Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Medicare Part B Premium Protection

My client will be 65 this fall and has begun the Medicare application process. We were planning to delay her Social Security filing until age 70 to maximize her benefits. She contacted me because she heard that Medicare Part B premiums will be more expensive if she doesn’t file for Social Security sooner. Are Medicare Part B premiums affected by a person’s Social Security filing?

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from California is representative of a common inquiry related to Medicare Part B premiums.

Highlights of Discussion

Potentially, yes. Medicare Part B premiums may be affected by Social Security filing status. Medicare Part B premiums, generally, increase each year. However, if an individual’s Medicare Part B premiums are “protected,” then premium increases may be less than if the premiums were not protected. Medicare Part B premiums are protected if the individual is receiving Social Security benefits. If the Medicare Part B premiums are protected then Part B premium increases may be no more than the Social Security cost of living adjustment (COLA) for the year.

As background, most Medicare eligible people pay the standard premium amount. The standard Part B premium amount for 2018 is $134. For some, it may be higher, depending on the individual’s income. If a person’s modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) is above a certain amount, then he or she will pay an “Income Related Monthly Adjustment Amount” (IRMAA). Refer to Part B costs on Medicare’s Web site for more details. Medicare uses the MAGI reported on your IRS tax return from two years ago (2016 return for 2018).

However, many people (70 percent) who receive Social Security benefits pay less than the standard Medicare Part B premium ($130 on average) as a result of the law’s “hold harmless” rule that protects the premium from rising more than the Social Security COLA for the year. To qualify for reduced premiums under the hold harmless provision, individuals must receive Social Security benefits, cannot be subject to premiums based on IRMAA, they must have had their Part B premiums paid out of those Social Security benefits for at least two months in the previous year; and they do not receive a COLA large enough to cover the increased premium.[1]

Example

Jill pays the standard amount ($134 per month) in Medicare Part B premiums and receives Social Security benefits from which the premiums are deducted. Her Medicare Part B premium is protected. In 2019, Jill’s Social Security COLA increase is $15 and the Medicare Part B premium increases $25. Because of the protected status, Jill’s Part B premium will increase by only $15. Her Part B increase is limited to no more than the Social Security COLA increase of $15. If Jill had not been receiving Social Security benefits, her Part B premium would have increased by $25.

Conclusion

Protecting Medicare Part B premiums is one consideration among many that individuals should weigh when determining when to begin Social Security benefits. It may make sense to file for Social Security benefits at 65 to protect the individual from Medicare Part B premium increases. Keep in mind that even if the premium is protected, it can increase, but the increase cannot be greater than the annual Social Security COLA.

 

[1]medicareinteractive.org, Increases in Part B premiums and the hold harmless provision

 

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Form 5500 Limited-Scope Audit

“What is a Form 5500 limited-scope audit, and how does a plan qualify for one?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans, including nonqualified plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Massachusetts is representative of a common inquiry related filing Form 5500, Annual Return/Report of Employee Benefit Plan.

Highlights of Discussion

Generally, ERISA requires administrators (the plan sponsors in most cases) of employee benefit plans  with 100 or more participants to have full scope audits of their plans, conducted by an independent qualified public accountant (IQPA), as part of their obligation to file an annual Form 5500 series of reports with the Department of Labor (DOL) and IRS. The IQPA is tasked with conducting an examination of all financial statements of the plan, and of other books and records of the plan as may be necessary, to enable him or her to form an opinion as to whether the financial statements and schedules conform to generally accepted accounting principles and standards.

Under ERISA Section 103(a)(3)(C) and DOL Reg. 2520.103–8, plan sponsors may instruct the IQPA not to perform any auditing procedures with respect to investment information prepared and certified by “qualified institutions.”  A qualified institution could be a bank, trust company or similar institution, or an insurance company that is regulated, supervised, and subject to periodic examination by a state or federal agency that acts as trustee or custodian for the investments. This option is referred to as a “limited scope audit,” and is available only if the certification by the qualified institution includes a statement that the information is complete and accurate. Limited-scope audits are typically less expensive that full scope audits.

