhausted his administrative remedies under the plan before filing suit.

The complaint alleges that the failure to apply deferral elections and make matching contributions on the bonus check was not a mere oversight on Conagra’s part. Instead, until 2016 Conagra had allowed deferrals to be made from all post-termination bonus checks (provided they were paid by the end of the year in which termination occurred), but in 2016 it limited it to instances where the bonus check was paid within 2 ½ months of termination.  In claim correspondence with Karlson, Conagra referred to this as an “administrative interpretation” of the terms of the Plan that was within its scope of discretion as Plan Administrator, and did not require a plan amendment.

Karlson maintained that the “administrative interpretation” contradicted the written terms of the plan and pursued his claim through the appeals stage. Karlson alleged, in relevant part, that Conagra’s narrowed administrative interpretation coincided with a layoff of 30% of its workforce and was motivated by a desire to reduce its expenses and improve its financial performance.  This, Karlson alleged, was a breach of the fiduciary duty of loyalty to plan participants and of the exclusive benefit rule and hence violated ERISA.  In addition to the fiduciary breach claim under ERISA § 502(a)(2), Karlson also alleged a claim to recover benefits under ERISA § 502(a)(1)(B).

As of this writing, per the public court docket the parties are slated for a status hearing to discuss, among other things, potential settlement of Karlson’s claims.

Although the timing of the layoff certainly adds factual topspin to Karlson’s fiduciary breach claim, the troubling takeaway from this case is that Conagra’s simple failure to follow the written terms of the plan is sufficient for a court to find that it violated its fiduciary duty. The other concern is that operational errors relating to the definition of compensation are among the IRS “top ten” failures corrected in the Voluntary Compliance Program and are also among the most frequent errors that the author is called upon to correct in her practice.

To limit the occurrence of operational failures related to the definition of compensation, plan sponsors should do a “table read” of the definition of compensation in their adoption agreement and summary plan description, together with all personnel whose jobs include plan administration functions (e.g., human resources, payroll, benefits, etc.) Reference to the basic plan document may also be required.  Most important, outside payroll vendor representatives should attend the table read meeting either in person, or by conference call.  All attendees should review, and be on the same page, as to the items that are included in compensation for plan contribution purposes, and on procedures relating to post-termination compensation.

If questions ever arise in this regard, benefit counsel can help.

The above information is provided for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader.  Readers should not apply the information to any specific factual situation other than on the advice of an attorney engaged specifically for that or a related purpose.  © 2019 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, ERISA, Fiduciary and Fee Issues, Fiduciary Issues, Profit Sharing Plan

#10YearChallenge for 403(b) Plans

The #10YearChallenge on social media these days is to post a picture of yourself from 2019, next to one from 2009, hopefully illustrating how little has changed in the 10 year interim. For tax-exempt employers who sponsor Section 403(b) plans, however, 2019 brings a different #10YearChallenge – namely, to bring their plan documents – many of which date back to 2009 – into compliance with current law.

The actual deadline to restate your 403(b) plan (technically, the end of the “remedial amendment period”) falls on March 31, 2020, but vendors of 403(b) documents that have been pre-approved by the IRS will proactively be sending clients document restatement packages this year, in order to avoid the inevitable crunch just prior to the 2020 deadline. The restatement deadline is an opportunity to retroactively restate the plan document (generally, to January 1, 2010) to correct any defects in the terms of the plan documents, such as missed plan amendments. It is also the last chance for tax-exempt employers with individually designed plan documents to restate onto a pre-approved document, as the IRS does not now, and does not intend to, issue approval letters for individually designed 403(b) plans

There are significant differences in the 403(b) document landscape in 2019, as compared to 2009. Back in 2009, which was the year the IRS first required all 403(b) plan sponsors to have a plan document in place, there were no IRS pre-approved documents. Now, in 2019, numerous vendors offer pre-approved documents that individual tax-exempt employers can (somewhat) tailor to their needs (for instance, through Adoption Agreement selections). The IRS pre-approved documents are much lengthier than the documents that were adopted in 2009. For instance, the Fidelity Adoption Agreement from 2009 was approximately 6 pages long, including attachments, but the 2019 restatement version, with attachments, is approximately 49 pages long. This difference is down to changes in the laws governing retirement plans, as well as increased sophistication of plan administration and recordkeeping systems over that time.

Due to increasing complexity in plan design and administration, employers may want to take the restatement opportunity to self-audit their plan administration procedures and to confirm that they are consistent with the way the document, as restated, reads. For instance, does the payroll department, whether internal or outsourced, draw from the correct payroll code sources when processing employee salary deferrals and employer matching or nonelective contributions? Does the plan contain exclusions from the definition of compensation that are being ignored when payroll is processed? Are participant salary deferrals and loan repayments timely being remitted to the plan? The self-audit is a good opportunity to catch any operational errors and correct them under IRS or Department of Labor voluntary compliance programs (e.g. Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System, and Voluntary Fiduciary Correction Program).

Pre-approved document vendors (often also the investment providers) will assist employers in migrating their 2009 (or subsequent) plan document provisions over to the new version of the document, but employers should seek assistance from benefit counsel in this process to limit the chance of errors. Benefit counsel can also help conduct a self-audit, or take employers through the voluntary correction programs in the event any operational errors are uncovered.

