On June 8, 2022, the Congressional Research Service published “Private-Sector Defined Contribution Pension Plans: An Introduction.” We reviewed the report and wanted to highlight a few key data points. Defined contribution plans include 401(k), 403(b), and profit-sharing plans. The report does not include government employer plans.
Congress continues to introduce bills related to retirement security (see our Blog Post on Secure Act 2.0 and the Employee and Retiree Access to Justice Act). These new bills continue to focus on increasing access to part-time workers, easing the implementation of retirement plans for smaller employers, and encouraging plans to implement automatic enrollment features. Based on the results in this Congressional Research Service report, we can expect continued emphasis on those features. If you’d like to discuss design changes to your defined contribution plan, please contact a Faegre Drinker benefits attorney for assistance.
Continue reading “New Stats on Employer Retirement Plans”
In its recent June Employee Plans newsletter, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) announced the launch of a 90-day pre-examination compliance pilot program. Under the program, the IRS will notify a plan sponsor that its retirement plan has been selected for pre-examination. The notification will provide the sponsor with 90 days to review retirement plan documents and operations to determine compliance with current tax law. If the sponsor does not respond within 90 days, the IRS will contact the sponsor to schedule an examination.
Continue reading “IRS Pilots Pre-Examination Compliance Program for Retirement Plans”
The July 1st deadline is quickly approaching for non-grandfathered group health plans and issuers to publicly disclose, in accordance with the Transparency in Coverage Final Rules, price information in machine-readable files for the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022. The two machine-readable files must show (1) in-network negotiated provider rates for covered items and services and (2) out-of-network allowed amounts and billed charges for covered items and services.
Continue reading “Deadline Approaches for Employers to Post Machine-Readable Files on a Public Website”
Enforcement of an ERISA plan’s arbitration provision has become a hotly litigated issue. Plaintiffs and courts often raise two objections to arbitration provisions in ERISA plans, including ESOPs. The first is whether participants or the plan itself consented to the arbitration provision. The second is whether class-action waiver language, which requires individualized arbitration, is enforceable under ERISA.
There have been several important ERISA arbitration decisions in recent years, including many involving ESOPs. Interestingly, these decisions suggest that courts are struggling with the same statutory-interpretation problems that courts struggle with when addressing a number of issues raised by ESOP litigation. Many key ERISA provisions are difficult, if not impossible, to interpret based solely on their express language. This is a real problem in ESOP litigation because many disputes turn on a court’s interpretation of the opaque ERISA provisions that are implicated by the disputes.
Continue reading “Thinking ESOPs: Courts Desperately Need Contextual Clues in Disputes Over Enforceability of Arbitration Provisions”
In Newsom v. Reliance Standard Life Ins. Co., the Fifth Circuit clarified when it is appropriate for a district court to remand an ERISA dispute to a plan administrator for development of a merits record. 26 F.4th 329 (5th Cir. 2022). James Newsom suffered from a variety of maladies, and in September 2017 his employer reduced his schedule to 32 hours per week. In October 2017, Newsom’s schedule again was reduced to 28 hours per week, and he stopped working entirely on January 30, 2018. After Newsom filed a claim for disability benefits, Reliance Standard, the claims administrator, determined that his date of disability was January 30, 2018, and since he was working less than 30 hours per week at that time, he was not a full-time employee and did not qualify for long-term disability coverage. After Newsom sued, the district court determined that Newsom’s date of disability was October 2017, that Newsom was a full-time employee as of that date, and that he was eligible for long-term disability coverage. Accordingly, and without further analysis, the district court awarded Newson long-term disability benefits.
Continue reading “Fifth Circuit Clarifies Standard for Remanding ERISA Dispute to Plan Administrator”
The Consolidated Appropriations Act 2022 (“CAA 2022”), signed by President Biden on March 15, 2022, reinstated temporary relief for high deductible health plans (“HDHPs”) to provide pre-deductible coverage of telehealth services from April 1 through December 31, 2022, without impacting HDHP participants’ eligibility to contribute to their health savings accounts (“HSAs”).
In general, HDHP coverage of telehealth services at no or low cost before the participant satisfies the minimum HDHP deductible (in 2022, $1,400 for single-only coverage and $2,800 for family coverage) would cause HDHP participants to become ineligible to make HSA contributions.
Continue reading “Temporary Reinstatement of Relief for Telemedicine Coverage in HDHPs”
On February 24, 2022, the IRS issued proposed regulations incorporating the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (“SECURE Act”) into the required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) regulations. The IRS is accepting comments until May 25, 2022, and then holding a public hearing on June 15, 2022. The proposed regulations, if finalized as currently drafted, generally would be effective for required minimum distributions that occur on and after January 1, 2022.
SECURE Act RMD Reminder
Continue reading “IRS Proposes Updates to the RMD Rules”
On February 23, 2022, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas invalidated portions of Part II of the interim final rule (“IFR”) issued by the U.S. Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and Treasury (“Tri-Agencies”), implementing the dispute resolution provisions of the No Surprises Act (“NSA”). While the ruling in the case, Texas Medical Association v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, may impact medical plan costs, it does not substantively affect the consumer protections against surprise medical billing added by the NSA, which took effect in 2022.
Continue reading “Federal District Court Invalidates Some Surprise Billing Rules: What It Means for the No Surprises Act”
When determining alternative pension benefits (such as joint and survivor annuities and early retirement benefits), a recent court decision held that underlying actuarial assumptions selected decades ago do not violate federal law simply because they are outdated and may result in a pension benefit that is less than using more current actuarial assumption.
Continue reading “ERISA Litigation Roundup: Mortality Table Pension Plan Litigation – Reasonableness Not Required”
Internal Revenue Code Section 280G (280G) (commonly referred to as the golden parachute provision) is intended to discourage the payment of excessive compensation to certain shareholders, officers and highly compensated service providers of companies undergoing a change in control. In general, when transaction-related payments or benefits to a covered individual equal or exceed three times the individual’s average compensation for the previous five years, the individual may be subject to a 20% excise tax, and the company’s deduction for such payments or benefits may be disallowed (in each case, with respect to amounts in excess of the average compensation).
280G commonly applies when a C-corporation undergoes a corporate transaction. However, in certain circumstances, 280G can also apply when the only entity being sold is an LLC. Note: Although this post focuses on the applicability of 280G to LLCs, 280G can also apply to the sale of a partnership in the circumstance described in #2 below.
Continue reading “Selling an LLC? Don’t Forget About 280G!”