Benefits Bryan Cave

Benefits BCLP

Internal Revenue Service (IRS)

Main Content

J, K, L, M and N: What’s In a Letter?

June 21, 2018

Authors

Meredith Jacobowitz and Serena Yee

J, K, L, M and N: What’s In a Letter?

June 21, 2018

by: Meredith Jacobowitz and Serena Yee

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
    Read More

HSA Eligibility for Retirement-Age Individuals

June 19, 2018

Authors

Meredith Jacobowitz and Sarah Bhagwandin

HSA Eligibility for Retirement-Age Individuals

June 19, 2018

by: Meredith Jacobowitz and Sarah Bhagwandin

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

Read More

Deadline Looming in the Distance for 403(b) Plans: What Plan Sponsors Should Be Doing Now

June 5, 2018

Authors

Denise Erwin and Sarah Bhagwandin

Deadline Looming in the Distance for 403(b) Plans: What Plan Sponsors Should Be Doing Now

June 5, 2018

by: Denise Erwin and Sarah Bhagwandin

Last year when the IRS announced that the initial remedial amendment period for 403(b) plans will end March 31, 2020, the natural reaction to this very important (but rather remote) deadline was to immediately put it on the to-do list, somewhere near the bottom, where it has been languishing ever since.  If this describes your reaction, you are certainly not alone.

We think it is a good time to move this to the front burner and take some action.  As you may recall, 403(b) plan sponsors were required to adopt a written plan document for existing 403(b) plans on or before December 31, 2009.  At the time, there were no pre-approved 403(b) plans and no determination letter program was available for 403(b) plan sponsors to gain assurance that the document satisfied the requirements of section 403(b) and applicable regulations.  In order to provide a

Read More

IRS Reduces 2018 Annual HSA Contribution Limit for Family Coverage

March 6, 2018

Authors

Serena Yee

IRS Reduces 2018 Annual HSA Contribution Limit for Family Coverage

March 6, 2018

by: Serena Yee

In May 2017, the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2017-37 announcing the inflation-adjusted health savings account contribution limits for 2018 as $3,450 for self-only coverage and $6,900 for family coverage.   However, this week the IRS issued Rev. Proc. 2018-18, which supersedes Rev. Proc. 2017-37 and reflects a decrease in the 2018 annual contribution limit for family coverage to $6,850.  Employers that provide a high deductible health plan option to their employees with a health savings account feature should ensure that their communications and systems are updated accordingly.

 

Read More

Revised VCP Fees – Simple Isn’t Always Better

January 18, 2018

Authors

benefitsbclp

Revised VCP Fees – Simple Isn’t Always Better

January 18, 2018

by: benefitsbclp

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has described its recent changes to its Voluntary Correction Program (“VCP”) user fees as “simplification.”  This simplification is achieved by significantly changing the way user fees are determined and by eliminating alternative and reduced fees that were previously available.   At first blush, this simplification appears to result in a general reduction in user fees, however, in certain circumstances, the changes will actually result in significantly higher fees.   If you are the person responsible for issuing or requesting checks for your plan’s VCP application(s), it is important to note the differences from the past fee structure so that you will know what your plan is in for (good or bad) the next time a VCP application is necessary.

In case you are not familiar with the VCP, the IRS created the program under its Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System, to allow tax-favored retirement plans not

Read More

Play Time is Over: IRS Reveals Process for Assessing ACA Penalties

November 27, 2017

Authors

Serena Yee, Katharine Finley and Meredith Jacobowitz

Play Time is Over: IRS Reveals Process for Assessing ACA Penalties

November 27, 2017

by: Serena Yee, Katharine Finley and Meredith Jacobowitz

The Affordable Care Act (ACA) introduced a “pay or play” scheme, effective January 1, 2015, in which Applicable Large Employers (ALEs) must offer affordable qualifying healthcare to their full-time employees (and their dependent children) or pay a penalty. Despite President Trump’s first Executive Order (discussed here) directing a rollback of the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and instructing the Secretary of Health and Human Services to minimize the “unwarranted economic and regulatory burden of the act,” the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) quietly updated its Questions and Answers on Employer Shared Responsibility Provisions Under the ACA to include the first official guidance detailing the process for enforcement of the penalty. Notably, this update coincided with an IRS announcement that penalties for the 2015 calendar

