Spencer Fane LLP Logo
Latest Posts

IRS Eases Correction Rules for Missed Elective Deferrals

The IRS has just given sponsors of 401(k) and 403(b) plans a number of additional options for correcting a failure to honor an employee’s election to defer a portion of his or her pay. These new options, as announced in Revenue Procedure 2015-28, will be particularly helpful to sponsors of plans that provide for automatic enrollment (including those with an automatic escalation feature).

IRS to Plan Sponsors: You Must Retain Documentation for Loans and Hardship Withdrawals

Most sponsors of defined contribution plans rely on a third-party administrator (a “TPA”) to handle participant loans and hardship withdrawals—typically through the TPA’s website. However, in guidance issued last week, the IRS cautions that the sponsor—not the TPA or the participant—is responsible for maintaining documents proving that those transactions comply with the law.

Another Court Enforces DOL’s Electronic SPD Rules

At some point, as electronic communication becomes the norm – and as paper virtually disappears from the workplace – we will surely see a softening of the conditions imposed by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) on the electronic distribution of summary plan descriptions (“SPDs”). But a recent decision by a New York federal court confirms that we are not yet at that point.

Davidson v. Henkel: A Rather Taxing Decision

A recent decision by a Michigan federal trial court serves as a warning to employers that their failure to shield participants in nonqualified deferred compensation plans from adverse tax consequences may subject the employers to unanticipated liability. Although this decision (in Davidson v. Henkel Corporation) involved FICA taxation, the court’s reasoning would seem to apply equally to the 20% penalty tax and interest assessments triggered by a violation of Code Section 409A.

Anthem Security Breach May Require Plan Sponsor Action

The well-publicized cyber-attack on Anthem, Inc.’s information technology system may require employers to take prompt action to protect the rights of their health plan participants. Although neither the scope nor the cause of the security breach has yet been determined, the attack has been described as both “massive” and “sophisticated.”

IRS Grants Limited Transition Relief to Small-Employer Premium Reimbursement Arrangements

In a series of notices and FAQs, the IRS has clearly enunciated its view that an employer’s reimbursement of an employee’s premiums for individual health insurance violates certain provisions of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”). While reiterating this key point, Notice 2015-17 does grant a limited period of relief for smaller employers. Nonetheless, even those employers should be working toward a June 30 deadline to comply with these ACA constraints.

IRS Now Accepting “Cycle E” Determination-Letter Applications

The IRS is now accepting applications for updated determination letters on behalf of individually designed retirement plans falling within “Cycle E” of the determination-letter program. These include plans sponsored by employers having either a “5” or “0” as the last digit of their employer identification number, as well as governmental plans that elected not to file during Cycle C.

Don’t Forget About HIPAA When Addressing Data Security

Among the many data security and breach laws that exist, covered health care providers and health plans must also contend with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (HIPAA).

No Good Deed…: Allowing Part-Time Employees to Make Health FSA Contributions May Trigger ACA Penalties

When it comes to health coverage, many employers draw a distinction between full-time and part-time employees. To be eligible to enroll in the employer’s health plan, an employee must work a minimum number of hours per pay period. But many of those same employers then allow even part-time employees to contribute to a health flexible spending account (“health FSA”). After all, doing so costs the employer nothing (and even saves a modest amount in employment taxes), and why not at least give those employees an opportunity to pay some of their medical expenses on a pre-tax basis? Unfortunately, this paternalistic approach may now subject an employer to substantial daily penalties under the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”).

Agencies Plug Several Holes in the ACA Dike

In the years since the 2010 enactment of the Affordable Care Act (“ACA”), the agencies charged with enforcing the ACA have worried that certain responses to the law’s requirements could negatively affect the overall health insurance system. For instance, because the ACA requires insurers to issue individual health insurance coverage without regard to health status, sponsors of self-funded employer plans may be tempted to shift their high-risk employees into the individual market. But by leaving only healthier employees in the self-funded plans, this approach could result in “adverse selection” – leading to an erosion of the individual insurance market.

1 6 7 8 9 Showing 71-80 of 85 results View All