Employee Benefits Archives | Page 72 of 151

Extension of Nondiscrimination Relief to Certain Closed Defined Benefit Plans

by Kay Kemp and Lisa Loesel | Sep 6, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has again extended the temporary nondiscrimination relief for closed defined benefit plans. This extended relief is intended to enable closed pension plans (defined as pension plans that have been closed to new participants before December 13, 2013 but continue to provide ongoing benefit accruals for certain participants) to more easily satisfy certain nondiscrimination testing requirements. In most cases where the relief applies, the closed defined benefit plan is aggregated with a defined contribution plan to satisfy the nondiscrimination testing requirements. The relief assists the aggregated plan in passing nondiscrimination requirements that apply to accrued benefits and to certain rights and features relating to those benefits.

The original nondiscrimination testing relief for closed pension plans was provided in a 2014 IRS Notice. This relief was already extended on three prior occasions, and the most recent IRS Notice further extends the relief until the end of plan years that begin before 2020, as long as the conditions of the original 2014 IRS Notice continue to be satisfied. In 2019, the IRS also intends to issue final regulations under Section 401(a)(4) of the tax code that address the nondiscrimination requirements for closed pension plans. Until then, the IRS indicated that plan sponsors can rely on the proposed 2016 IRS regulations under Section 401(a)(4) for plan years that begin before 2020.

Webinar | Non-Compete Reform Comes to the Commonwealth

by Anthony A. Bongiorno, Andrew Liazos, Evan A. Belosa and Rachel B. Cowen | Sep 5, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Employment, Executive Compensation

Join us on Thursday, September 6 at 1:00 PM EDT for a webinar designed to address questions around the Massachusetts Noncompetition Agreement Act (the Act), signed into law by Governor Baker on Friday, August 10. The Act, which takes effect on October 1, requires all employers doing business in Massachusetts to change the way they establish and structure noncompetition agreements and related forfeiture provisions under compensation arrangements.

Our panel of lawyers focused on litigation, employment and employee benefits law from Massachusetts and other states, will discuss key aspects of this legislation, strategies and best practices. Questions that will be addressed by the panel include:

What changes should be made to support noncompetition agreements going forward?
How can a noncompetition agreement be used in connection with providing severance benefits?
What is the status for existing non-competition agreements? When is grandfathering available?
Are there other available types of agreements that can adequately protect employers’ interests?
Might ERISA preempt the new Massachusetts noncompetition law as related to benefit plans?
How will the changes to Massachusetts law impact corporate transactions?
How will the changes in Massachusetts law affect restrictive covenant litigation in Massachusetts courts?
What approaches to address the Massachusetts changes will make sense for multi-state employers?

Register now.

What’s Next After the Affordable Care Act?

by Gary Scott Davis | Aug 30, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

When passed in 2010, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), often called “Obamacare,” had three basic goals: increase access to health insurance, reduce costs and spending, and offer patients stability with respect to their insurance coverage. By offering a subsidy for low- and middle-income Americans to purchase private insurance plans, the ACA was successful in expanding coverage for about 14 million previously uninsured individuals, including those with pre-existing medical conditions.

Gary Scott Davis authored this bylined article about the future of the ACA. “We need to learn from both the strengths and weaknesses of the ACA to build a long-term sustainable approach that promotes access to care, brings insurance coverage within the reach of the many, contains costs, and aligns economic incentives among payors, providers and patients, while improving the nation’s overall level of health,” he wrote.

Access the full article.

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017: Impact on Executive Pay of Tax-Exempt Organizations

by McDermott Will & Emery | Aug 28, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the “2017 Tax Act”) made some significant changes to the executive pay area for tax-exempt organizations with the imposition of a new excise tax on certain amounts paid to some employees of the tax-exempt organization. Imposing taxation in areas which previously had no such result will warrant tax-exempt organizations reviewing their compensation structures in light of the new rules to ensure not only an understanding of the new rules but to evaluate feasible options in minimizing any taxes.

Access the full article.

IRS Issues Long-Awaited Initial Guidance under Section 162(m)

by Andrew Liazos, Joseph K. Urwitz, McDermott Will & Emery and William R. Pomierski | Aug 23, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Executive Compensation

On August 21, 2018, the IRS issued guidance regarding recent statutory changes made to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. Overall, Notice 2018-68 strictly interprets the Section 162(m) grandfathering rule under the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.

Public companies and other issuers subject to these deduction limitations will want to closely consider this guidance in connection with filing upcoming periodic reports with securities regulators. Further action to support existing tax positions or adjustments to deferred tax asset reporting in financial statements may be warranted in light of this guidance.

Access the full article.

Groundbreaking IRS Ruling Helps Clear the Way for New 401(k) Plan Student Loan Benefits

by Jeffrey Holdvogt and Sarah L. Engle | Aug 20, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans

On Friday, the IRS released a private letter ruling (PLR) which will help clear the way for employers to provide a new type of student loan repayment benefit as part of their 401(k) plans. By issuing the PLR, the IRS gave its blessing to an employer-provided student loan repayment benefit offered through an employer’s 401(k) plan. Historically, many plan sponsors had questioned whether such an approach would be permissible under IRS rules. As a result, the PLR provides welcome confirmation that such an arrangement is permissible under certain circumstances.

