Category Archives: Uncategorized

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

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

Update on ACA Reporting Duties – Revised for IRS Notice 2016-70

updated-ppt

ACA reporting deadlines for applicable large employers arrive early in 2017 and, through Notice 2016-70,  the IRS has now offered a 30-day extension on the January 31, 2017 deadline to furnish employee statements – Forms 1095-C.  The new deadline is March 2, 2017 and it is a hard deadline, no 30-day extension may be obtained.  There is no extension on the deadline to file Forms 1095-C with the IRS under cover of transmittal Form 1094-C.  The deadline for paper filing is February 28, 2017 and the electronic filing deadline is March 31, 2017.  (Electronic filing is required for applicable large employers filing 250 or more employee statements.)

Also in Notice 2016-70, the IRS extended its good faith compliance policy for timely furnished and filed 2016 Forms 1095-C and 1094-C that may contain inaccurate or incomplete information.  This relief is only available for timely filed, but inaccurate or incomplete returns.  Relief for failure to furnish/file altogether is available only on a showing of reasonable cause, and this is a narrow standard (e.g., fire, flood, major illness).

In addition to covering the new transition relief, this-brief-powerpoint-presentation summarizes some changes in the final 2016 Forms 1094-C and 1095-c, from last year’s versions, and includes some helpful hints for accurate and timely reporting.

3 Comments

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Employer Shared Responsibility, Minimum Essential Coverage Reporting, PPACA, Uncategorized

Benefits Compliance: Where You Get It; What You Need (Poll)

Y01VDYAX63Changes in the law and continued advances in technology have made benefits compliance a constantly shifting landscape.  As one of many potential sources for your own path towards benefits compliance, E for ERISA would very much appreciate your participation in the following poll, which asks a few simple questions about where you currently get your benefits compliance services and what you may still need in that regard.  Thank you in advance for (anonymously) sharing your thoughts and experiences.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, 403(b) Plans, Affordable Care Act, Applicable Large Employer Reporting, Benefit Plan Design, Employer Shared Responsibility, ERISA, Federally Facilitated Exchange, Fiduciary and Fee Issues, Fiduciary Issues, Fringe Benefits, Health Care Reform, HIPAA and HITECH, Payroll Issues, Plan Reporting and Disclosure Duties, PPACA, Profit Sharing Plan, Uncategorized

A Conversation About the DOL Fiduciary Rule (Audio File)

The Department of Labor recently published a final regulation defining a “fiduciary” for purposes of investment advice rendered for a fee with regard to “retirement accounts.” The final regulation marks the first change in the regulatory definition of this type of fiduciary since the regulation originally was published in 1975. Retirement accounts under the new rule include those held under qualified plans (e.g., 401(k), pension plans), which have always been subject to ERISA, and now for the first time with regard to IRAs, which formerly were subject only to Internal Revenue Code rules governing self-dealing and other forms of prohibited transactions that the Internal Revenue Service enforced through audits.  The new rule – together with new and amended prohibited transaction exemptions related to the rule – becomes applicable on April 10, 2017, with full implementation required on and after January 1, 2018.

Recently I was interviewed about the new definition of an investment advice fiduciary for an episode of Money Talk that KZSB (1290 AM) will broadcast a 2:00 p.m. PDT on June 20, 2016.  The interview provides a broad overview of the rule and how it will likely impact IRA investors, employers, and the investment industry.  Joining me were program hosts Dianne Duva, Partner at Arlington Financial Advisors, and Neil Kriesel, who worked in finance for many years, has taught at SBCC as an adjunct faculty member and serves on the SBCC Foundation Board and various other non-profit organizations.  Click below to listen.

Leave a comment

Filed under 401(k) Plans, Fiduciary and Fee Issues, Fiduciary Issues, IRA Issues, Uncategorized

Waiting Period Limits for California Small Group Early Renewals

The following post was published on September 5, 2014 and updated on September 23, 2014.

As we posted a few days ago, some uncertainty remains for California employers regarding eligibility waiting period limits for “late renewal” insured group health plans that follow, most commonly, a December 1 through November 30 cycle.   Many small to mid-sized California employers switched from a calendar year policy cycle to a late renewal cycle in 2013, in an effort to postpone their exposure to increased health premiums resulting from ACA coverage mandates and insurance market reforms taking effect in 2014.

The ACA permits an eligibility waiting period of up to 90 days for plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2014.  California law governing insurers and HMOs restricted the waiting period to 60 days under legislation that very recently has been repealed effective January 1, 2015.  The repeal left open the issue of whether carriers would hold employers renewing late in 2014 to the 60-day waiting period limit.

