On December 27, 2020, President Trump signed into law the Consolidated Appropriations Act (the “Act”) which includes a $900 billion economic stimulus package intended to provide additional relief for the ongoing pandemic. As part of this stimulus package, the Act expands the employee retention tax credit that was originally included for 2020 in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act (“CARES Act”) into the first two quarters of 2021 with significant changes as described below that increase the credit and make the credit available to more employers, and the Act makes technical corrections to the credit provisions in the CARES Act as summarized below (our summary of the employee retention tax credit as included in the CARES Act can be found here).
Continue Reading The Consolidated Appropriations Act Extends and Expands the Employee Retention Tax Credit
New Year, Old FSA Money?
After several delays, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (the “Act”) was signed into law on December 27, 2020. Although the Act primarily addresses coronavirus emergency response and relief and appropriations through September 30, 2021, it also contains several provisions of interest for employers that sponsor benefit plans, including temporary flexibility for health care and dependent care flexible spending accounts (FSAs), changes to retirement plan provisions, and certain health care plan changes related to so-called “surprise billing”. The following summarizes the provisions of the Act that affect health care and dependent care FSAs.
Continue Reading New Year, Old FSA Money?
Diving into the Pooled Plan Provider Deep End? It’s Time to Register!
Pooled plan providers hoping to start operating pooled employer plans in 2021 will finally have the ability to register to do so, under regulations finalized by the Department of Labor (“DOL”) on November 16, 2020.
As described in detail in our prior alert, the SECURE Act created a new type of retirement vehicle called a “Pooled Employer Plan,” or PEP, in which multiple unrelated employers may participate and which may be sponsored by entities including financial services companies, such as banks, insurance companies and third-party administrators. The sponsors, referred to as “Pooled Plan Providers” or PPPs, are responsible for most fiduciary and administrative duties related to the PEPs they sponsor. The SECURE Act permits a PPP to begin sponsoring PEPs as soon as January 1, 2021, provided the PPP meets the SECURE Act’s requirements, including registration with the DOL and IRS before commencing operations. The DOL issued proposed regulations on August 20, and in its November 16 final regulations, softened some of the requirements it had originally proposed.
Continue Reading Diving into the Pooled Plan Provider Deep End? It’s Time to Register!
Appellate Court Split in Recent Single Stock Fund Litigation
Ed. Note: On September 22, 2020, the Fourth Circuit denied Gannett’s petition for rehearing en banc. On October 8, 2020, the Fifth Circuit denied Schweitzer’s petition for rehearing en banc. We expect the defendants (in Gannett) and the plaintiffs (in Schweitzer) will petition the Supreme Court for certiorari within the coming weeks, and will update this post as new developments arise in the case.
The Fourth Circuit’s recent split decision in Quatrone v. Gannett Co., Inc., No. 19-1212 (4th Cir. Aug. 11, 2020) is sure to raise the blood pressure of sponsors and administrators of retirement plans with single stock funds. Together with a recent Fifth Circuit decision in Schweitzer v. Inv. Comm. of Phillips 66 Sav. Plan, No. 18-cv-20379, 2020 WL 2611542 (5th Cir. May 22, 2020), the Gannett case highlights the dilemma of retirement plan sponsors and fiduciaries, who, as a result of a corporate transaction, inherit a plan investment fund consisting of a single class of stock that does not constitute an employer security for purposes of ERISA (i.e., a “single stock fund”). Plan fiduciaries in these circumstances have been targeted in class actions brought by an aggressive plaintiffs’ bar both for liquidating a single stock fund too soon and for not liquidating a single stock fund soon enough. While courts are still evaluating how to handle these single stock fund cases, a plan fiduciary’s potential exposure for continuing to maintain such a fund seems to turn, at least in part, on the manner in which ERISA’s duties of prudence and diversification apply to the single stock fund as a plan investment option.
