The IRS recently released the Tax Exempt and Government Entities FY 2018 Work Plan (the “2018 Work Plan”) which provides helpful information for sponsors of tax-qualified retirement plans about the focus of the IRS’ 2018 compliance efforts for employee benefit plan.  While the 2018 Work Plan is a high-level summary, it does address IRS compliance strategies for 2018 and should assist plan sponsors in administering their retirement plans.

The Work Plan provides that for fiscal year 2018, the IRS compliance strategies include examination of plans that:

  1. Have transferred their assets or liabilities to another plan as a result of a merger or acquisition;
  2. Failed to comply with a non-discrimination test (such as the gateway test, actual deferral percentage test or actual contribution percentage test) or failed to comply with the safe harbor contribution rules for 401(k) plans;
  3. Failed to satisfy the minimum age and/or service requirements or met statutory requirements in form but failed eligibility in operation;
  4. Failed to make required minimum distributions or distributions in accordance with plan terms;
  5. Failed to satisfy the accrual rules under Section 411(b) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”);
  6. Used an incorrect definition of compensation, resulting in incorrect contributions or forfeitures;
  7. Failed to make matching contributions in accordance with plan terms;
  8. Failed to withhold elective deferrals in accordance with plan terms (collectively, with items 1-7 above, the “Compliance Matters”).

The Work Plan also notes that the IRS will continue to pursue referrals from sources within and outside of the IRS alleging possible non-compliance by a plan.

With respect to the Compliance Matter noted in item 1 above, the IRS can easily identify a plan that experienced an asset transfer by referring to the plan’s Form 5500 and the related schedules (“Form 5500”).  Item 2(l) of Part II on Schedule H to Form 5500 requires the plan sponsor if to identify the amount of assets transferred during the year to the plan and from the plan.  Additionally, Items 4(k) and 5(b) of Part IV on Schedule H and Item 4(j) of Part II on Schedule I ask if any assets were transferred to another plan. If Form 5500 does indicate a transfer of assets to or from the plan, the IRS may consider other factors before determining whether to conduct a compliance examination of the plan.  Such factors may include:  the number of participants, as compared to prior years and the amount of the asset transfer relative to the total assets of the plan as the IRS may want to examine the plan to determine if a partial termination has occurred.

It may be more difficult for the IRS to identify plans impacted by the other Compliance Matters.  Except as noted above regarding  item 1, it is not clear if information on the other Compliance Matters will be available on Form 5500.  Part VII on Schedule R does consist of six questions on various Compliance Matters ranging from nondiscrimination in a 401(k) plan, to compliance with the coverage requirements under Section 410(b) of the Code, and the date of the plan’s most recent favorable determination letter.  Items 15-17 of Part IX on Form 5500-SF contain similar questions on the Compliance Matters.  Yet, this information will not be provided to the IRS for the 2016 plan year because the 2016 Instructions for Form 5500 and for Form 5500-SF state that the IRS has decided not to require plan sponsors to respond to these questions for the 2016 plan year.

At this time, it is not known if plan sponsors will be required to respond to these questions for the 2017 plan year or a later plan year.  If responses are required, then the IRS will have additional information relating to the Compliance Matters that the IRS can use to determine if a compliance examination of the plan is appropriate.

In any event, the IRS may also receive information on a plan relating to the Compliance Matters from referral sources that could cause the IRS to undertake a compliance examination.  For example, the IRS could receive a referral from one of the benefit advisers at the Employee Benefits Security Administration who was contacted by a plan participant about a Compliance Matter or a related matter.  Or, the source of a referral could be the IRS team that reviews Form 5500 submissions.  For example, a Form 5500 that is significantly different from the prior year Form 5500 could cause a referral to the IRS employee plans team.

Suggested Actions for Plan Sponsors

While there is little that plan sponsors can do to prevent a compliance examination, they can take steps designed to mitigate the impact of an IRS examination.   For example, if a plan is involved in a transfer of assets, sponsors should consider the potential consequences of the transfer, including whether the transfer will result in a partial plan termination or whether the transfer requires protection of certain forms with its terms, and then take steps to ensure compliance with IRS requirements relating to those consequences. If a plan sponsor is aware of plan operational failures, the sponsor should consider correcting the operational failures under the IRS Employee Plans Correction Resolution System, which generally provides protection to the plan in the event of an IRS examination.  Finally, plan sponsors should check Form 5500 before filing for inadvertent errors and for responses that are significantly different from the responses on the prior year’s Form 5500 to ensure that the current year responses are correct.

Our colleagues , at Epstein Becker Green, have a post on the Retail Labor and Employment Law blog that will be of interest to many of our readers in the financial services industry: “New York Paid Family Leave Regulations Finalized: How Do They Compare to Prior Versions?

