Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments. See the newest episode, The SEC Staff Speaks Out on Standards for Rollover Recommendations, below.
IRS Announces 2025 Retirement Plan Limits
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently announced the 2025 cost-of-living adjustments to various benefit and contribution limits applicable to retirement plans. The IRS modestly increased the applicable limits for 2025. The following limits apply to retirement plans in 2025:
- The limit on elective deferrals under 401(k), 403(b) and eligible 457(b) plans increased to $23,500.
- The limit on catch-up contributions by participants aged 50 or older did not change and remains at $7,500. This means that the maximum amount of elective deferral contributions for those participants in 2025 is $31,000.
- The enhanced catch-up contribution limit for those ages 60-63 in 2025 is $11,250. This means that the maximum amount of elective deferral contributions for these participants in 2025 is $34,750.
- The Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 415 annual addition limit is increased to $70,000 for 401(k) and other defined contribution plans, and the annual benefit limit is increased to $280,000 for defined benefit plans.
- The limit on the annual compensation that can be taken into account by qualified plans under Code Section 417 is increased to $350,000.
- The dollar level threshold for becoming a highly compensated employee under Code Section 414(q) increased to $160,000 (which, under the look-back rule, applies to HCE determinations in 2026 based on compensation paid in 2025).
- The dollar level threshold for becoming a “key employee” in a top-heavy plan under Code Section 416(i)(1) is increased to $230,000.
Continue reading “IRS Announces 2025 Retirement Plan Limits”
Trends in Optional Features Available Under Secure Act 2.0
During our October 30, 2024 webinar, “It’s 2024 and … It’s Decision Time in the Retirement Plan World!” we polled our audience on their interest in adding optional features available under Secure Act 2.0 (discussed in our prior blog post). The results are in!
Based on the responses to our polls:
- There is very little interest in adding Pension-Linked Emergency Savings Accounts with 60 percent of respondents selecting “Strong No” and an additional 13 percent responding “Lean No,” for a total negative response rate of 73 percent.
- Similarly, a strong response against adding Emergency Personal Expense Distribution with a collective 65 percent of respondents selecting “Strong No” or “Lean No.”
- Student Loan Matching Contributions were not given a passing grade with a collective 56 percent of respondents selecting “Strong No” or “Lean No.”
- In contract, there was more interest in adding Qualified Birth or Adoption Distribution (a collective 40 percent “Strong Yes” or “Lean Yes”) and Domestic Abuse Victim Distribution (a collective 39 percent “Strong Yes” or “Lean Yes”).
- The Disaster Recovery Distribution was in the middle, with 43 percent responding “Maybe,” 29 percent not interested in adding these to their plan and 15 percent planning to add this option to their plan.
Continue reading “Trends in Optional Features Available Under Secure Act 2.0”
Retirement Philosophy
As qualified retirement plan sponsors evaluate the various new distribution options available under SECURE 2.0 (read our overview here), it is worth asking: What is your company’s retirement philosophy? The answer to this question will help guide plan sponsors (including, where applicable, the benefits committee) in determining what changes, if any, they’d like to make to their plans.
As we’ve been advising and discussing the new SECURE 2.0 distribution options with our clients, there are three different philosophies we’ve seen:
ERISA Moments Ep. 26: DOL’s Rules Are Stayed: What Remains in Their Place?
Take a quick dive into the exciting world of ERISA with Faegre Drinker benefits and executive compensation attorneys Fred Reish and Brad Campbell. In this quick-hit series of updates, Fred and Brad offer a high-level view of current trends and recent ERISA developments. See the newest episode, DOL’s Rules Are Stayed: What Remains in Their Place?, below.
Continue reading “ERISA Moments Ep. 26: DOL’s Rules Are Stayed: What Remains in Their Place?”
Reproductive Health Information Protections Afforded by New HIPAA Privacy Guidance
On April 26, 2024, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) issued a Final Rule updating certain Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) privacy rules with respect to the disclosure of protected health information (PHI) related to reproductive health care. Essentially, the Final Rule prohibits a covered entity from using or disclosing PHI to conduct criminal, civil or administrative investigations, or to impose corresponding liability on a person seeking or providing lawful reproductive health care.
