As you may have seen from the extensive press coverage, the UK Employment Tribunal has delivered its much anticipated judgment in Aslam and Farrar v Uber. The case was about whether Uber drivers are self-employed contractors, or are “workers” with rights to minimum wage, statutory holidays, sick pay and breaks, amongst other workers’ rights.
A 401(k) plan has a qualified cash or deferred arrangement that is part of a profit sharing plan or stock bonus plan. Under the Internal Revenue Code Section 401(k)(2), an employee may elect to make contributions to the plan, the covered employee’s contributions are not distributable before severance from employment, disability, death, attainment of age 59 ½, financial hardship, or termination of the plan, and under which the covered employee’s contributions are nonforfeitable.
This presentation will address the following objectives:
On June 22, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued proposed regulations under Section 457(f) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (Code). These long-awaited regulations were first previewed in IRS Notice 2007-62. In that Notice, the IRS announced its intention to issue proposed regulations that would harmonize the rules for deferred compensation plans of tax-exempt organizations (and state and local governments) under Section 457(f) with the then-new special rules for all deferred compensation arrangements under Section 409A. After nine years, the proposed regulations now issued address three principal issues, although with some unexpected changes and opportunities.
Read the full article here.
Some companies have considered buying back stock from current and former employees when a liquidity event, such as a sale of the company or an IPO, is unlikely to occur. The attached presentation made by Mr. Liazos before the Executive Compensation Subcommittee of the ABA Tax Section addresses the tax issues to consider when structuring stock buyouts that may be considered to involve a service element.
View presentation slides here.
The effects of same-sex marriage on employee benefits, companies’ actions to prevent employee discrimination and an evolving focus on benefits with special implications for diverse employees continue to be hot topics in today’s workplace.
The recent wave of 403(b) lawsuits against more than a dozen prominent US universities could herald similar suits for other 403(b) plan sponsors. Plan sponsors can minimize their risk by reviewing their plan governance procedures, investment policy statements, and plan investment lineup and fee structure.
Read the full article here to learn more.
On June 22, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued proposed changes to the regulations under the Internal Revenue Code (Code) §409A. The Code intends to clarify or modify a wide range of very restrictive rules pertaining to “nonqualified” deferred compensation plans as well as other types of compensation arrangements that may defer compensation. The proposed changes are designed to benefit taxpayers, with a few intending to close potential loopholes.
The following PowerPoint highlights key points from the proposed regulations and what employers and employees should know and can expect moving forward.
Now that same-sex marriage is legal in all 50 states, most benefits plans will treat same-sex spouses the same as opposite-sex spouses. But several tricky issues remain. For example, what if an employer with religious beliefs wants to continue to exclude same-sex spouses from receiving benefits under its retirement plans? Or its medical and dental plans? Are employers that deny coverage vulnerable to sexual orientation and/or sex discrimination lawsuits under state and local law or to federal Title VII lawsuits? What has the EEOC said about this issue? In addition, should employers consider dropping benefits for unmarried partners? Is the answer different if the employer’s plans cover both same-sex and unmarried opposite-sex partners?
The following presentation highlights some of these considerations.
In the last several months, plaintiffs have filed multiple class action lawsuits against plan sponsors, plan fiduciaries and stable value fund providers. These lawsuits, which have involved 401(k) plans sponsored by large corporations, have alleged that:
These lawsuits have also included allegations that plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence under ERISA by:
Plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries face a particularly difficult bind with respect to the offering of a stable value investment option as, ironically, they have been challenged for offering stable value funds and equally fornot offering them. For example, in addition to the stable value fund allegations described above, plaintiffs have sued some plans for failing to offer stable value funds, because money market funds—a fixed income investment alternative—have produced historically low returns. In fact, such lawsuits note that most large 401(k) plans offer stable value funds and criticize plan sponsors for their failure to conform.
As a result of this wave of lawsuits, plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries should evaluate the process they use to decide to invest in stable value funds, as well as the process they use to monitor investment management and recordkeeping fees more generally. Plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries must carefully select expert investment advisers and understand the expert’s advice before applying it. Plan fiduciaries that do not currently offer a stable value investment option should examine their fund lineups to ensure that the lineups provide an adequate fixed income investment at a reasonable cost to plan participants.
In addition, plan sponsors and plan fiduciaries should establish and maintain an investment policy, which they should use to rigorously monitor investment options and related fees. Plan fiduciaries should also document the process for making fiduciary decisions and be able to demonstrate that they considered quality, service and price in selecting and monitoring investment options. This documentation of the investment selection and monitoring process is crucial to defending against the recent onslaught of stable value fund and other related lawsuits.
The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit’s recent ruling addresses various issues that could arise during a plan administrator’s review of a participant’s benefit claim and appeal and any ensuing litigation, including the deference to be granted upon review in a federal court, civil penalties and the possibility of introducing additional evidence outside the administrative record. This decision demonstrates the need for employers to review their benefit plans’ claims procedures to ensure they comply with applicable law and best practices.
Subscribe
