On July 21, 2015, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Announcement 2015-19 (the Announcement), which ends the five-year remedial amendment cycles for individually designed plans effective January 1, 2017. For remedial amendment cycles beginning after 2016, plan sponsors will no longer be able to apply for determination letters on their individually designed defined contribution and defined benefit plans, except for initial qualification and qualification upon termination. Effective on the Announcement date, off-cycle requests for determination letters will no longer be accepted. The IRS intends to publish additional guidance periodically, and seeks comments on the upcoming changes.
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled in King v. Burwell that the Affordable Care Act (ACA) requires premium tax credits to be made available in states that use a federal exchange. The case challenged an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) regulation allowing tax credits in federal exchanges. The Supreme Court upheld the regulation as consistent with the statute. Our On the Subject provides a discussion on the issue.
On June 25, 2015, the Supreme Court of the United States upheld one of the main pillars of the Affordable Care Act (ACA): the tax credits that allow millions of Americans to afford health care insurance on the public exchanges. In King v. Burwell, Chief Justice Roberts, writing for a 6–3 majority, held that middle- and low-income individuals who purchase health care insurance through a federally facilitated health care exchange are entitled to the same tax credits that are available to purchasers through state-run health care exchanges. The ruling puts to rest one of the remaining challenges to the general framework of the ACA. Accordingly, our On the Subject discusses how employers should continue to plan for compliance with the current and upcoming obligations required under the ACA.
Yesterday the U.S. Internal Revenue Service issued new Questions & Answers regarding the Affordable Care Act’s reporting rules under Code Section 6055 and 6056. The categories under the guidance include: Basics of the Reporting, Who is Required to Report, Methods of Reporting (for employers), What Information Must be Reported (for providers), and How and When to Report the Required Information.
The U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued Revenue Ruling 2014-24, which expressly permits retirement plans that are tax qualified only in Puerto Rico (Puerto Rico-only plans) to continue to pool assets with U.S.-qualified plans in Revenue Ruling 81-100 group trusts (group trusts) now and in the future. The ruling is welcome relief for Puerto Rico plan sponsors, institutional investors, and trustees, who previously were relying on transition relief that permitted Puerto Rico-only plans to participate in U.S. group trusts for only a limited time without facing potential disqualification of the participating U.S. plans and trusts.
Revenue Ruling 2014-24 also extends the deadline for sponsors of certain retirement plans qualified in both the United States and Puerto Rico (dual-qualified plans) that participated in a group trust to make a tax-free transfer of benefits for Puerto Rico employees to a Puerto Rico-only qualified plan prior to January 1, 2016. Eligibility is limited only to dual-qualified plans that participated in a group trust as of January 10, 2011.
The Supreme Court of the United States announced on January 16, 2015, that it would review four cases challenging the constitutionality of state laws banning same-sex marriage in Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio and Tennessee. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit ruled in November 2014 that the same-sex marriage bans in these states were constitutional, thereby creating a split of opinion among the federal circuit courts.
As of January 30, 2015, same-sex marriage is legal in 36 states and the District of Columbia. In addition, Michigan is expected to soon begin recognizing 323 marriages that were performed there in March 2014 (during the one-day period after a district court found the state’s ban on same-sex marriage unconstitutional and before an appellate court issued a stay of the district court ruling).
A ruling by the Supreme Court is expected in June 2015. If the Supreme Court rules that state laws banning same-sex marriage are unconstitutional, the ruling will create precedent that will lead to the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 states. Same-sex couples would then be able to marry in any state and would be entitled to all of the rights, benefits and obligations that are extended to opposite-sex spouses under both federal and state laws.
Federal Law
In 2013, the Supreme Court ruled in U.S. v. Windsor that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional (for more information, see McDermott’s On the Subject “Supreme Court Rules on DOMA and California’s Proposition 8”). Section 3 of DOMA had provided that, for purposes of all federal laws, the word “marriage” means “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife,” and the word “spouse” refers “only to a person of the opposite-sex who is a husband or wife.” Subsequent Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Department of Labor guidance clarified that, as a result of Windsor, favorable federal tax treatment of spousal benefit coverage would extend to all same-sex couples legally married in any jurisdiction with laws authorizing same-sex marriage, regardless of whether the couple currently resides in a state where same-sex marriage is recognized (see McDermott’s On the Subject“IRS Guidance Clarifies Retroactive Retirement Plan Impact of Supreme Court’s Windsor Ruling” for more information). The most recent IRS guidance clarifies that, effective as of June 26, 2013, retirement plans must be administered in a manner that reflects the Windsorruling.
Next Steps for Employers
All employers should continue to monitor developments in this case and in state same-sex marriage laws. The Supreme Court’s ruling could have significant consequences for employers in states where same-sex marriage has not been legalized or that have not otherwise extended spousal benefit coverage to same-sex spouses. An employer that currently extends benefit coverage to unmarried same-sex partners would need to consider whether to continue offering such benefits if all employees can marry and thereby receive spousal coverage under the employer’s benefit plans.
Please join McDermott Will & Emery for a complimentary webinar discussing key issues retirement plan sponsors should take into account when establishing and maintaining internal controls based on the compliance requirements Internal Revenue Service (IRS) and U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) agents review when they conduct retirement plan audits.
Specific topics will include the following:
The most significant issues IRS agents focus on during audits, including definitions of compensation, employee eligibility requirements and properly updated plan documents
The most significant issues DOL agents focus on during audits, including target date funds and revenue sharing fees, and avoidance of late payroll deposits and missed employee communications
Steps employers can take in order to improve their internal controls for compliance with IRS and DOL requirements
Cost containment evaluation and strategies relating to overall management of human capital costs remain a continual struggle for many organizations. Labor costs, far and away, continue to be the largest cost for many organizations. Consequently, this has resulted in an organizational focus on ways to create efficiencies within their existing benefits programs. Interestingly, it appears that paid time off (PTO) is one area where organizations have an opportunity to create efficiencies, as well as mitigate long-term financial risk and compliance risk.
Historically, many organizations provided their employees with separate holidays, vacation days, personal days, and sick time. Over time, however, many of these organizations have redesigned these programs to incorporate a “total” combined time off (CTO) approach where all of these different categories of personal time are included in one overall pool of days. A CTO approach simplifies administration of these arrangements and, in general, when compared to the traditional separate days approach, results in organizations overall providing fewer days of total time off. Changing to a CTO methodology did provide many of these organizations with initial cost savings, but other potential opportunities may exist as well as new challenges that have arisen.
The Internal Revenue Service recently released guidance allowing participants to allocate the taxable and non-taxable portions of a single distribution from a defined contribution retirement plan into separate accounts. Sponsors of defined contribution retirement plans should consider how their administrative practices and participant communications may need to be changed in light of these new rules.
Recently issued regulations provide long-awaited guidance to sponsors of hybrid retirement plans on a variety of issues, including the market rate of return requirement and required changes for plans using crediting rates that do not meet this requirement. In a change from earlier regulations, hybrid plans are now allowed to offer subsidized survivor and early retirement annuity benefits. The regulations also provide some guidance concerning pension equity plans.
Subscribe