Leave a comment

Filed under 403(b) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, ERISA, Payroll Issues, Tax-Exempt Organizations

2019 COLA Adjustments: Let’s Do the Numbers

rawpixel-570908-unsplash

On November 1, 2019, the IRS announced 2019 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 $19,000, and a number of other dollar limits increased.  Citations below are to the Internal Revenue Code.

In a separate announcement, the Social Security Taxable Wage Base for 2019 increased to $132,900, from $128,400 in 2018.

Leave a comment

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

IRS Weighs In on 401(k) “Match” to Student Loan Repayments

accomplishment-celebrate-ceremony-267885

The IRS has approved an arrangement under which an employer “matches” employee student loan repayments by making non-elective contributions to its 401(k) plan on behalf of the employees paying the loans. The guidance is in the form of a Private Letter Ruling (PLR 201833012) that is only citable authority for the taxpayer who requested the ruling, but it is a promising development on the retirement plan front given the heavy student loan debt carried by current millennial employees and the generations following them. The program described in the ruling solves the problem of low 401(k) plan participation by employees who are carrying student loan debt, allowing them to obtain the “free” employer matching funds that they would otherwise forego.

The employer who obtained the ruling maintained a 401(k) plan that included a generous matching formula – 5% of eligible compensation for the pay period, provided that the employee made an elective deferral of at least 2% of compensation for the pay period. The employer proposed establishing a “student loan repayment (SLR) nonelective contribution” program with the following features:

Program Features
• It would be completely voluntary; employees must elect to enroll;
• Once enrolled, employees could opt out of enrollment on a prospective basis;
• Enrollees would still be eligible to make pre-tax or Roth elective deferrals, but would not be eligible to receive regular matching contributions while enrolled;
• Employees would be eligible to receive “SLR nonelective contributions” and true-up matching contributions, as described below; and
• If an employee initially enrolls in the program but later opts out of enrollment, the employee will resume eligibility for regular matching contributions.

SLR Nonelective Contributions
• If an employee makes a student loan repayment during a pay period that equals at least 2% of compensation for the pay period, the employer will make an SLR nonelective contribution equal to 5% of compensation for the pay period.
• Although based on each pay period’s compensation, the collective SLR nonelective contribution will be made as soon as practicable after the end of the plan year. (Because employees may stop and restart student loan repayments or regular elective deferrals, presumably it would not be possible for an employer to know, before the end of the plan year, precisely how much SLR nonelective contributions, and catch-up contributions, each program participant is due.)
• The SLR nonelective contribution is made regardless of whether or not the employee makes any regular salary deferrals throughout the year.
• The employee must be employed on the last day of the plan year (other than when employment terminates due to death or disability) in order to receive the SLR nonelective contribution.
• The SLR nonelective contributions are subject to the same vesting schedule as regular matching contributions.
• The SLR nonelective contributions are subject to all applicable plan qualification requirements: eligibility, vesting, distribution rules, contribution limits, and coverage and nondiscrimination testing.
• The SLR nonelective contributions will not be treated as a regular matching contribution for purposes of 401(m) testing.

True-Up Contributions
• In the event an employee does not make a student loan repayment for a pay period equal to at least 2% of the employee’s eligible compensation, but does make a regular elective deferral equal to at least 2% of compensation, the employer will make a “true-up matching contribution” equal to 5% of the employee’s eligible compensation the pay period.
• Although based on pay period compensation, the collective true-up matching contribution will be made as soon as practicable after the end of the plan year.
• The employee must be employed on the last day of the plan year (other than when employment terminates due to death or disability) in order to receive the true-up matching contribution.
• The true-up matching contributions are subject to the same vesting schedule as regular matching contributions.
• The true-up matching contributions are treated as regular matching contributions for purposes of 401(m) testing.

The specific ruling that the IRS made was that the SLR nonelective contribution program would not violate the prohibition on “contingent benefits” under applicable Income Tax Regulations. Under this rule, an employer may not make other benefits, such as health insurance, stock options, or similar entitlements, contingent on a participant’s making elective deferrals under a 401(k) plan. There are a few exceptions, most notably employer matching contributions, which are expressly contingent on elective deferrals. Because the SLR nonelective contributions are triggered by employees’ student loan repayments, and not by elective deferrals, and because employees who receive them are still eligible to make regular elective deferrals, the IRS concluded that they did not violate the contingent benefit rule. The IRS stated that, in reaching this conclusion, it presumed that the taxpayer had not extended any student loans to employees who were eligible for the program and had no intentions to do so.

Closing Thoughts
Existing vendors who help employers contribute towards student loan repayments will probably move to establish and market versions of the SLR nonelective contribution program described in the private letter ruling, in which case additional, and more broadly applicable, IRS guidance would be welcome. In the meantime, employers wishing to put such a program in place should not assume that reproducing the facts in the ruling is a safe harbor from adverse tax consequences, and should consult legal counsel to assess potential liability.

Note:  The employer who obtained the Private Letter Ruling was later identified as Abbott Labs.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, Benefit Plan Design, ERISA, Payroll Issues, Student Loans