Following is an excerpt:

On July 19, 2017, the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board (“WCB” or the “Board”) issued its final regulations (“Final Regulations”) for the New York State Paid Family Leave Benefits Law (“PFLBL” or the “Law”). The WCB first published regulations to the PFLBL in February 2017, and then updated those regulations in May (collectively, the “Prior Regulations”).

While the Final Regulations did clarify some outstanding questions, many questions remain, particularly pertaining to the practical logistics of implementing the Law, such as the tax treatment of deductions and benefits, paystub requirements, certain differences between requirements that pertain to self-funding employers and those employers intending to obtain an insurance policy, and what forms and procedures will apply. …

Read the full post here.

When:  Thursday, September 14, 2017    8:00 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.

Where:  New York Hilton Midtown, 1335 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019

Epstein Becker Green’s Annual Workforce Management Briefing will focus on the latest developments in labor and employment law, including:

  • Immigration
  • Global Executive Compensation
  • Artificial Intelligence
  • Internal Cyber Threats
  • Pay Equity
  • People Analytics in Hiring
  • Gig Economy
  • Wage and Hour
  • Paid and Unpaid Leave
  • Trade Secret Misappropriation
  • Ethics

We will start the day with two morning Plenary Sessions. The first session is kicked off with Philip A. Miscimarra, Chairman of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB).

We are thrilled to welcome back speakers from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.  Marc Freedman and Katie Mahoney will speak on the latest policy developments in Washington, D.C., that impact employers nationwide during the second plenary session.

Morning and afternoon breakout workshop sessions are being led by attorneys at Epstein Becker Green – including some contributors to this blog! Commissioner of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, Chai R. Feldblum, will be making remarks in the afternoon before attendees break into their afternoon workshops. We are also looking forward to hearing from our keynote speaker, Bret Baier, Chief Political Anchor of FOX News Channel and Anchor of Special Report with Bret Baier

View the full briefing agenda and workshop descriptions here.

Visit the briefing website for more information and to register, and contact Sylwia Faszczewska or Elizabeth Gannon with questions.  Seating is limited.

Sharon L. LippettBased on recent guidance from the Department of Labor (the “DOL”), many sponsors of employee benefit plans subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA Plans”) should have additional comfort regarding the impact of the conflict of interest rule released by the DOL in April 2016 (the “Rule”) on their plans. Even though it is widely expected that the Trump administration will delay implementation of the Rule, in mid-January 2017, the DOL released its “Conflict of Interest FAQs (Part II – Rule)”, which addresses topics relevant to ERISA Plan sponsors.  As explained below, these FAQs indicate that the Rule, as currently designed, should not require a large number of significant changes in the administration of most ERISA Plans.

Covered Fiduciary Investment Advice Clarified

The FAQs indicate that most of the communications between ERISA Plan sponsors and their employees and plan participants will not be considered fiduciary investment advice covered by the Rule. Under the Rule, a “recommendation” is defined as a communication that, based on its content, context, and presentation, would reasonably be viewed as a suggestion that the advice recipient (for example, an ERISA Plan participant) engage in or refrain from taking a particular investment-related course of action.  An investment-related course of action includes recommendations on transfers, distributions and rollovers from a plan or IRA.  This distinction between recommendations and other types of communication is important because, if the person making the recommendation receives a fee or other compensation (direct or indirect), then the recommendation is fiduciary investment advice that is covered by the Rule.

For example, the DOL confirms that a recommendation to an ERISA Plan participant from the plan sponsor to increase plan contributions is not investment advice, as long as the plan sponsor does not receive a fee or other compensation for the recommendation. The DOL further states that, when employees of an ERISA Plan sponsor develop reports, recommendations and other deliverables for their employer, those employees are not providing fiduciary investment advice that is covered by the Rule.

Several of the FAQs explain why information frequently provided by ERISA Plan sponsors or their delegates to plan participants can be considered investment education, which is non-fiduciary advice and not covered by the Rule.  The DOL provides the following information:

  • Product Feature Information. Information on product features, investor rights and obligations, fee and expense information, risk and return characteristics or historical return provided by representatives in the call center for a 401(k) plan (a type of ERISA Plan) is not investment advice, as long as the call center representatives do not address the appropriateness of the product for a particular ERISA Plan participant. The DOL indicates that this type of information is considered “plan information”, which is a type of investment education.
  • Increasing Contributions. Information provided to an ERISA Plan participant by a call center representative about the benefits of increasing contributions to a 401(k) plan to maximize the plan match is investment education and not investment advice.
  • Certain Interactive Investment Tools. Interactive investment tools that help ERISA Plan participants estimate future retirement needs and assess the impact of different asset allocations on retirement income may be treated as investment education, if the tools satisfy the conditions outlined in the Rule. These conditions include a requirement that the materials be based on generally accepted investment theories that take into account the historic returns of different asset classes.
  • An Asset Allocation Model. An asset allocation model offered by an ERISA Plan that is limited to the plan’s 15 designated core investments is investment education, even if the plan also has a brokerage window that offers an additional 2000 investment options. However, the model must provide information required by the Rule on the plan’s other designated investment alternatives with similar risk and return characteristics. The required information includes a statement identifying where information on these investment alternatives may be obtained.

