Benefits Bryan Cave

Main Content

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

Last week, we discussed four of the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself.

On Monday, we discussed failures to timely update plan documents.

On Tuesday, we discussed an SPD’s failure to accurately describe the terms of a plan.

On Wednesday, we discussed a plan’s definition of compensation.

On Thursday, we discussed delinquent contributions.

We hope you enjoyed this refresher on best compliance practices.  For our last post in this five-part series, we discuss a topic that never goes out of style…

Plan Governance

Description

Plan governance generally encompasses the oversight policies and procedures that plans enact to ensure good process and operational compliance. The following discussion addresses two specific aspects of plan governance—those which are

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

This week, we are discussing the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself.

On Monday, we discussed failures to timely update plan documents.

On Tuesday, we discussed an SPD’s failure to accurately describe the terms of a plan.

On Wednesday, we discussed a plan’s definition of compensation.

In this, our penultimate post, we discuss the most common mistake of all: delinquent contributions.

Delinquent Contributions

Description

Employers are required to contribute employees’ elective deferrals to the plan on the earliest date that the contributions can reasonably be segregated from the employer’s general assets, and in no event later than the fifteenth (15th) business day of the month following the month in which the participant contributions are withheld or received by

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

Welcome to the third installment of this series! This week, we are discussing the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself. Each day we will discuss a new compliance mistake. So far, we have discussed failures to timely update plan documents and an SPD’s failure to accurately describe plan terms. Today we discuss a plan’s definition of compensation.

Wrong Definition of Compensation

Description

401(k) plans may use different definitions of compensation for different purposes. For instance, plans may use any definition of compensation for certain purposes, but must use one of two statutory definitions of compensation found in the Internal Revenue Code (“IRC”) for certain other purposes. For example, (i) the IRC § 415 definition of compensation must be used when calculating

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

This week, we are discussing the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself. Each day we will discuss a new compliance mistake. Yesterday, we discussed failures to timely update plan documents. Today, we are discussing an SPD-related failure. Check in through the end of the week for more compliance mistakes!

SPD Fails to Accurately Describe Plan Terms

Description

A Summary Plan Description (“SPD”), by definition, must accurately summarize a plan. This means that all descriptions in the SPD must accurately describe the terms of the underlying plan document.

Potential Liability

If an SPD includes different provisions than the corresponding plan document, a court may enforce the provisions of the SPD rather than those of the plan. The facts that a plaintiff must prove to receive this

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 7: Business and Operational Issues Associated with Forming an AHP: Engaging an Insurance Carrier

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.”  One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”).  In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018 and its final rule on June 19, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we

A Mistake a Day: Top 5 401(k) Compliance Mistakes & Best Practices

Mistakes are all too easy to make, but fortunately, they are also easy to prevent! This week, we are discussing the five most common compliance mistakes made by 401(k) plan administrators and fiduciaries, the potential liability associated with such mistakes, and steps you can take to avoid making them yourself. Each day we will discuss a new compliance mistake, so stay tuned.

Failure to Timely Update Plan Document

Description

Statutes and regulations establishing qualification requirements change relatively frequently. Plans must be modified to conform to the requirements as required by each statute and regulation.

Potential Liability

Potential liability will differ based on the statute or regulation in question. In some circumstances, failure to timely adopt legislative and/or regulatory changes may result in disqualification of the plan.

Examples

Most recently, the Department of Labor updated the regulation governing the process for disability claims. The new regulations provide participants with enhanced rights,

FAQs on the New 162(m) Guidance

FAQs on the New 162(m) Guidance

September 13, 2018

Authored by: Lisa Van Fleet and Adam Braun

We previously blogged about the guidance released by the IRS in Notice 2018-68 (the “Notice”), which addressed some of the changes made to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 162(m)”) in the 2017 tax reform law (the “Act”).  In that post, we focused on the general changes in the definition of covered employee and guidance as to what constitutes a written binding contract eligible for grandfather relief.   In this post, we will address 5 of the most common questions we’ve heard companies ask about the guidance and describe potential next steps.

Q 1:   If a performance based compensation arrangement permits negative discretion to zero, are all payments made pursuant to that arrangement subject to 162(m)’s $1 million deduction limit? 

A:  Most likely, yes.  The Notice clarifies that a compensatory arrangement is not a written binding contract to the extent that any

A New Method to Incentivize Young Workers?

A New Method to Incentivize Young Workers?

September 4, 2018

Authored by: Jennifer Stokes and Adam Braun

Companies have considered various ways to retain and incentivize their younger, and increasingly mobile, workforce.  A recent PLR offers another option: using a 401(k) plan to provide additional benefits (in the form of a nonelective contribution) to employees who pay down their student debt during the plan year.

On August 17, 2018, the IRS released a private letter ruling (PLR 201833012) in which it ruled that a proposed student loan repayment program included in a 401(k) plan does not violate the contingent benefit rule in Internal Revenue Code Section 401(k)(4)(A) and Treas. Reg. 1.401(k)-1(e)(6).  The requesting company’s 401(k) plan and proposed student loan repayment program included the following features:

  • An employee may elect to contribute eligible compensation to the 401(k) plan as pre-tax or Roth elective deferrals, or after-tax employee contributions.
  • If an employee makes an elective contribution during a payroll period equal to at least

The 162(m) Grandfather Reveal Party: IRS Releases Limited Guidance on Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m)

It took roughly nine months, but you may now be in a position to identify and reveal the status of contracts as 162(m) grandfathered – or not.  Last week, in IRS Notice 2018-68, the IRS provided long-awaited, albeit limited, guidance concerning the changes made to Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) by the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. Specifically, the notice includes additional information about the new definition of “covered employee” (i.e., an employee with respect to whom the compensation deduction is capped at $1 million) and…drum-roll please…. the meaning of “written binding contract” for purposes of determining whether a contract is grandfathered under Section 162(m).

Notice 2018-68 anticipates that future regulations will incorporate its contents, but that any such regulations will only apply to taxable years ending on or after September 10, 2018. The notice further specifies that any future guidance, including regulations, addressing the issues covered

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 6: Forming an AHP: Legal and Governance Structure

On October 12, 2017, President Trump signed a “Presidential Executive Order Promoting Healthcare Choice and Competition Across the United States” (the “Executive Order”) to “facilitate the purchase of insurance across state lines and the development and operation of a healthcare system that provides high-quality care at affordable prices for the American people.”  One of the stated goals in the Executive Order is to expand access to and allow more employers to form Association Health Plans (“AHPs”).  In furtherance of this goal, the Executive Order directed the Department of Labor to consider proposing new rules to expand the definition of “employer” under Section 3(5) of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”).  The Department of Labor issued its proposed rule on January 5, 2018 and its final rule on June 19, 2018.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we

The attorneys of Bryan Cave LLP make this site available to you only for the educational purposes of imparting general information and a general understanding of the law. This site does not offer specific legal advice. Your use of this site does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and Bryan Cave LLP or any of its attorneys. Do not use this site as a substitute for specific legal advice from a licensed attorney. Much of the information on this site is based upon preliminary discussions in the absence of definitive advice or policy statements and therefore may change as soon as more definitive advice is available. Please review our full disclaimer.