Brokerage firms and investment companies generally would not meet the eligibility requirements for a limited scope audit. However, if those types of firms have established separate trust companies, such trust companies, potentially, could meet the requirements to be a qualified institution for this purpose. A 2002 DOL information letter provides more insight into what constitutes a qualified institution. It is the responsibility of the plan sponsor to determine whether the conditions for limiting the scope of an IQPA’s examination have been satisfied, and only the plan sponsor can request the IQPA to limit the scope of the audit. The American Society of Certified Public Accounts has put together a “Limited Scope Audits Resource Center” to help plan sponsors satisfy their fiduciary responsibility in this area.

The DOL attributes the overall increase in noncompliant plan audits with the corresponding increase in the number of limited-scope audits performed.[1] According to a DOL report, “Assessing the Quality of Employee Benefit Plan Audits,” of the plans studied, 81 percent had limited scope audits and of those limited-scope audits, 60 percent contained major deficiencies. In fact, as a result of the study, the DOL recommended that Congress amend ERISA to repeal the limited-scope audit exemption.

Conclusion

While Form 5500 limited-scope audits may be less costly and time consuming up front, if inappropriately used or incorrectly done, they could result in a greater expenditure of money and time in the long run.

[1] DOL, “Assessing the Quality of Employee Benefit Plan Audits,” 2015

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Rollover of Plan Loan Offsets and 402(f) Notices

“Has the IRS issued an updated model plan distribution notice to reflect the changes related to rollovers of plan loan offset amounts?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans, including nonqualified plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Illinois is representative of a common inquiry related to the special tax notice required for plan distributions under Internal Revenue Code 402(f).

Highlights of Discussion

The IRS periodically issues model plan distribution notices, also referred to as a “special tax notice,” “rollover notice” or the IRC Sec. “402(f) notice,” in order to incorporate any changes to the language as a result of law changes. As of this posting, the IRS had not issued updates to its model 402(f) notice to reflect changes in the information as a result of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA-2017), effective January 1, 2018. The last model notice was issued in 2014 (Notice 2014-74).

Plan sponsors are required to provide up-to-date 402(f) notices to convey important tax information to plan participants and beneficiaries who have hit a distribution trigger under a qualified plan and may receive a payout that would be eligible for rollover (Treasury Regulation 1.402(f)-1). A 402(f) notice, in part, explains the rollover rules and describes the effects of rolling—or not rolling—an eligible rollover distribution to an IRA or another plan, including the automatic 20 percent federal tax withholding that the plan administrator must apply to an eligible rollover distribution that is not directly rolled over. Plan administrators must provide the 402(f) notice to plan participants no less than 30 days and no more than 180 days before the distribution is processed. A participant may waive the 30-day period and complete the rollover sooner.

A plan may provide that if a loan is not repaid (is in default) the participant’s account balance is reduced, or “offset,” by the unpaid portion of the loan. The value of the loan offset is treated as an actual distribution for rollover purposes and, therefore, may be eligible for rollover. In most cases, participants (or beneficiaries) who experience a loan offset can rollover an amount that equals the offset to an eligible retirement plan. Instead of the usual 60-day rollover deadline, effective January 1, 2018, as a result of TCJA-2017, if the plan loan offset is due to plan termination or severance from employment, participants have until the due date, including extensions, for filing their federal income tax returns for the year in which the offset occurs to complete a tax-free rollover (e.g., until October 15, 2019, for a 2018 plan loan offset).

Conclusion

Even though the IRS has not updated its model 402(f) to reflect the extended rollover period for certain loan offsets as a result of TCJA-2017, plan sponsors and administrators must ensure the distribution paperwork and 402(f) notices that they are currently using include language that reflects the new rollover timeframe. For those that rely on plan document providers, ask if the new 402(f) notice is available.

 

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Maximum contributions to 403(b), 401(k) and 457(b) plans

“One of my clients participates in a 401(k) plan [her own “solo (k)”], plus a 403(b) plan and a 457(b) plan (through the public school system). Her accountant is telling her that she, potentially, could contribute twice the $18,500 deferral limit for 2018. How can that be so?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans, including nonqualified plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Massachusetts is representative of a common inquiry related to the maximum annual limit on employee salary deferrals.