Reproductive health care is broadly defined as “health care that affects the health of the individual in all matters relating to the reproductive system and to its functions and processes.” The preamble provides a non-exhaustive list of examples, including contraception, fertility and infertility treatments, and pregnancy-related care.
Eleventh Circuit Holds That Burden of Proof of Loss Causation is on Plaintiffs in ERISA Actions
In an August 2, 2024, decision in Pizarro v. The Home Depot, Inc., No. 22-13643 (11th Cir. Aug. 2, 2024), the Eleventh Circuit reaffirmed its position — and the position of the majority of federal circuit courts to address the issue — on the burden of proving loss causation for purposes of an ERISA claim for fiduciary breach. Loss causation is an element of a plaintiff’s claim for damages because of a breach of fiduciary duty, and the plaintiff bears the burden of proving causation of loss.
Pizarro involves claims by a putative class of Home Depot employees (Plaintiffs) who participated in Home Depot’s 401(k) plan. Plaintiffs alleged that the plan had excessive fees and imprudent investment options, but the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia granted summary judgment in Home Depot’s favor because Plaintiffs could not prove that they suffered any losses caused by a fiduciary’s alleged breach. To make such a showing, Plaintiffs would have to prove that a hypothetical “prudent” fiduciary would have not made the same choices that the defendants made. The District Court held that Home Depot’s investment decisions were “objectively prudent,” whether or not those decisions resulted from the right process, and thus Plaintiffs could not prove damages.
New DOL Fiduciary Rule Stayed: What Advisors and Insurance Agents Recommending Rollovers Should Do Now
The stay of the new DOL fiduciary rule will remain in effect until the lawsuits challenging the rule are decided and appeals are resolved. This litigation process is likely to take several years. In the meantime, the fiduciary status of advisors and agents will be measured under the current regulation’s five-part test. However, in some cases the application of that test could result, as this article explains, in apparent one-time recommendations being deemed to satisfy the five-part test. As a result, advisors, agents and their firms should carefully consider where fiduciary status for retirement accounts may apply and, in those cases, should consider complying with the conditions of an applicable prohibited transaction exemption.
To view the full alert, visit the Faegre Drinker website.
Final Regulations Issued on Required Minimum Distributions Under SECURE Act
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued final regulations for required minimum distributions (RMDs) from certain retirement plans, including tax-qualified plans, Internal Revenue Code (Code) section 403(b) plans, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and Code section 457(b) eligible deferred compensation plans. The regulations implement changes put into law by the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022 (SECURE 2.0).
The final regulations apply for distribution calendar years beginning on or after January 1, 2025. However, as some of the RMD changes addressed in the final regulations already have taken effect in accordance with the effective dates set forth in the SECURE Act and SECURE 2.0, plan sponsors should review current plan operations for compliance.
Continue reading “Final Regulations Issued on Required Minimum Distributions Under SECURE Act”
IRS Proposed Regulations for Plan Forfeitures
Today, employees are more likely than ever to seek new employment opportunities and change jobs. These employees may leave a company before becoming fully vested in their qualified retirement plan benefits – which may result in forfeiture of their unvested benefits. What is a retirement plan sponsor supposed to do with the forfeited amount? More importantly, what is the plan sponsor allowed to do with these forfeited amounts? This is an important question, as the use of forfeitures can raise compliance questions under both ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code requirements for qualified retirement plans.
For defined contribution retirement plans, such as 401(k) plans, the IRS has typically allowed plan sponsors to apply forfeitures to offset administrative expenses or reduce employer contributions. In proposed regulations, issued in February 2023, the IRS reiterates this position, indicating that defined contribution plan forfeitures may be used to offset plan administrative expenses or reduce employer contributions, or may be reallocated to participants pursuant to a nondiscriminatory formula.
Continue reading “IRS Proposed Regulations for Plan Forfeitures”