Read More

IRS Views on Self-Certification of Financial Hardship

March 15, 2017

Authors

Richard Arenburg and Denise Erwin

IRS Views on Self-Certification of Financial Hardship

March 15, 2017

by: Richard Arenburg and Denise Erwin

DesolationIn today’s virtual world, we suspect most plan sponsors rely upon the self-certification process to document and process 401(k) distributions made on account of financial hardship. The IRS has recently issued examination guidelines for its field agents for their use in determining whether a self-certification process has an adequate documentation procedure.  While these examination guidelines do not establish a rule that plan sponsors must follow, we believe most plan sponsors will want to ensure that their self-certification processes are consistent with these guidelines to minimize the potential for any dispute over the acceptability of its practices in the event of an IRS audit.

The examination guidelines describe three required components for the self-certification process:

(1)        the plan sponsor or TPA must provide a notice to participants containing certain required

Read More

Just Push Pause: Revisiting Proposed Regulations

February 21, 2017

Authors

Katharine Finley and Brian Berglund

Just Push Pause: Revisiting Proposed Regulations

February 21, 2017

by: Katharine Finley and Brian Berglund

On January 20, 2017, President Trump signed an executive order entitled “Regulatory Freeze Pending Review” (the “Freeze Memo“).  The Freeze Memo was anticipated, and mirrors similar memos issued by Presidents Barack Obama and George W. Bush during their first few days in office.  In light of the Freeze Memo, we have reviewed some of our recent posts discussing new regulations to determine the extent to which the Freeze Memo might affect such regulations.

TimeoutThe Regulatory Freeze

The two-page Freeze Memo requires that:

  • Agencies not send for publication in the Federal Regulation any regulations that had not yet been so sent as of January 20, 2017, pending review by a department or agency head appointed by the President.
  • Regulations that have been sent for publication in the Federal Register but not yet published be withdrawn,
    Read More
  • The First ACA Shoe Drops

    January 23, 2017

    Authors

    Lisa Van Fleet and Chris Rylands

    The First ACA Shoe Drops

    January 23, 2017

    by: Lisa Van Fleet and Chris Rylands

    ACA Blue HighlightOnly hours into the new administration, steps were taken to eliminate, or at the very least minimize the impact of, the Patient Protections and Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).  In his first Executive Order, President Trump affirmed his intent to repeal the ACA and further sought to minimize the economic burden of the ACA.  The order instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services and the heads of all other executive departments and agencies to,  “take all actions consistent with the law to minimize the unwarranted economic and regulatory burden of the act, and prepare to afford the states more flexibility and control to create a more free and open healthcare market.”

    This is not a repeal of the ACA (the President cannot unilaterally do that).  However, what

    Read More

    Now You Can Be Up to Your QNEC in Forfeitures

    January 20, 2017

    Authors

    Sarah Bhagwandin and Chris Rylands

    Now You Can Be Up to Your QNEC in Forfeitures

    January 20, 2017

    by: Sarah Bhagwandin and Chris Rylands

    Money in basket. Isolated over whiteOn January 18, 2017, the IRS issued proposed regulations allowing amounts held as forfeitures in a 401(k) plan to be used to fund qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs) and qualified matching contributions (QMACs). This sounds really technical (and it is), but it’s also really helpful.  Some plan sponsors of 401(k) plans use additional contributions QNECs and/or QMACs to satisfy nondiscrimination testing.  Before these proposed rules, they could not use forfeitures to fund these contributions because the rules required that QNECs and QMACs be nonforfeitable when made (and also subject to the same distribution restrictions as 401(k) contributions).  If you have money sitting in a forfeiture account, then by definition it was forfeitable when made, so that money couldn’t possibly have been used to fund a

    Read More
    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.