Continue Reading Appellate Court Split in Recent Single Stock Fund Litigation
IRS Issues Limited Guidance on President Trump’s Executive Order on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations
On August 28, 2020, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) issued Notice 2020-65 (the “Notice”) as its guidance on implementing the Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster signed by President Trump on August 8, 2020 (the “Payroll Tax Memo”). As described in a previous post, the Payroll Tax Memo left many unanswered questions that made it difficult for employers to determine whether to implement the payroll tax deferrals for employees. Unfortunately, as described below, the Notice only provides limited guidance, and many of the difficult questions remain unanswered, which puts employers in a difficult spot with the deferral potentially applying to wages paid starting on or after September 1, 2020.
Continue Reading IRS Issues Limited Guidance on President Trump’s Executive Order on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations
President Trump Signs Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations
On August 8, 2020, President Trump signed a Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations in Light of Ongoing COVID-19 Disaster for the Secretary of the Treasury (the “Payroll Tax Memo”). The Payroll Tax Memo notes that President Trump previously declared the COVID-19 pandemic an emergency and that further action is needed to support working Americans during the pandemic. The Payroll Tax Memo directs the Secretary of the Treasury to use his authority (under Section 7508A of the Internal Revenue Code) to defer withholding, deposit, and payment of certain Federal Insurance Contribution Act or “FICA” taxes owed by certain employees for wages paid between September 1, 2020 and December 31, 2020 (the “Deferral Period”), subject to the following conditions:
- The deferral is only permitted for employees whose bi-weekly pre-tax compensation is less than $4,000 (or the equivalent amount with respect to other regular pay periods); and
- Amounts deferred shall be deferred without any penalties, interest, additional amount or addition to the tax.
Continue Reading President Trump Signs Memorandum on Deferring Payroll Tax Obligations
Pooled Employer Plans – FAQs for US Employers
The SECURE Act, enacted in December 2019, greatly enhances the ability of employers (particularly small and medium-sized employers) to maintain retirement programs for their employees. Specifically, it provides for the creation of a new retirement vehicle called a “Pooled Employer Plan.” Unrelated employers may participate in a Pooled Employer Plan, which is sponsored by a
Tenth Circuit Decision Puts New Emphasis on Including Discretionary Authority Language in Summary Plan Descriptions
The Tenth Circuit’s recent split decision in M. v. Premera Blue Cross, No. 18-4098 (July 24, 2020), poses a significant threat to the deferential standard of review typically applied to benefit plan claim determinations, and imposes a new burden on plan administrators.
More than 30 years ago, the Supreme Court held in Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U.S. 101 (1989), that benefit denials are “reviewed under a de novo standard unless the benefit plan gives the administrator or fiduciary discretionary authority to determine eligibility for benefits or to construe the terms of the plan.” Applying the Firestone doctrine, lower courts have consistently applied the substantially more deferential “arbitrary and capricious” or “abuse of discretion” standard of review to benefit denials when the plan at issue granted the plan administrator (or relevant fiduciary) discretionary authority consistent with the Firestone case.
The Tenth Circuit, in Premera, changes that standard.
IRS Eases Ability of Employers to Reduce or Suspend Safe Harbor Matching and Nonelective Contributions
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2020-52 on June 29, 2020, making it temporarily easier for employers to suspend or reduce matching contributions and nonelective contributions to safe harbor 401(k) plans mid-year.
As described in our earlier blog post, the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the “Code”) imposes rules that limit the ability of employers to suspend or reduce safe harbor matching contributions and safe harbor nonelective contributions, in the middle of a plan year, to a plan that is intended to be a safe harbor plan under sections 401(k) or 401(m) of the Code (such a plan referred to below as a “safe harbor plan”). Notice 2020-52 eases several of those restrictions for a limited period of time in recognition of the ongoing economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. The relief also applies to plans subject to section 403(b) of the Code that apply section 401(m) safe harbor rules.
Continue Reading IRS Eases Ability of Employers to Reduce or Suspend Safe Harbor Matching and Nonelective Contributions
IRS Provides Temporary Relief from Physical Presence Requirement
Many plan administrators and participants have struggled with how to satisfy certain qualified plan spousal consent rules while social distancing guidelines have been in effect. The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) provided much-needed relief on that topic in Notice 2020-42, published on June 3, 2020 (the Notice).
By way of background, IRS regulations require that