The Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act suspended 401(k) loan repayments for qualified individuals that are due between March 27, 2020, and December 31, 2020. Qualified individuals include plan participants (1) who have been diagnosed with COVID-19, (2) whose spouse or dependents have been diagnosed with COVID-19, or (3) who experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of COVID-19. The CARES Act allows the loan period to be extended to account for the suspension, and prior IRS guidance in Notice 2005-92 allows the loan to be reamortized.
There is another loan provision included in Notice 2020-23 that effectively delays repayment of all 401(k) loans. Notice 2020-23 Section III.A. defines affected taxpayers to include anyone performing a “time-sensitive action” listed in Revenue Procedure 2018-58, which applies to any taxpayer affected by a federally declared disaster and includes in the list of actions payment of 401(k) plan loans.
COVID-19 is a federally declared disaster in every state, so Notice 2020-23 delays any 401(k) plan loan payments that are due between April 1, 2020, and July 14, 2020. But unlike the CARES Act loan suspension, under Notice 2020-23 taxpayers only have a delay and potentially will have to pay all missed loan repayments as of July 15, 2020 (additional guidance from the IRS on this point would be very helpful). As of the date of publication of this alert, it does not appear that the term of the loan can be adjusted to include the Notice 2020-23 delay period (unlike the CARES Act loan suspensions). It is likely that the loan still will be subject to the original loan term.
If the Notice 2020-23 payment delay applies, then it will impact 401(k) plans because of the timing of when a loan default occurs. For example, generally if a participant stopped making loan repayments in May, the latest default period allowed under the Code would be the end of the third quarter (although a 401(k) plan may specify a shorter period). But if the loan repayment due date is delayed until July 15, 2020, then the loan will end up missing a repayment in Q3 and defaulting in Q4. Based on the July 15, 2020, delayed payment date, it is unlikely any loan recipients will have any tax issues that span into 2021 as a result of Notice 2020-23.
Note that 401(k) plan sponsors and their recordkeepers should be aware of this issue and properly administer plan loans in light of Notice 2020-23.
A new California law requires California employers to notify employees who participate in a flexible spending account (FSA) and work in California of any deadlines applicable to withdrawing funds from their FSA before the end of the year. This includes health care FSAs, dependent care FSAs and adoption assistance FSAs.
Continue reading “Now Hear This: California Enacts FSA Notice Requirement”
The American Arbitration Association (AAA) significantly altered its rules for multiemployer pension plan arbitrations to respond to Pension Benefit Guaranty Board (PBGC) concerns and public comments regarding recent fee increases and the selection of arbitrators. Today, the PBGC published a Notice of Approval of AAA’s application of its amended rules. Click here for our alert on the changes, which discusses the welcome relief these amended rules provide employers who wish to challenge withdrawal liability assessments and the impact on arbitrating assessments between multiemployer plans and employers.
In Pizzella v. Vinoskey, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Virginia held that an independent fiduciary hired to represent the interests of participants in an employee stock ownership plan (the ESOP) engaged in a prohibited transaction and breached its fiduciary duties of prudence and loyalty in a $21 million transaction involving the ESOP’s purchase of stock from one of the company’s founders. The ESOP was awarded a $6.5 million judgment based on the amount that the Court determined the ESOP had overpaid for the stock. The Court held that the founder and independent fiduciary were jointly and severally liable for this judgment.
Continue reading “A Lesson in ESOP Transactions: Do Your Diligence and Don’t Ignore Red Flags”
The withdrawal liability case of the year came to an anticlimactic end on Monday, September 16, 2019, as the Second Circuit docket sheet of New York Times Company v. Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Publishers’ Pension Fund pinged to life with a stipulation withdrawing the case with prejudice.
The most-watched issue in the case was a challenge to the Segal Blend discount rate assumption used by many multiemployer pension plans to calculate employer withdrawal liability. The discount rate assumption can have a massive effect on an employer’s withdrawal liability as even a small variation can dramatically increase a withdrawal calculation.
Continue reading “In with a Bang and Out with a Whimper: Second Circuit Challenge to Popular Withdrawal Liability Calculation Method Settles”