Benefits Bryan Cave

Benefits BCLP

Other Posts

Main Content

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

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,

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

J, K, L, M and N: What’s In a Letter?

Over the last few months, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has been replying to responses to their Letter 226-J, which notifies employers of a proposed Employer Shared Responsibility Payment (ESRP). The IRS has recently updated its website to include additional information on its Letter 227 series. The various letters either close the ESRP case or provide the employer with next steps.

If you responded to a Letter 226-J, the reply from the IRS will come in the form of one of the following four 227 letters:

  • Letter 227-J. If you submitted a completed Form 14764, ESRP Response agreeing to the ESRP amount proposed in your Letter 226-J, the IRS will acknowledge its receipt using Letter 227-J and provide instructions for making the ESRP. If full payment is not received within 10 days, the IRS will issue a Notice and Demand for the outstanding balance.
  • Letter 227-K. You

HSA Eligibility for Retirement-Age Individuals

Employers who offer high deductible health insurance plans to their employees typically also offer Health Savings Accounts (“HSAs”). HSAs allow employees to pay for uninsured medical expenses with pre-tax dollars and are set-up under Internal Revenue Code Section 223. HSAs are subject to annual contribution limits—single individuals may contribute up to $3,450 for 2018, families may contribute up to $6,900 for 2018, and individuals over the age of 55 may contribute an extra “catch-up contribution.” In most years, determining an employee’s maximum allowable contribution to an HSA is straightforward—an employee is either covered by a high deductible health plan or not, their spouse or dependent(s) are either covered by a high deductible health plan or not, and the employee is either at least age 55 or younger. However, in the year that an individual turns 65, determining the maximum allowable HSA contribution can become tricky. Read on to learn more

Deep Dive: Association Health Plans, Part 2

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.

In Part 1 of this “Deep Dive” series, we started examining the history of AHPs and the effects of the changes proposed by the Trump Administration

Seventh Circuit Holds that ERISA does not Preempt State “Slayer Statute”

We turn once again to the sad and difficult task that plan administrators face when distributing the benefits of a participant who has been murdered by his or her designated beneficiary. Sad for obvious reasons.  Difficult because ERISA and state law may provide different answers.  ERISA directs a plan to honor a participant’s beneficiary designation—meaning that the murderer would receive the benefit. “Slayer statutes” prohibit the murderer from receiving a financial benefit from his or her victim, requiring the plan to disregard the beneficiary designation.

Our prior blog post suggested three strategies that a plan administrator might employ in the face of uncertainty: interpleader, receipt and refunding agreement, and affidavit of status.  Under the interpleader approach, the plan administrator would pay the benefit into the registry of the court and join each potential claimant as a party defendant. Each claimant would then argue for receipt of the

The Good, the Bad, and the Tax-Exempt Organization: The New Tax Bill’s Effect on Benefits and Compensation Offered by Institutions of Higher Education

On December 22, President Trump signed “An Act to provide for reconciliation pursuant to titles II and V of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2018” (“Bill”) into law. The Bill was previously named the much-shorter “Tax Cuts and Jobs Act,” but was changed after a senator pointed out that the name violated an obscure Senate rule.

The new employee benefit and executive compensation provisions in the Bill affect both individuals and employers. The good news for colleges and universities is that the harshest employee benefit provisions directed at colleges and universities were not included in the final Bill. The bad news is that the executive compensation and fringe benefit changes directed at tax-exempt organizations are unfavorable to institutions of higher education.

THE GOOD: CHANGES EXCLUDED FROM THE FINAL BILL

The House passed a version of the Bill that would have repealed the exclusion from income for

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.