Highlights of Discussion

First off, kudos to your client for working with you and a tax advisor in order to determine what amounts she can contribute to her employer-sponsored retirement plans as this is an important tax question based on her personal situation that is best answered with the help of professionals. Generally speaking, it may be possible for her to contribute more than one would expect given the plan types she has and based on existing plan contribution rules, which are covered in the following paragraphs.

For 2018, 457(b) contributions (consisting of employee salary deferrals and/or employer contributions combined) cannot exceed $18,500, plus catch-up contribution amounts if eligible [Treasury Regulation Section (Treas. Reg. §1.457-5)]. Since 2002, contributions to 457(b) plans no longer reduce the amount of deferrals to other salary deferral plans, such as 401(k) plans. A participant’s 457(b) contributions need only be combined with contributions to other 457(b) plans when applying the annual contribution limit. Therefore, contributions to a 457(b) plan are not aggregated with deferrals an individual makes to other types of plans.

In contrast, the application of the maximum annual deferral limit under Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC §) 402(g) (the “402(g) limit”) for an individual who participates in both a 401(k) and a 403(b) plan requires the individual to aggregate deferrals between the two plans [Treas. Reg. §1.402(g)-1(b)]. Consequently, an individual who participates in both a 457(b) plan and one or more other deferral-type plans, such as a 403(b), 401(k), salary reduction simplified employee pension plan, or savings incentive match plan for employees has two separate annual deferral limits. Let’s look at an example.

Example #1:

For 2018, 32-year-old Erika has an individual 401(k) plan for her business as a self-employed tutor. She is also on the faculty at the local state university, and participates in its 457(b) and 403(b) plans. Assuming adequate levels of compensation, Erika can defer up to $18,500 between her 401(k) plan and her 403(b) plan, plus another $18,500 to her 457(b) plan.

Also, keep in mind the various special catch-up contribution options depending on the type of plan outlined next.

Catch-Up Contribution Options by Plan Type

401(k) 403(b) 457(b)
Age 50 or Over Option

 

Employees age 50 or over can make catch-up contributions of $6,000 beyond the basic 402(g) limit of $18,500.

 

15-Years of Service with Qualifying Entity Option:[1]

402(g) limit, plus the lesser of

1) $3,000 or

2) $15,000, reduced by the amount of additional elective deferrals made in prior years because of this rule, or

3) $5,000 times the number of the employee’s years of service for the organization, minus the total elective deferrals made for earlier years.

 

Age 50 or Over Option

 

Employees age 50 or over can make catch-up contributions of $6,000 beyond the basic 402(g) limit.

 

Note: Must apply the 15-year option first

Age 50 or Over Option

Employees age 50 or over can make catch-up contributions of $6,000 beyond the basic 457 deferral limit of $18,500.

Special “Last 3-Year” Option

 

In the three years before reaching the plan’s normal retirement age employees can contribute either:

•Twice the annual 457(b) limit (in 2018, $18,500 x 2 = $37,000),

 

Or

 

•The annual 457(b) limit, plus amounts allowed in prior years not contributed.

 

Note: If a governmental 457(b) allows both the age-50 catch-up and the 3-year catch-up, one or the other—but not both—can be used.

 

415 Annual Additions Limit

Another consideration when an individual participates in more than one plan is the annual additions limit under IRC Sec. 415(c),[2] which typically limits plan contributions (employer plus employee contributions for the person) for a limitation year [3] made on behalf of an individual to all plans maintained by the same employer. However, contributions to 457(b) plans are not included in a person’s annual additions (see 1.415(c)-1(a)(2). With respect to 403(b) plans and the 415 annual additions limit, there are special plan aggregation rules that apply.

Generally, the IRS considers 403(b) participants to have exclusive control over their own 403(b) plans [Treas. Reg. Section 1.415(f)-1(f)(1)]. Therefore, in many cases, contributions to a 403(b) plan are not aggregated with contributions to any other defined contribution plan of the individual (meaning two 415 annual additions limits in some cases). An exception to this rule, however, occurs when the participant is deemed to control the employer sponsoring the defined contribution plan in which he or she participates. In such case, a participant must aggregate his or her 403(b) contributions with contributions to any other defined contribution plans that he or she may control [see  IRC § 415(k)(4)].Regarding the treatment of catch-up contributions, the “Age 50 or Over” catch-up contributions [see 1.415(c)-1(b)(2)(ii)(B)] are not included as annual additions, regardless of plan type, whereas the 403(b) “15-Years of Service” catch-up contributions are included as annual additions (IRS 403(b) Fix-It Guide.)

