On October 3, 2024, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Notice 2024-73, which provides guidance on the application of nondiscrimination rules under Internal Revenue Code § 403(b) for long-term, part-time employees. The notice also announces that the final regulations, which the IRS will issue for 401(k) plans on long-term, part-time employees, will apply to plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2026.
Beginning in 2024, employers and plan sponsors will need to implement new minimum eligibility rules, enacted by the SECURE and SECURE 2.0 Acts, that significantly expand eligibility for long-term, part-time employees to participate in employer-sponsored retirement plans.
The new rules require that employers who maintain such plans provide employees who work at least 500 hours for three consecutive years (reduced to two in 2025), and are at least age 21, the opportunity to make elective deferrals under their 401(k) plans beginning in 2024 and their 403(b) plans beginning in 2025. This change has generated numerous questions about what employers need to do to comply.
Last month, McDermott partner Jeffrey M. Holdvogt was a speaker at the ERIC March Financial Wellness Huddle on the topic of Recent Developments in Employer Student Loan Repayment Benefits. His presentation covered:
Student loan repayment benefits
Employer options for student loan benefits
CARES Act Educational Assistance Program
Converting unused PTO funds to student loan debt relief
In June, the US Department of Labor issued an information letter indicating that it will allow defined contribution retirement plans (such as 401(k) plans) to indirectly invest in private equity funds. While information letters are not binding, this new guidance creates a significant opportunity for plan sponsors to consider investment options that include private equity funds. However, it will be important for both plan sponsors and funds to carefully evaluate potential investments for compliance with fiduciary requirements.
The SECURE Act—the most significant piece of retirement plan legislation in more than a decade—is now law. Plan sponsors should immediately start considering how changes included in the SECURE Act could impact their retirement and health and welfare plans in 2020 and beyond.
The Ninth Circuit signaled that it might rehear Dorman v. The Charles Schwab Corp., where earlier this year it held that a mandatory arbitration provision required arbitration of an ERISA fiduciary-breach claim.
The IRS recently issued guidance on the tax treatment, withholding and reporting for required distributions from tax-qualified retirement plans. Plan sponsors should contact their retirement vendors and trustees to ensure that they implement the tax requirements of the new guidance appropriately for their tax-qualified retirement plans.
As presidential hopefuls bemoan the high cost of healthcare, McDermott’s Ted Becker imagines a stack of lawsuits pushed toward corporations and insurance companies. If workers can use the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to challenge 401(k) plans’ fees and investments, why can’t they use it to sue over how their health insurance plans are managed?
In a Q&A recently published on Law360, Becker discusses his prediction that health and welfare plan management suits will be the next frontier for ERISA plaintiffs, and how McDermott is preparing clients.
A US Supreme Court case pitting pensioners against US Bank could have a wide-ranging impact on who can bring suit under ERISA, whether they participate in a defined benefit pension plan or a 401(k) plan.
Recently, on Law360, McDermott’s Richard J. Pearl weighed in on the impact of Thole v. US Bank, one of three ERISA cases that the US Supreme Court will decide this term. The case, discussed in greater detail in our On the Subject, will address whether defined benefit pension plan participants have standing to bring suit under ERISA if their plan is fully funded.
Although the case focuses on participants’ ability to bring suit on behalf of defined benefit pension plans, according to Pearl, the case seems to ask the high court to answer a question that often crops up in defined contribution plan litigation, as well: Whose injury matters, the plan’s or the person’s? As a result, the court’s decision could impact not only litigation involving defined benefit pension plans, but also defined contribution plans, where case law is still being developed around what gives a participant grounds to sue on behalf of a plan.
In two opinions—one published and one unpublished—the Ninth Circuit overturned prior precedent and held that a Plan amendment requiring arbitration meant that an individual had to arbitrate, on an individual basis, purported class claims alleging imprudent and disloyal management of 401(k) investments. This decision, although unpublished, provides support for plans wishing to add binding arbitration provisions that apply to ERISA 502(a)(2) claims.
Subscribe