Next Steps for Plan Sponsors

Based on these FAQs, many ERISA Plan sponsors will be able to conclude that most of their current plan administration policies and procedures will not run afoul of the Rule. Even if the DOL under the Trump administration modifies the Rule, it is unlikely that such modifications will impose significant additional restrictions or obligations on ERISA Plan sponsors.

To register for this complimentary webinar, please click here.

I’d like to recommend an upcoming complimentary webinar, “EEOC Wellness Regulations – What Do They Mean for Employer-Sponsored Programs? (April 22, 2015, 12:00 p.m. EDT) presented by my Epstein Becker Green colleagues Frank C. Morris, Jr. and Adam C. Solander.

Below is a description of the webinar:

On April 16, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released its long-awaited proposed regulations governing employer-provided wellness programs under the American’s with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Although the EEOC had not previously issued regulations governing wellness programs, the EEOC has filed a series of lawsuits against employers alleging that their wellness programs violated the ADA. Additionally, the EEOC has issued a number of public statements, which have concerned employers, indicating that the EEOC’s regulation of wellness programs would conflict with the regulations governing wellness programs under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”) and jeopardize the programs currently offered to employees.

During this webinar, Epstein Becker Green attorneys will:

  • summarize the EEOC’s recently released proposed regulations
  • discuss where the EEOC’s proposed regulations are inconsistent with the rules currently in place under the ACA and the implications of the rules on wellness programs
  • examine the requests for comments issued by the EEOC and how its proposed regulations may change in the future
  • provide an analysis of what employers should still be concerned about and the implications of the proposed regulations on the EEOC’s lawsuits against employers

Who Should Attend:

  • Employers that offer, or are considering offering, wellness programs
  • Wellness providers, insurers, and administrators

To register for this complimentary webinar, please click here.

My colleagues Frank C. Morris, Jr., Adam C. Solander, and August Emil Huelle co-authored a Health Care and Life Sciences Client Alert concerning the EEOC’s proposed amendments to its ADA regulations and it is a topic of interest to many of our readers.

Following is an excerpt:

On April 16, 2015, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) released its highly anticipated proposed regulations (to be published in the Federal Register on April 20, 2015, for notice and comment) setting forth the EEOC’s interpretation of the term “voluntary” as to the disability-related inquiries and medical examination provisions of the American with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). Under the ADA, employers are generally barred from making disability-related inquiries to employees or requiring employees to undergo medical examinations. There is an exception to this prohibition, however, for disability-related inquiries and medical examinations that are “voluntary.”

Click here to read the full Health Care and Life Sciences Client Alert.

One day before the U.S. Department of Labor’s Family & Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) same-sex spouse final rule took effect on March 27, 2015, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered a preliminary injunction in Texas v. U.S., staying the application of the Final Rule for the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska.  This ruling directly impacts employers within the financial industry who are located or have employees living in these four states.

Background

In United States v. Windsor, the U.S. Supreme Court struck down Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (“DOMA”) as unconstitutional, finding that Congress did not have the authority to limit a state’s definition of “marriage” to “only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.”  Significantly, the Windsor decision left intact Section 2 of DOMA (the “Full Faith and Credit Statute”), which provides that no state is required to recognize same-sex marriages from other states.  Further to the President’s directive to implement the Windsor decision in all relevant federal statutes, in June 2014, the DOL proposed rulemaking to update the regulatory definition of spouse under the FMLA. The Final Rule is the result of that endeavor.

As we previously reported, the Final Rule adopts the “place of celebration” rule, thus amending prior regulations which followed the “place of residence” rule to define “spouse.”  For purposes of the FMLA, the place of residence rule determines spousal status under the laws where the couple resides, notwithstanding a valid out-of-state marriage license.   The place of celebration rule, on the other hand, determines spousal status by the jurisdiction in which the couple was married, thus expanding the availability of FMLA leave to more employees seeking leave to care for a same-sex spouse.

The Court’s Decision

Plaintiff States Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska sued, arguing the DOL exceeded its authority by promulgating a Final Rule that requires them to violate Section 2 of the DOMA and their respective state laws prohibiting the recognition of same-sex marriages from other jurisdictions.  The Texas court ordered the extraordinary remedy of a preliminary injunction to stay the Final Rule pending a full determination of the issue on the merits.