Example #2

Adam is a non-owner, employee of an IRC 501(c)(3) organization that contributes to a 403(b) plan on his behalf. Adam is also a participant in the organization’s defined contribution plan. Because Adam is deemed to control his own 403(b) plan, he is not required to aggregate contributions under the qualified defined contribution plan with those made under the 403(b) plan for purposes of the 415 annual additions test.

 

Example #3

The facts are the same as in Example #2, except that Adam is also a participant in a defined contribution plan of a corporation in which he is more than a 50 percent owner. The defined contribution plan of Adam’s corporation must be combined with his 403(b) plan for purposes of applying the limit under IRC 415(c) because Adam controls his corporation and is deemed to control his 403(b) plan.

Example #4

Dr. U.R. Well is employed by a nonprofit hospital that provides him with a 403(b) annuity contract. Doctor Well also maintains a private practice as a shareholder owning more than 50% of a professional corporation. Any qualified defined contribution plan of the professional corporation must be aggregated with the IRC 403(b) annuity contract for purposes of applying the 415 annual additions limit.

For more examples, please see the IRS’ Issue Snapshot – 403(b) Plan – Plan Aggregation.

Conclusion

Sometimes individuals who are lucky enough to participate in multiple employer-sponsored retirement plan types are puzzled by what their maximum contribution limits are. This is especially true when a person participates in a 401(k), 403(b) and 457(b) plan. That is why it is important to work with a financial and/or tax professional to help determine the optimal amount based on the participant’s unique situation.

[1] A public school system, hospital, home health service agency, health and welfare service agency, church, or convention or association of churches (or associated organization)

[2] For 2018, the limit is 100% of compensation up to $55,000 (or $61,000 for those > age 50).

[3] Generally, the calendar year, unless the plan specifies otherwise

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Forms of SEP plan documents and when to use them

“I have a client that would like to establish a SEP plan. What document options are available and what are the considerations for selection?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans, including nonqualified plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from New York is representative of a common inquiry related simplified employee pension (SEP) plans.

Highlights of Discussion

Employers that sponsor SEP plans must maintain them pursuant to a written document [Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC §) 408(k)(5). There are three document format options for SEP plans: 1) the IRS model form, which is IRS Form 5305-SEP Simplified Employee Pension – Individual Retirement Accounts Contribution Agreement; a prototype document offered by banks, insurance companies, mutual fund companies and other qualified financial institutions or forms providers; or 3) individually designed documents, which are typically written by attorneys. There are several considerations when selecting a SEP plan document including, but not limited to, cost, whether the sponsor maintains other retirement plans and desired design features.

Regardless of the format used, the deadline for establishing a SEP plan for a particular year is the business’s tax return deadline, plus extensions for that year.

EXAMPLE:

Pete’s Partnership operates on a calendar year, and has a five-month filing extension for its 2017 tax return. If the partnership wants a 2017 SEP plan, it has until September 15, 2018, to sign a document to set up the plan.

Form 5305-SEP

The IRS model Form 5305-SEP is available free of charge from the IRS’ website and there is no need to file a completed copy of it with the IRS. The IRS will consider a SEP plan as established using the model form when the sponsor completes and signs the form without modification; each eligible employee (or, as a last resort the SEP plan sponsor on behalf of an employee) establishes a traditional IRA to receive contributions, and the employer gives required notices to all eligible employees.

A SEP plan sponsor may not use the model Form 5303-SEP if any of the following statements are true. The employer

  • Maintains any other qualified retirement plan (except for another SEP or salary reduction SEP plan);
  • Has any eligible employees for whom traditional IRAs do not exist;
  • Uses the services of leased employees;
  • Wants a plan year other than the calendar-year;
  • Wants to exclude members of a controlled group of employers; or
  • Wants a contribution allocation formula that is other than pro rate (i.e., integrated with Social Security or flat dollar).

