EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BLOG
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BLOG
Insights on Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
EMPLOYEE BENEFITS BLOG
Insights on Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
Retirement Plans
Subscribe to Retirement Plans's Posts

A Blueprint for Maintaining an Individually Designed Qualified Plan after the IRS’s Determination Letter Program Cutback

by | Aug 2, 2016 |

On June 29, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) officially sounded the death knell for the five-year remedial amendment cycle with its release of Revenue Procedure 2016-37. Effective January 1, 2017, employers that sponsor an individually designed qualified retirement plan—a group that includes most large retirement plans—may no longer request periodic determination letters. Instead, the IRS will continue to conduct random audits to assess plan compliance with plan document operational requirements.

The IRS will continue to conduct random audits to assess plan compliance with plan document operational requirements. Beginning in 2017, the IRS expects plan sponsors to amend written plan documents in accordance with Revenue Procedure 2016‑37 and without reliance on a determination letter. In the context of an audit, a plan sponsor may rely on a plan’s last favorable determination letter, but only with respect to provisions that have not been amended since the last issued determination letter. Sponsors of individually designed plans must develop new means for assuring they comply with the qualification requirements in the wake of Revenue Procedure 2016-37.

Read the full article.



read more

View From McDermott: Fifth Circuit Focuses on Process in ESOP Valuations

by | Jul 28, 2016 | , ,

Though the Supreme Court’s 2014 unanimous ruling in Fifth Third Bank v. Dudenhoeffer announced the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) standards for stock valuation in the context of a large public employee stock ownership plan (ESOP), the vast majority of ESOPs are still grappling with valuation issues. ESOPs that hold stock of closely-held corporations—approximately 90% of all ESOPs— remain almost unaffected by Dudenhoeffer’s valuation discussions, and face continued scrutiny by the Department of Labor (DOL). Appraisal of closely-held stock is an inexact science that involves an inherent level of uncertainty in assessing a variety of potential fact patterns.

This article summarizes valuation issues in acquisitions of closely-held corporation stock by ESOPs in the context of Perez v. Bruister, a recently decided Fifth Circuit case. The case stressed the importance of ‘‘process’’ in valuation determinations being utilized for acquisitions of a corporation’s stock by an ESOP. In reviewing the case, this article provides a detail of the process that should be followed to ensure consideration of the appropriate factors by fiduciaries in reviewing valuations for ESOP transactions. The article concludes with a discussion of guidance provided by the court in Bruister that may be instructive as to best practices for ESOP fiduciaries charged with establishing the value to be used by an ESOP holding shares of stock of a private company.

View full report.



read more

DOL Significantly Increases Some Penalties for ERISA Violations

by and | Jul 26, 2016 | ,

The US Department of Labor increased the penalties for specified violations of the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974.  Most of the penalty increases involve reporting and disclosure failures related to benefit plans and will be effective for penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, if the violation occurred after November 1, 2015.

Under the Federal Civil Monetary Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Improvements Act of 2015 (2015 Inflation Adjustment Act), the US Department of Labor (DOL) increased the penalties for specified violations of the Employee Income Retirement Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), published in an interim final rule (IFR). Most of the penalty increases involve reporting and disclosure failures related to benefit plans. After the 45-day comment period on the IFR lapses, the DOL will publish final regulations.

Penalty Adjustments for Inflation

The IFR adjusts ERISA reporting and disclosure penalties for inflation. The IFR’s adjustments apply only to penalties assessed after August 1, 2016, if the violation occurred after November 2, 2015. If the violation occurred on or before November 2, 2015, the current penalty amounts apply.

Annual Penalty Adjustments for Inflation

The 2015 Inflation Adjustment Act directs the DOL to adjust penalties annually for inflation. Beginning in 2017, DOL will adjust penalty amounts no later than January 15 of each year. By January 15, 2017, DOL will adjust penalty amounts to reflect any increase in inflation that occurred between October 2015 and October 2016. Future annual inflation adjustments are not subject to regulatory notice and rulemaking requirements. The DOL will post any changes to penalty amounts on its website.

(more…)



read more

Same-Sex Marriage Is Legal in All 50 States: So What Now?

by | Jul 21, 2016 | , , ,

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.

View presentation slides.



read more

401(k) Plan Sponsors and Fiduciaries Face an Alarming Number of Stable Value Fund and Other Class Action Lawsuits

by and | Jun 7, 2016 | , ,

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:

  1. Plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA), by investing in poorly performing stable value funds, failing to monitor the investments during periods of poor performance and high fees, and improperly benchmarking stable value funds against other lower cost and higher yielding investment options; and
  2. Stable value fund providers violated their fiduciary duties under ERISA by offering imprudent, low-yielding investments and charging inappropriately high fees.

These lawsuits have also included allegations that plan fiduciaries breached their fiduciary duties of loyalty and prudence under ERISA by:

  1. Causing plans to pay unreasonably high investment management fees when compared to available lower-cost alternatives such as institutional share classes, collective trusts and separate accounts; and
  2. Failing to monitor the asset-based and other fees charged by plan record keepers (revenue sharing) to account for economies of scale. Some complaints have alleged that adequate monitoring should include a periodic competitive bidding process.

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.



read more

Second Circuit Applies Stricter Rules for a Plan Administrator’s Noncompliance with Benefit Claims Regulations

by | May 24, 2016 | , , , ,

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.

Read the full article.



read more

View From McDermott: Conduct Regular Reviews to Ensure Compliance with FICA Tax Withholding Rules

by and | Apr 28, 2016 | ,

Sponsors of nonqualified deferred compensation plans should pay close attention to the special tax withholding rules under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) to avoid paying interest and penalties, and potentially being sued by plan participants. FICA tax on nonqualified deferred compensation must be withheld when compensation vests, not later when actually paid out. Failure to withhold FICA tax at the time of vesting will cause the compensation plus any earnings to be subject to FICA tax later as it is distributed to the participant, potentially resulting in higher overall FICA taxes for both the employer and the participant. As shown by the case of Davidson v. Henkel, employees may even successfully sue the employer for causing them to receive lower benefits due to the higher tax burden created by a failure to follow the correct withholding rules.

This article explores the common FICA and Additional Medicare Tax withholding errors and the potential remedies that may be available to employers who fail to timely withhold FICA and/or Additional Medicare Tax on nonqualified deferred compensation.

Read the full article.



read more

Two Adverse Decisions against Church Plans Reached at Appellate Court Level

by and | Apr 26, 2016 | , , ,

Since 2014, large church-controlled health systems that offer defined benefit pension plans have seen lawsuits filed as to whether such plans are eligible to qualify for the ERISA church-plan exemption, which governs those arrangements. When a retirement plan meets the ERISA church-plan exemption, it is exempt from the typical funding and vesting requirements of ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code as well as from the ERISA reporting and disclosure requirements. As the church-plan litigation moves to the appellate level, two adverse decisions are reached denying ERISA church-plan exemption to two health systems.

Read the full article.



read more

BLOG EDITORS

Alden J. Bianchi

STAY CONNECTED

Subscribe

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Top ranked chambers 2022
US leading firm 2022