Generally speaking, the PLR confirmed that, under certain circumstances, employers may be able to link the amount of employer contributions made on an employee’s behalf under a 401(k) plan to the amount of student loan repayments made by the employee outside the plan. More specifically, as explained in our On the Subject published on Friday, the IRS concluded that an employer could make a non-elective contribution to its 401(k) plan where the amount of the non-elective contribution would be based on an employee’s total student loan repayments and would be contributed to the plan in lieu of the matching contributions that would otherwise be made to the plan had the employee made pre-tax, Roth 401(k) or after-tax contributions.

Because student loan benefit programs are becoming an increasingly powerful way for employers to attract and retain key talent, particularly employers with a young and educated workforce, the PLR will very likely cause many employers to consider offering a student loan benefit as part of their retirement program. Importantly, employers who wish to do so should take care to review their 401(k) plans for special rules, features or design elements (outside those discussed in the PLR) that might create additional hurdles to linking the amount of employer contributions made on an employee’s behalf under a 401(k) plan to the amount of student loan repayments made by the employee outside the plan. For example, some of the special rules that apply to safe harbor plans could limit an employer’s ability to create a similar student loan benefit structure.

For more information about this groundbreaking ruling, including the key features of the student loan benefit program described in the PLR, the advantages of such programs and other important considerations, please see our On the Subject published on Friday.

IRS Issues “Snapshot” Guidance on Qualified Retirement Plan Issues

by Jeffrey Holdvogt and Sarah L. Engle | Aug 16, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently released “Issue Snapshots” on a number of topics related to tax-qualified retirement plans, including both pension and savings plans. Historically, the snapshots have explained new(er) laws and guidance, and have often included audit tips for IRS examiners. As a result, although the IRS has indicated that the snapshots are not official pronouncements of law or directives, the snapshots provide helpful insight into issues that the IRS thinks merit further discussion or clarification. Therefore, the snapshots can be instructive for plan sponsors and plan administrators.

(more…)

IRS Finalizes Regulations Allowing Use of Forfeitures to Fund Safe Harbor Contributions, QNECs and QMACs

by Sarah L. Engle and McDermott Will & Schulte | Aug 9, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Retirement Plans

The Internal Revenue Service recently released final regulations confirming that employers can use plan forfeitures to fund qualified non-elective contributions (QNECs), qualified matching contributions (QMACs) and safe harbor contributions.

As explained in our earlier On the Subject discussing this topic, IRS regulations historically provided that QNECs, QMACs and certain safe harbor contributions had to be 100 percent vested at the time the amounts were contributed to an employer’s plan. The IRS interpreted this requirement to prohibit employers from using forfeitures to fund QNECs, QMACs and certain safe harbor contributions. In particular, according to the IRS, using forfeitures for this purpose was impermissible because contributions allocated to a plan’s forfeiture account were subject to a vesting schedule when the contributions were first made to the plan (as employer matching or profit sharing contributions). Therefore, the IRS took the position that forfeitures could never be used to fund QNECs, QMACs or certain safe harbor contributions even if the forfeitures were fully vested at the time they were ultimately re-allocated to participant accounts as QNECs, QMACs or safe harbor contributions.

In response to numerous comments regarding this requirement, the IRS issued proposed regulations in January, 2017 clarifying that QNECs, QMACs and safe harbor contributions were only required to be fully vested at the time the contributions were allocated to participant accounts, rather than when first contributed to the plan. As a result, employers could use forfeitures to fund QNECs, QMACs and safe harbor contributions.

The final regulations issued late last month confirm the approach outlined in the proposed regulations. Importantly, employers were actually permitted to rely on those proposed regulations immediately. As a result, the final regulations simply confirm that plan sponsors can continue to use forfeitures to fund QNECs, QMACs and safe harbor contributions. Before doing so, however, plan sponsors should review their plan documents carefully to ensure that the plans allow forfeitures to be used for such purposes.

Universal Health Bill Faces Steep Obstacles in New York

by Andrew Liazos | Aug 7, 2018 | Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

While momentum may be building for a single-payer health care system in New York, such a dramatic shift in the way health care is financed will have to overcome a number of significant obstacles. With ERISA preemption being one of those hurdles, Andrew Liazos comments, “There will be a challenge from somewhere. I don’t know who will lead the challenge, but I don’t think employer groups will just sit by idly.”

Access the full article.

Originally published in Bloomberg Law, August 2018.

ERISA Preempts State Regulation of PBM–Pharmacy Pricing Agreements

by McDermott Will & Emery and Sarah P. Hogarth | Jul 31, 2018 | Benefit Controversies, Employee Benefits, Health and Welfare Plans

ERISA broadly preempts state laws that “relate to” ERISA-governed employee benefit plans to ensure a uniform federal regulatory scheme and to relieve ERISA plans from the burdens of satisfying a patchwork of state laws. Recently, however, several states have enacted legislation designed to regulate the prices that pharmacy benefit managers, as third-party administrators for ERISA-governed plans, agree to reimburse pharmacies for dispensing prescription drugs to ERISA plan members. These regulations run afoul of ERISA, as the US Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has twice held.

Access the full article.

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

RECENT POSTS