Prototype SEP

Prototype SEP plan documents are available for a nominal fee from various prototype document sponsors for use when a model form is not permitted and/or the employer wants more flexibility in plan design. By filing IRS Form 5306-A, Application for Approval of Prototype Simplified Employee Pension (SEP) or Savings Incentive Match Plan for Employees of Small Employers (SIMPLE IRA Plan), and paying a fee, a prototype document sponsor (e.g., a bank, credit union, mutual fund company, etc.) can receive pre-approval of its plan document from the IRS in the form of an IRS opinion letter. An opinion letter states that a SEP agreement is acceptable in form. The IRS has prepared a Listing of Required Modifications (LRMs), or sample language, to assist document sponsors in drafting an acceptable prototype SEP.

An employer using a prototype SEP plan document, rather than a model, can

  • Use the business’s fiscal year as the plan year rather than the calendar year;
  • Use the services of leased employees;
  • Select a pro rata, integrated or flat dollar contribution allocation formula;
  • Maintain another qualified plan in addition to the SEP plan; and
  • Contribute a top-heavy minimum contribution only when the plan is actually top-heavy.

Individually Designed

An employer can engage an attorney to draft an individually designed SEP plan document that is unique to the employer, and request a letter ruling from the IRS as to its acceptability, if desired. While these employer-specific documents can be more flexible than a model or prototype document, an adopting employer will incur higher costs as a result of drafting, establishment and maintenance fees.

Conclusion

The IRS requires businesses that want SEP plans to execute a written plan document containing the terms of the arrangement. There are three general SEP plan document formats from which to choose. Considerations as to the most appropriate form include, but are not limited to, cost, whether the business maintains other retirement plans and desired design features. Business owners should consult a tax and/or legal advisor regarding their particular circumstances.

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Using unused PTO as 401(k) plan contributions

“My client has unused PTO with his employer and participates in the company’s 401(k) plan. Is there any way he can use the equivalent dollar amount of unused PTO to increase his 401(k) contributions?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans, including nonqualified plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Pennsylvania is representative of a common inquiry related to paid time off (PTO)[1] and 401(k) plans.

[1] Generally refers to a sick and vacation arrangement that provides for paid leave whether the leave is due to illness or incapacity.

Highlights of Discussion

Yes, it is possible that the equivalent dollar amount of unused PTO can be contributed to the 401(k) plan, provided 1) the 401(k) and PTO governing plan documents contain provisions to accommodate such conversions and contributions; 2) the contributions do not unduly discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees; and 3) the contributions do not exceed mandatory contribution limits (see Revenue Rulings 2009-31 regarding the conversion of annual unused PTO and 2009-32 for the conversion of unused PTO upon termination of employment).

Revenue Ruling 2009-31 outlines two possible PTO conversion-to-contribution scenarios that could be applied on an annual basis: 1) where the value of any unused PTO that would otherwise be forfeited is instead converted and contributed to a 401(k)/profit sharing plan as an employer nonelective contribution; and 2) where the value of any unused PTO that would otherwise be paid out in cash to the employee is instead converted to a salary deferral to the 401(k) plan at the employee’s election.

Scenario 1

Company Z maintains a PTO plan and a 401(k) plan. Under Company Z’s PTO plan, no unused PTO as of 12/31 may be carried over to the following year. Company Z amends its 401(k) plan and PTO plan to provide that the dollar equivalent of

1) Any unused PTO of an employee as of the close of business on 12/31 is forfeited under Company Z’s PTO plan and the dollar equivalent of the amount forfeited is allocated to the participant’s account under Company Z’s 401(k) plan as of 12/31 as a nonelective contribution up to the applicable annual additions limitation under IRC § 415(c) (the “415 limit”), and

2) Any remaining unused PTO is paid to the employee by 02/28 of the following year.

Nondiscrimination testing under IRC §401(a)(4) based on the contributions made for individual participants, generally, will be required, because the amount contributed and allocated for each participant will vary based on the amount of each participant’s unused PTO.

