One of the more difficult issues in corporate transactions that are structured as asset purchases is how to deal with outstanding participant loans. In the typical asset purchase scenario – where the purchaser does not assume sponsorship of, or accept a transfer of assets from, the seller’s retirement plan – employees of the seller who become employed by the asset purchaser generally incur a termination of employment with the seller, and therefore a distributable event under the seller’s 401(k) plan. If a participant has an outstanding loan at the time of the asset sale, then unless the distribution is paid in a direct rollover to another employer plan that is willing to accept a rollover of a participant loan, the participant must either (i) pay off the loan before taking the distribution, or (ii) incur a potentially taxable “plan-loan offset” (where the participant’s account balance is reduced, or offset, by the outstanding loan balance).
On November 9, 2018, the IRS issued proposed amendments to the regulations under Code Section 401(k) that describe the circumstances under which participants may take an in-service distribution of elective deferrals (and contributions subject to similar withdrawal restrictions, such as QMACs, QNECs and safe-harbor contributions) on account of financial hardship. The proposed amendments to the regulations reflect several statutory changes to 401(k) plans since the Pension Protection Act of 2006, including the recent changes (that are scheduled to apply to hardship distributions in plan years beginning after December 31, 2018) under the Bipartisan Budget Act (“BBA”) of 2018. Most importantly, the amendments answer several questions that plan sponsors and plan administrators have had with respect to both the BBA and the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act (“TCJA”) of 2017, and provide some much-needed transition relief for hardship distributions made in 2019.
Following announcements by both the Internal Revenue Service and the Social Security Administration, we know most of the dollar amounts that employers will need to administer their benefit plans for 2019. The key dollar amounts for retirement plans and individual retirement accounts (“IRAs”) are shown on the front side of our 2019 limits card.
The reverse side of the card shows a number of dollar amounts that employers will need to know in order to administer health flexible spending accounts (“FSAs”), health savings accounts (“HSAs”), and high-deductible health plans (“HDHPs”), as well as health plans that are not grandfathered under the Affordable Care Act.
A laminated version of the 2019 limits card is available upon request. To obtain one or more copies, please contact any member of our Employee Benefits Group. You also can contact the Spencer Fane Marketing Department at 816-474-8100 or email@example.com.
The IRS has updated the model notice (sometimes referred to as the “402(f) Notice” or “Special Tax Notice”) that is required to be provided to participants before they receive an “eligible rollover distribution” from a qualified 401(a) plan, a 403(b) tax-sheltered annuity, or a governmental 457(b) plan. Notice 2018-74, which was published on September 18, 2018, modifies the prior safe-harbor explanations (model notices) that were published in 2014. Like the 2014 guidance, the 2018 Notice includes two separate “model” notices that are deemed to satisfy the requirements of Code Section 402(f): one for distributions that are not from a designated Roth account, and one for distributions from a designated Roth account. The 2018 Notice also includes an appendix that can be used to modify (rather than replace) existing safe-harbor 402(f) notices.
Cyberattacks have managed to invade all walks of life, and employee benefit plans are no exception. When a plan is attacked, the fallout can be overwhelmingly expensive and burdensome to correct. Many plan sponsors are purchasing cyber liability insurance coverage to supplement their data security measures. Understanding those policies – and their exclusions – is important for sponsors who are exploring such coverage.
In a recent decision, the Sixth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals resolved an important question in a way that should put administrators of ERISA plans in a far stronger position vis-à-vis claimants who disagree with the administrators’ plan interpretations. Essentially, the court in Clemons v. Norton Healthcare Retirement Plan held that the contract-interpretation doctrine of “contra proferentum” has no application once a court has determined that a plan document grants the administrator the type of broad discretion approved by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1989 Firestone decision.
Over the past two months, the United States Court of Appeals for both the Ninth Circuit and the Third Circuit have upheld “anti-assignment” clauses in ERISA-governed health plan documents. These holdings – which adopt the same position previously taken by the First, Second, Fifth, Tenth, and Eleventh circuits – are a blow to healthcare providers that attempt to bring suits against employer-sponsored health plans (or the insurance companies funding benefits under those plans) as “assignees” of individual plan participants.
On April 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission issued a proposal package that includes two new rules and one interpretative release. The package consists of three components – Regulation Best Interest, Investment Adviser Standard of Conduct Interpretation, and Form CRS – Relationship Summary. According to the SEC, the proposal is intended to balance investor protections and regulatory requirements with investor access and choice. Each component of the proposal is available for public comment for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.
In a series of three articles, Spencer Fane LLP describes the SEC’s proposal and potential impacts on broker-dealers and investment advisers. This third article describes the Form CRS – Relationship Summary portion of the SEC’s fiduciary proposal.
The Securities and Exchange Commission voted on April 18 to issue a proposal package that includes two new rules and one interpretative release. According to the SEC, each component of the proposal – Regulation Best Interest, Investment Adviser Standard of Conduct Interpretation, and Form CRS – Relationship Summary – is intended to enhance investor protections and regulatory clarity while maintaining investor access and choice. Each part of the SEC’s proposal is available for public comment for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register.
In a series of three articles, Spencer Fane LLP describes the SEC’s proposal and potential impacts to broker-dealers and investment advisers. This second article describes the Investment Adviser Standard of Conduct Interpretation.
In an open meeting on April 18, the Securities and Exchange Commission voted four to one to issue two new rules and one interpretative release that are intended to provide investor protections and regulatory clarity, as well as investor access and choice. Specifically, the SEC issued Regulation Best Interest, Investment Adviser Standard of Conduct Interpretation, and Form CRS – Relationship Summary. Each component of the SEC’s proposal is available for public comment for 90 days after publication in the Federal Register. In a series of three articles, Spencer Fane LLP describes the SEC’s proposal and potential impacts on broker-dealers and investment advisers. This first article describes the Regulation Best Interest portion of the SEC’s fiduciary proposal.