At least with regard to small group coverage (2 to 50 employees), the original answer to that question appeared to be “yes” for two major carriers in the state whose approach may be a bellwether for other carriers:  Anthem and Blue Shield.   Originally upon announcement of S.B. 1034’s passage, neither would permit a 90-day eligibility waiting period on small group policies or HMO contracts that are renewed or first issued during the remainder of 2014.  The permissible waiting period choices were to have been limited to first of month following date of hire, or first of the month following 30 days from the date of hire.  However Anthem later modified its position in this regard, and will permit employers to request, in writing, a waiting period extension (not to exceed 90 days total) to go into effect as of January 1, 2015.  Blue Shield appears to be sticking to the renewal options listed.

For small group policy renewals and new sales occurring on or after January 1, 2015, the carriers will permit waiting periods equal to 90 days from date of hire, first of month following date of hire, and first of month following 30 days from the date of hire.   One of the carriers may also offer first of month following 60 days, but this is not yet certain.  Another carrier will prorate premiums when the 91st day after hire falls in the middle of the month.

So far these carriers are silent on waiting periods for large group renewals and new sales occurring in the remainder of this year.  Employers in this category likely can establish their own waiting period limits within the overall ACA 90-day cap.

The carriers are permitting the 90-day waiting period limit for individuals whose small group coverage takes effect on or after January 1, 2015.  Therefore, coverage for individuals whose waiting period bridges the end of 2014 and the beginning of 2015 should begin at the end of the waiting period that began in 2014, rather than after “tacking on” additional wait time permitted in 2015.  Although not expressly required by carriers, this would seem to be a logical strategy for large group employers to take with regard to employees whose waiting periods began to elapse at a time when the maximum limit was 60 days, but end after the point at which the employer increased the maximum limit to 90 days.   This would also have the advantage of meeting ACA requirements so long as the total waiting period does not exceed 90 days.

The final regulations on the maximum ACA waiting period state that carriers (technically, “health insurance issuers”) may rely on eligibility information reported by the employer or other plan sponsor, and will not be considered to have violated the ACA waiting period rule in instances where both of the following requirements are met:

  • the carrier requires the employer/plan sponsor to disclose the terms of any eligibility conditions or waiting period, and to provide notice of any changes to these rules; and
  • the carrier has no specific knowledge of the imposition of a waiting period that would exceed the maximum 90-day period.

Imposing eligibility waiting periods in excess of the ACA 90-day cap other than will trigger excise taxes equal to $100 per day, per impacted plan participant, up to a maximum of $500,000.  Employers and other plan sponsors must voluntarily disclose and pay the tax on IRS Form 8928, Section II.   The excise tax may be abated in whole or in part if the violation was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

Leave a comment

Filed under Uncategorized

ACA Developments: Individual Mandate Transitional Relief; Nondiscrimination Regulations Yet to Issue

The IRS recently issued Notice 2013-42, which grants transition relief from the individual shared responsibility penalty for persons whose employers offer group health coverage on a non-calendar year basis.  Specifically, individuals who are eligible under an employer’s non-calendar year plan with a plan year beginning in 2013 and ending in 2014 will not be liable for the individual shared responsibility for the period from January 1, 2014, through the month in which the employer’s 2013-2014 plan year ends.  This frees these individuals from the duty to enroll in the plan in 2013, simply in order to have secured minimum essential coverage as of January 1, 2014.  Examples set forth in the notice suggest that an employee whose plan is on a non-calendar year cycle can wait to enroll in the 2014-2015 plan year, even when the employee’s spouse is eligible for coverage under a calendar year plan.

Secondly, June 30, 2013 came and went without the Treasury Department publishing proposed regulations on nondiscrimination rules for insured health plans.  The ACA imposes these rules but the Treasury Department has suspended enforcement of them, pending issuance of regulatory guidance.  As tax regulations generally cannot go into effect earlier than 6 months after publication, they needed to have been published by June 30 in order to take effect January 1, 2014.  It now appears possible if not likely that the nondiscrimination rules will not take effect until 2015, to allow employers who must commit to insurance policies on a 12-month cycle adequate time in 2014 both to understand the new regulations and to make plan design changes as needed. in order to comply with them.

Both of these developments transpired before the Treasury Department announced that it would not enforce until 2015 employer shared responsibility tax penalties, or tax reporting duties related to the employer and individual mandates, originally required in 2014.   It is likely that the individual mandate will go into effect on January 1, 2014 as scheduled.  What is not clear at this point is whether nondiscrimination rules will go into effect concurrently with the delayed employer mandate penalties, in 2015, or will be delayed an additional year, to 2016.    Given the Treasury’s expressed goal, in its memo, of implementing the ACA in a “careful, thoughtful manner,” it is possible that more time for compliance will be provided.

Leave a comment

Filed under Affordable Care Act, Benefit Plan Design, Employer Shared Responsibility, Individual Shared Responsibility, Nondiscrimination Rules for Insured Health Plans, PPACA, Uncategorized