Example:

Sam works for Company Z and earns $25 per hour. He also participates in Company Z’s 401(k) and PTO plans with provisions as described in Scenario 1. As of 12/31/17, Sam had 20 hours of unused PTO. Therefore, the dollar equivalent of Sam’s unused PTO is $500. Because of the 415 limit, Company Z may contribute only $400 of unused PTO to Sam’s account under the 401(k) plan as an employer nonelective contribution.

Consequently, Company Z contributes $400 to its 401(k) plan on behalf of Sam as a nonelective contribution on 02/28/18, and allocates this amount to Sam’s account under Company Z’s 401(k) plan as of 12/31/2017. Company Z pays Sam the remaining $100 in cash on 02/28/2018.

Scenario 2

Company A maintains a PTO plan and a 401(k) plan. Under A’s PTO plan, at the end of the year employees may carry over to the following year an amount of unused PTO that does not exceed a specified number of hours (the carryover limit). The dollar equivalent of any unused PTO for a year in excess of the carryover limit is paid to the participant by 02/28 of the following year. Company A amends its 401(k) and PTO plans to provide that a participant may, prior to receipt, elect to treat all or part of the dollar equivalent of any unused PTO as an employee salary deferral to the 401(k) plan and have it allocated to the participant’s account as of the beginning of the third pay period of the following year as long as the amount does not exceed the 415 limit nor IRC §402(g) limit [the “402(g) limit”]. The dollar equivalent of any unused PTO that is not deferred to Company A’s 401(k) plan is paid to the participant by 02/28 of the following year.

Scenario 2

Company A maintains a PTO plan and a 401(k) plan. Under A’s PTO plan, at the end of the year employees may carry over to the following year an amount of unused PTO that does not exceed a specified number of hours (the carryover limit). The dollar equivalent of any unused PTO for a year in excess of the carryover limit is paid to the participant by 02/28 of the following year. Company A amends its 401(k) and PTO plans to provide that a participant may, prior to receipt, elect to treat all or part of the dollar equivalent of any unused PTO as an employee salary deferral to the 401(k) plan and have it allocated to the participant’s account as of the beginning of the third pay period of the following year as long as the amount does not exceed the 415 limit nor IRC §402(g) limit [the “402(g) limit”]. The dollar equivalent of any unused PTO that is not deferred to Company A’s 401(k) plan is paid to the participant by 02/28 of the following year.

Example:

Barb works for Company A and participates in its PTO and 401(k) plans under the terms described in Scenario 2. As of the close of business on 12/31/17, Barb had 15 hours of unused PTO in excess of the carryover limit and earns $30 per hour, so the dollar equivalent of Barb’s unused PTO in excess of the carryover limit is $450. Before receipt of the amount, Barb elects to have 60% of the dollar equivalent of the unused PTO, or $270, contributed to Company A’s 401(k) plan as an employee salary deferral. The contribution does not cause Barb’s deferrals to exceed the 402(g) limit nor the 415 limit. Company A allocates $270 to Barb’s account under the 401(k) plan as of 02/01/18. Under the terms of Company A’s 401(k) plan, this amount is treated as a contribution for the 2018 plan year. Company A pays Barb the remaining $180 on 02/01/18.

Conclusion

As a way for companies to increase their employees’ ability to save for retirement, a number of plan sponsors have amended or are considering amending their 401(k) and PTO plans to allow the equivalent dollar amount of unused PTO time to be converted to 401(k) plan contributions. The terms of the plan documents will dictate the process and treatment of the contributed amounts. Plan sponsors can refer to Rev. Ruls. 2009-31 and 2009-32 for specific guidance.

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
pension benefits
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

IRC §401(h) Plans

“Can you tell me what a 401(h) plan is?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans, including nonqualified plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from California is representative of a common inquiry related to plan types.

Highlights of Discussion

A “401(h) plan” is a retiree medical benefit account that is set up within a defined benefit pension plan[1] to provide for the payment of benefits for sickness, accident, hospitalization and medical expenses for retired employees, their spouses and dependents if the arrangement meets the requirements of Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC §) 401(h)(1) through (h)(6) (see page 1057 of link). A 401(h) account cannot discriminate in favor of officers, shareholders, supervisory employees, or highly compensated employees with respect to coverage or with respect to contributions and benefits.

