The IRS recently issued guidance on the tax treatment, withholding and reporting for required distributions from tax-qualified retirement plans. Plan sponsors should contact their retirement vendors and trustees to ensure that they implement the tax requirements of the new guidance appropriately for their tax-qualified retirement plans.

Access the full article.

As presidential hopefuls bemoan the high cost of healthcare, McDermott’s Ted Becker imagines a stack of lawsuits pushed toward corporations and insurance companies. If workers can use the Employee Retirement Income Security Act to challenge 401(k) plans’ fees and investments, why can’t they use it to sue over how their health insurance plans are managed?

In two opinions—one published and one unpublished—the Ninth Circuit overturned prior precedent and held that a Plan amendment requiring arbitration meant that an individual had to arbitrate, on an individual basis, purported class claims alleging imprudent and disloyal management of 401(k) investments. This decision, although unpublished, provides support for plans wishing to add binding arbitration

In 2018, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued new hardship distribution rules applicable to defined contribution plans, and many plans have begun administering these new rules. While plan sponsors may want to wait for further IRS guidance before amending their plans, they should take steps now to inform employees of changes in hardship distribution

Over the past several years, the IRS and DOL have significantly increased the number of benefit plans audits conducted each year.

As a result, it is important for plan sponsors to understand the types of issues that often arise in connection with such audits. At the recent PSCA 2019 National Conference, Brian Tiemann explained

Diane M. Morgenthaler and Jeffrey M. Holdvogt recently presented the webinar “Student Loan Benefits and Other 401(k) Developments” at the Worldwide Employee Benefits Network Chicagoland program. In the presentation, they discussed a variety of new 401(k) trends and developments, including:

  • Employer options for student loan benefits and related considerations;
  • The IRS’s recent expansion of its

Join us Friday, May 17, as Allison Wilkerson, Brian Tiemann and Sarah Engle join host Judith Wethall to talk through the value of conducting a proactive self-audit of 401(k) plans. They will provide best practices designed to reduce the risk of costly government investigations. Attendees will come away prepared and confident in their position, and

Recently, the US District Court for the District of Columbia dismissed a proposed class action lawsuit brought by former Georgetown employees under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) over fees and investments in its two retirement plans. Plaintiffs alleged that Georgetown breached its fiduciary duty of prudence under ERISA by selecting and retaining investment options with excessive administrative fees and expenses charged to the plans, and unnecessarily retained three recordkeepers rather than one.

The court dismissed most of the claims on the grounds that plaintiffs had not plead sufficient facts showing that they had individually suffered an injury. Because they challenged defined contribution plans (as opposed to defined benefit plans), the plaintiffs had to plead facts showing how their individual plan accounts were harmed. In this case, the named plaintiffs had not invested in the challenged funds, or the challenged fund had actually outperformed other funds, or, in the case of the early withdrawal penalty from the annuity fund, the penalty had been properly disclosed and neither plaintiff had attempted to withdrawal funds – thereby suffering no injury. Moreover, in dismissing the allegations that the Plans included annuities that limited participants’ access to their contributed funds, the court rejoined, “[i]f a cat were a dog, it could bark. If a retirement plan were not based on long-term investments in annuities, its assets would be more immediately accessed by plan participants.” As to another fund, the court rejected the claim that the fiduciaries should be liable for the mere alleged underperformance of the fund, noting that “ERISA does not provide a cause of action for ‘underperforming funds.” Nor is a fiduciary required to select the best performing fund. A fiduciary must only discharge their duties with care, skill, prudence and diligence under the circumstances, when they make their decisions.


Continue Reading