The court first found that the Plaintiff States are likely to succeed on at least one of their claims, which assert that the Final Rule improperly conflicts with (1) the FMLA, which defines “spouse” as “a husband or wife, as the case may be” and which the court found was meant “to give marriage its traditional, complementarian meaning”; (2) the Full Faith and Credit Statute; and/or (3) state laws regarding marriage, which may be preempted by the Final Rule only if Congress intended to preempt the states’ definitions of marriage.

The court then held that the Final Rule would cause Plaintiff States to suffer irreparable harm because, for example, the Final Rule requires Texas agencies to recognize out-of-state same-sex marriages as valid in violation of the Texas Family Code.

Lastly, although finding the threatened injury to both parties to be serious, the court decided that the public interest weighs in favor of a preliminary injunction against the DOL.  The court found in favor of upholding “the stability and consistency of the law” so as to permit a detailed and in-depth examination of the merits.  Additionally, the court pointed out that the injunction does not prohibit employers from granting leave to those who request leave to care for a loved one, but reasoned that a preliminary injunction is required to prevent the DOL “from mandating enforcement of its Final Rule against the states” and to protect the states’ laws from federal encroachment.

What This Means for Employers

Although the stay of the Final Rule is pending a full determination of the issue on the merits, the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges likely will expedite and shape the outcome of the Texas court’s final ruling.  In Obergefell, the Supreme Court will address whether a state is constitutionally compelled under the Fourteenth Amendment to recognize as valid a same-sex marriage lawfully licensed in another jurisdiction and to license same-sex marriages.  Oral arguments in Obergefell are scheduled for Tuesday, April 28, 2015, and a final ruling is expected in late June of this year.

Before the U.S. Supreme Court decides Obergefell, however, employers in Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana and Nebraska are advised to develop a compliant strategy for implementing the FMLA—a task that may be easier said than done.  Complicating the matter is a subsequent DOL filing in Texas v. U.S. where the DOL contends that the court’s order was not intended to preclude enforcement of the Final Rule against persons other than the named Plaintiff States, and thus applies only to the state governments of the states of Texas, Arkansas, Louisiana, and Nebraska.

While covered employers are free to provide an employee with non-FMLA unpaid or paid job-protected leave to care for their same-sex partner (or for other reasons), such leave will not exhaust the employee’s FMLA leave entitlement and the employee will remain entitled to FMLA leave for covered reasons.  We recommend that covered employers that are not located and do not have employees living in one of the Plaintiff States amend their FMLA-related documents and otherwise implement policies to comport with the Final Rule, as detailed in EBG’s Act Now Advisory, DOL Extends FMLA Leave to More Same-Sex Couples.  Covered employers who are located or have employees living in one of the Plaintiff States, however, should confer with legal counsel to evaluate the impact of Texas v. U.S. and react accordingly, which may depend on the geographical scope of operations.

Our colleague August Emil Huelle at Epstein Becker Green has an Employee Benefits Insight Blog post that will be of interest to many of our readers: “Legislation Introduced to Change Full-Time Employee Definition under the Affordable Care Act.”

Following is an excerpt:

On January 7, 2015, U.S. Senators Susan Collins (R-ME) and Joe Donnelly (D–IN) along with Lisa Murkowski (R-AK) and Joe Manchin (D-WV) introduced the Forty Hours is Full Time Act, legislation that would amend the definition of a “full-time employee” under the Affordable Care Act to an employee who works an average of 40 hours per week.  In the coming days, the House is expected to vote on its own version of this legislation, the Save American Workers Act.

The teeth of the Affordable Care Act have the ability to sink excise taxes on employers who do not offer affordable healthcare coverage to full-time employees, which the Affordable Care Act defines as employees who work an average of 30 hours per week.  In announcing the introduction of the legislation, Senator Collins argued that the current definition “creates a perverse incentive for businesses to cut their employees’ hours so they are no longer considered full time.”  The implication being that the Forty Hours is Full Time Act will increase employee wages because the employers who reportedly reduced employee hours below 30 per week in an effort to avoid costs associated with providing healthcare coverage to employees (or the tax for not providing coverage to employees) are the same employers who will raise employee hours above 30 per week if they are not faced with such costs.

Read the full blog post here.

My colleague Lee T. Polk authored Epstein Becker Green’s recent issue of its Take 5 newsletter.   This Take 5 features five considerations suggesting the advantages of employee benefit plans as programs that are beneficial to both employers and employees.

  1. Tax Aspects of Qualified Retirement Plans Can Save Money For Both Employers and Employees
  2. The Benefits of a Contractual Claims Limitation Period
  3. The Benefits of a Contractual Venue Selection Clause
  4. The Standard of Judicial Review in the Context of Top Hat Plan Benefit Disputes
  5. Fiduciary Exception to the Attorney-Client Privilege in Plan Administration

Read the full newsletter here.