401(h) plans are appealing because contributions to fund 401(h) benefits are deductible as contributions to a qualified plan; earnings on the account remain taxed deferred; and distributions are tax-free when used for qualified health care expenses. The amount contributed to the 401(h) account may not exceed the total cost of providing the benefits, and the cost must be spread over the future service.

According to Treasury Regulation § 1.401-14(c), a qualified 401(h) account must provide for the following:

  1. Retiree medical benefits must be “subordinate” to the pension benefits;
  2. Retiree medical benefits under the plan must be maintained in a separate account within the pension trust;
  3. For any key employee, a separate account must also be maintained for the benefits payable to that employee (or spouse or dependents) and, generally, medical benefits payable to that employee (or spouse or dependents) may come only from that separate account;
  4. Employer contributions to the account must be reasonable and ascertainable;
  5. All contributions (within the taxable year or thereafter) to the 401(h) account must be used to pay benefits provided under the medical plan and must not be diverted to any purpose other than the providing of such benefits;
  6. The terms of the plan must provide that, upon the satisfaction of all liabilities under the plan to provide the retiree medical benefits, all amounts remaining in the 401(h) account must be returned to the employer.

The subordinate requirement is not satisfied unless the plan provides that the aggregate contributions for retiree medical benefits, when added to the actual contributions for life insurance under the plan, are limited to 25 percent of the total contributions made to the plan (other than contributions to fund past service credits).

Aside from employer and/or employee contributions to a 401(h) account, plan sponsors may make tax-free “qualified transfers” of excess pension assets within their defined benefit plans to related 401(h) accounts. A plan is deemed to have excess assets for this purpose if assets exceed 125 percent[2] of the plan’s liability (IRC §420).  The requirements of a qualified transfer include the following:

  1. The transferred amount can be used to pay medical benefits for either the year of the transfer or the year of transfer and the future transfer period (i.e., a qualified future transfer);
  2. The transferred amount must approximate the amount of medical expenses anticipated for the year of transfer or the year of transfer and future years during the transfer period;
  3. An employer can make only one such transfer in a year;
  4. All accrued benefits of participants in the defined benefit plan must be fully vested; and
  5. The employer must commit to a minimum cost requirement with respect to the medical benefits.

Conclusion

Pension plan sponsors may find 401(h) accounts appealing as one way to provide for the payment of retiree medical benefits. Depending on the terms of the plan, a 401(h) account can receive employer and/or employee contributions as well as transfers of excess pension benefits, provided certain requirements are met. 401(h) account contributions are tax deductible; earnings are tax-deferred; and distributions can be tax free.

[1] Or money purchase pension plan or annuity plan

[2] For qualified future transfers, substitute 120 percent

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Correcting IRC §409A Plan Compliance Errors

“Is there a correction program for Internal Revenue Code Section (IRC §) 409A nonqualified plans, similar to the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) for qualified retirement plans?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans, including nonqualified plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business. A recent call with a financial advisor from Massachusetts is representative of a common inquiry related to nonqualified deferred compensation plans.

Highlights of Discussion

While there is no one comprehensive program like EPCRS for the correction of failures for IRC § 409A nonqualified deferred compensation plans (409A plans), the IRS has issued a series of notices containing pre-approved correction methods for certain operational failures and document noncompliance issues for such plans [IRS Notices 2008-113, 2010-6, 2010-80 and 2007-100  (which employers can follow in lieu of Notice 2008-113 for pre-2009 operational errors)]. Following the correction methods can help participants reduce or delay early taxation of their deferred compensation and avoid penalties.

If a business with a 409A plan fails to operate the plan in accordance with the requirements of IRC §409A, affected participants may become subject to current income taxation of their deferred compensation, as well as have interest and penalties assessed. Generally, all amounts that are deferred under a noncompliant 409A plan for the taxable year and all preceding taxable years are includable in gross income for the taxable year, unless the amount is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture or has previously been included in gross income. The IRS assesses interest on such amounts included in income at the IRS underpayment rate plus one percent, and applies a 20 percent penalty.  Moreover, state and local tax rules and penalties may apply. The IRS has issued proposed regulations [Treasury Regulations Section 1.409A-4(a)(1)(ii)(B)] on how to calculate the amount of income to include when a failure occurs.

