On July 11, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL) and Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced a proposal to implement significant changes to the forms and regulations that govern annual employee benefit plan reporting on Form 5500. The proposed changes, which were published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2016, would considerably increase the annual reporting obligations for nearly all health and welfare plans. The changes would also have a considerable impact on annual retirement plan reporting obligations. For more information about the effect of the proposed changes on retirement plan sponsors, see Proposed Changes to Form 5500 Reporting Requirements May Have Significant Impact on Retirement Plan Sponsors.
The DOL is seeking written comments on the proposed changes, which must be provided by October 4, 2016. The revised reporting requirements, if adopted, generally would apply for plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2019.
On July 11, 2016, the Department of Labor (DOL), Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) announced a proposal to implement sweeping changes to the forms and regulations that govern annual employee benefit plan reporting on Form 5500. The proposed changes, which were published in the Federal Register on July 21, 2016, would significantly increase the annual reporting obligations for nearly all retirement plans. The changes also would have a considerable impact on employer-sponsored group health plans. For more information about the effect of the proposed changes on health and welfare plan sponsors, see Proposed Changes to Form 5500 Would Significantly Increase Reporting Obligations for Health and Welfare Plan Sponsors.
The DOL is seeking written comments on the proposed changes, which must be provided by October 4, 2016. The revised reporting requirements, if adopted, generally would apply for plan years beginning on and after January 1, 2019. Certain compliance questions will, however, be effective for Form 5500 series returns filed for the 2016 plan year.
Join McDermott partner Kristin E. Michaels at this CLE webinar, which will review the far-reaching impact of the Department of Labor’s (DOL) recent guidelines greatly expanding joint-employer status.
The discussion will include the agency’s analysis of horizontal and vertical joint employment and the factors that point to joint-employer liability for wage and hour violations, as well as offer practical and strategic approaches for structuring agreements with subcontractors, independent contractors and contingent workers to minimize the risk of employer or joint-employer liability for FLSA violations.
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.
Recent guidance clarifies important issues under the Affordable Care Act, Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act, and Women’s Health and Cancer Rights Act.
After more than five years of development and revision, the US Department of Labor (DOL) released final regulations to redefine a “fiduciary” under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (ERISA) and the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the Code).
Recent comments from an official with the Department of Labor (DOL) indicate that the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has begun investigating large defined benefit plans to review how plan administrators are keeping track of benefits owed to terminated vested participants and if they are really paying participants like they should be. According to the February 2, 2015 BNA Pension & Benefits Reporter, Elizabeth Hopkins, counsel for appellate and special litigation for the DOL’s Office of the Solicitor, Plan Benefits Security Division, stated at a pension conference that EBSA is interested in monitoring whether plan administrators are following their own procedures to locate and pay out terminated vested participants. In particular, EBSA is investigating how plan administrators locate and pay out terminated vested participants over the age of 70 ½ who are owed required minimum distributions.
Defined benefit pension plans must provide that they will distribute benefits beginning no later than the required beginning date, which for most plan participants means April 1 of the calendar year following the later of (i) the calendar year in which a participant turns 70 ½ or (2) the calendar year in which the participant retires. As we noted in our recent article on the “Top IRS and DOL Audit Issues for Retirement Plans,” plan sponsors have a fiduciary duty to try to locate missing participants, to contact terminated vested participants, and to begin distributing benefits within required timeframes. Failure to pay required minimum distributions after a participant turns 70 ½ is a plan qualification error, and participants who miss required distributions may be subject to a 50 percent excise tax. The DOL has also indicated that it may impose personal liability on plan fiduciaries for any tax consequences owed to their employees. For all of these reasons, it is crucial that plan sponsors ensure that proper procedures are in place, and that plan procedures are being followed, to locate and contact terminated vested participants.
The Internal Revenue Service and U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services and Labor recently issued guidance on the Affordable Care Act employer mandate and market reforms. Notice 2015-87 contains 26 FAQs that clarify the application of market reforms to health reimbursement arrangements and employer payment plans and the affordability of employer-sponsored health coverage, among other topics.
Ten short years ago, revenue sharing seemingly presented a “win win” opportunity for third-party administrators (TPAs) and defined contribution plan sponsors. TPAs generally retained all revenue sharing payments received from plans’ investment fund companies in exchange for administrative services provided to the investment funds. In recognition of the revenue sharing received from the investment fund companies, TPAs often provided “free” plan administrative services to plan sponsors. Starting in the mid-2000s, however, more plan sponsors began to question the amount of money received by the TPAs under this arrangement, and plaintiffs’ lawyers and the DOL began to monitor and scrutinize revenue sharing.
This article summarizes the evolution of revenue sharing over the past ten years and examines its future through the lens of the recent U.S. Supreme Court decision in Tibble v. Edison and the subsequent uptick in 401(k) fee litigation.
In its first major guidance of 2016, the U.S. Department of Labor has issued a definition of joint-employer status under the Fair Labor Standards Act that is even broader than the definition of joint-employer status issued by the National Labor Relations Board last summer. Coupled with its 2015 guidance on the misclassification of independent contractors, the DOL has greatly expanded the definition both of who is an employee and who is an employer.
Subscribe