IRS Notice 2008-113 covers corrections for 409A operational failures, including, but not limited to, failures to defer amounts, excess deferrals, incorrect payments, and the correction of exercise prices. The guidance of IRS Notice 2010-6 allows businesses to correct many types of 409A plan document errors, including impermissible definitions of separation of service, disability or change in control; impermissible payment events or payment schedules; impermissible payment periods following a permissible payment event; impermissible initial or subsequent deferral election procedures; and a failure to include the six-month delay of payment for specified employees of publicly traded companies.  Please note that IRS Notice 2010-80 modifies certain provisions of Notices 2008-113 and 2010-6, and should be referred to for the latest guidance.

Plan sponsors can refer to the IRS’ Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Audit Techniques Guide for issues the IRS focuses on when auditing businesses that offer 409A plans.

Conclusion

The IRS has issued a series of notices containing pre-approved correction methods for certain operational failures and document noncompliance issues for 409A plans. Following the correction methods can help participants reduce or delay early taxation of their deferred compensation and avoid penalties.

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Complete discontinuance of profit sharing plan contributions

“I came across a prospect that froze it’s profit sharing plan several years ago, and has not made contributions since. Are there any concerns regarding the plan?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings plans. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Colorado is representative of a common inquiry related to on going contributions to a profit sharing plan.

Highlights of Discussion

While contributions to profit sharing plans are generally discretionary, meaning a plan sponsor can decide from year to year whether to make a contribution or not, the IRS expects that contributions will be “recurring and substantial” over time in order for a plan to be considered ongoing and remain viable [Treas. Reg. § 1.401-1(b)(2)].

If contributions cease, a complete “discontinuance of contributions” has occurred in the IRS’s eyes, which triggers a plan termination and complete (100%) vesting of participants’ accounts [Treas. Reg. § 1.411(d)-2(a)(1)].  Contrast this with a “suspension of contributions” under the plan, which is merely a temporary cessation of contributions by the employer. A complete discontinuance of contributions still may occur even though the employer makes contributions if such contributions are not substantial enough to reflect the intent on the part of the employer to continue to maintain the plan (e.g., only forfeitures are allocated).

The IRS makes a determination as to whether a complete discontinuance of contributions under a plan has occurred by considering all the facts and circumstances in the particular case, and without regard to any employee contributions (i.e. pre-tax deferrals, designated Roth or after-tax contributions). According to the IRS’s exam guidelines at Part 7.12.1.4, examiners are to review IRS Form 5310, line 19a, which indicates employer contributions made for the current and the five prior plan years, to determine if the plan has had a complete discontinuance of contributions. In a profit sharing plan, if the plan sponsor has failed to make substantial contributions in three out of five years, there may be a discontinuance of contributions. Other considerations include whether the employer is calling an actual discontinuance of contributions a suspension of such contributions in order to avoid the requirement of full vesting, and whether there is a reasonable probability that the lack of contributions will continue indefinitely.

Under Treas. Reg. § 1.411(d)-2(d)(2) a complete discontinuance becomes effective for a single employer plan on the last day of the employer’s tax year after the tax year for which the employer last made a substantial contribution to the profit-sharing plan. For a plan maintained by more than one employer, a complete discontinuance becomes effective the last day of the plan year after the plan year within which any employer last made a substantial contribution.

If a plan suffers a complete discontinuance and the plan sponsor has made partially vested distributions, the plan’s qualified status is at risk. The plan sponsor can fix the error by using the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System. The correction will require restoring previously forfeited accounts to affected participants, adjusted for lost earnings, and correcting IRS Form 5500 filings for the plan.

For additional information, please refer to the IRS guidance No Contributions to your Profit Sharing/401(k) Plan for a While? Complete Discontinuance of Contributions and What You Need to Know.

Conclusion

While employer contributions to a profit sharing or stock bonus plan are discretionary in most cases (check the document language), the IRS still expects them to be recurring and substantial to a certain extent. For example, if the plan sponsor has failed to make substantial contributions in three out of five years, there may be a discontinuance of contributions, which triggers plan termination and complete vesting of benefits.

© Copyright 2018 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved