Employment LawScene Alert:
Eighth Circuit Holds that an SPD Can Function as a Plan Document


A federal appellate court has ruled, in MBI Energy Services v. Hoch, decided in July 2019, that a single document may serve as both the summary plan description (SPD) and the formal plan document for an ERISA welfare benefit plan.

In this case, the plan sponsor of a self-insured group health plan paid benefits on behalf of a participant for medical injuries sustained in an accident. Subsequently, the participant settled a tort claim with a third party who allegedly caused the accident. The settlement amount exceeded the amount of the plan-paid medical expenses and the plan sponsor sought reimbursement.

ERISA Requires a Plan Document

Under ERISA, the requirement that “every employee benefit shall be established and maintained pursuant to a written instrument” is understood to mean that the terms of each benefit program must be memorialized in a written plan document. ERISA further requires the plan sponsor to provide to each plan participant an SPD that briefly and clearly summarizes the terms of the plan document.

In some cases, plan sponsors do not offer two separate documents (a plan document and an SPD), but rely, instead, on a single combined document that purports to function both as the plan document and as the SPD.

Several courts have argued that a combined Plan document and SPD is unacceptable on the grounds that it is not possible for a document to summarize itself. Nonetheless, in the self-insured medical plan context (where coverage exclusions and limitations are difficult to summarize), it is common to have a single document that serves as both the plan document and the SPD.

Where’s the Plan?

While the employer in the MBI Energy Services case could point to no document clearly identified as the “plan,” there was an administrative services agreement (ASA) between the employer and the plan’s claims administrator indicating that the plan benefits, terms, and conditions were set forth in an attached exhibited – the SPD. Along with the benefit provisions and ERISA-mandated language, the SPD contained sections addressing the rights of subrogation, reimbursement, and assignment. The SPD stated, in part, that if a participant “makes any recovery from a third party . . . whether by judgment, settlement or otherwise,” the participant must reimburse the plan sponsor “to the full extent of any benefits paid” by the plan.

            The Arguments

The participant argued that the SPD was not a valid plan document and that the employer therefore had no right to reimbursement. Instead, the participant asserted that the SPD was only a summary of, and in conflict with the terms of, the ASA, which the participant contended was the controlling plan document. The participant’s argument was rooted in the Supreme Court’s reasoning, in its 2011 CIGNA v. Amara ruling, that “’summary documents, important as they are, provide communication with beneficiaries about the plan, but that their statements do not themselves constitute the terms of the plan.”

The plan sponsor, on the other hand, argued that the SPD functioned as both the SPD and the plan document and that the SPD’s reimbursement language gave the plan an equitable lien on the participant’s recovery proceeds.

            The Ruling

The Eighth Circuit disagreed with the participant’s contention that the SPD was unenforceable because it conflicted with the ASA, pointing out that the ASA was silent as to reimbursement and expressly incorporated the terms and conditions of the SPD. The court thereby joined other circuits in distinguishing CIGNA v. Amara (a retirement plan matter in which both a plan document and an SPD were present) and concluding that, absent a formal plan document, the SPD may function as the plan document.

Specifically, the court rejected as “nonsensical” any interpretation that renders no plan document at all under the terms of ERISA and concluded that the label of SPD is not dispositive. Where no other source of benefits exists, the SPD is the formal plan document.

The court also pointed out that it would be inequitable to allow the participant to receive benefits according to the SPD but not hold him to the reimbursement responsibilities set forth in that same document. It concluded that, since the SPD was the plan’s written instrument, the participant was bound by its terms and obligated to reimburse the plan.

As a result, the participant was required to reimburse the self-funded employee benefit plan for $45,474 in medical benefits the plan had paid.

Implications

Since the U.S. Supreme Court’s CIGNA v. Amara ruling, plan sponsors of self-insured plans have wondered whether the common practice of using a single document as both the plan and the SPD may permissibly continue. The Eighth Circuit’s MBI Energy Services ruling adds to a growing list of cases finding that an SPD can function as an enforceable ERISA welfare plan document in the absence of a separate additional document.

Plan sponsors should take note that identifying the controlling language relevant to a given employee benefit plan is not always clear cut. In some cases (as here), the plans terms may be contained within a single document. In other instances, the terms of an ERISA plan may be inferred from a series of documents, none of which is clearly labeled as a plan.

Do your Plan’s Documents Protect You?

All plan sponsors are advised to review whether their documents for ERISA welfare plans (such as group health, dental, vision, disability, and life plans) not only comply with ERISA, but also whether they reflect the employer-specific disclosure requirements and employer-protective statements, which are typically not included in documents prepared by insurers or third-party administrators.

In many cases, it is advisable to streamline multiple separate ERISA benefits into a single so-called Wrap Plan document, which ‘wraps around’ and supplements the other documents to become the SPD. A Wrap Plan can help employers to minimize the risk of financial penalties and lawsuits and streamlines certain reporting and amendment requirements.

The attorneys of the Employment Law Group of O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing can assist in reviewing and providing counsel relating to the documentation and operation of all employer-sponsored employee benefit and compensation plans.




Employment LawScene Alert:
IRS Expands List of HSA-Compatible Preventive Care Services


The IRS recently issued guidance expanding the types of preventive care services that can be provided by a high-deductible health plan (HDHP), before the deductible is met, without eliminating a covered individual’s eligibility to participate in a Health Savings Account (HSA). The new guidance was published on July 17, 2019 and took legal effect on that same day.

Employers who sponsor HDHPs should now consider whether any plan documentation or communication changes are required to implement the expanded preventive care coverage rules. Alternately, employers who have not previously adopted a HDHP should assess whether the new rules may now make the HDHP/HSA model a more attractive way to control health care costs.

Background

An HSA is a tax-favored account that may receive contributions from an employee, an employer, or both. HSAs are subject to various rules that govern the individual account holder’s eligibility to make and receive contributions and whether or not withdrawals are taxable.

To be eligible for HSA contributions, an individual must be covered under a HDHP and may generally not have any health coverage other than HDHP coverage. Certain preventive care services, however, are not considered to constitute health coverage so as to disqualify an individual from HSA eligibility.

Previously, preventive care (within the meaning of the HSA and HDHP rules) has not included any service or benefit intended to treat an existing illness, injury, or condition.

The IRS is aware, however, that cost barriers for care have resulted in the failure by some individuals who are diagnosed with certain chronic health conditions to seek or to use effective and necessary care that would prevent exacerbation of such conditions. Accordingly, and in consultation with the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the IRS determined that certain medical care services received and items purchased, including prescription drugs, should now be classified as preventive care for someone with the corresponding chronic condition.

Newly Established HSA-Compatible Preventive Care

To address the stated concerns, the expanded list of HSA-Compatible preventive care expenses includes fourteen cost-effective items and services that are likely to prevent the worsening of eleven specified chronic conditions, as follows:

 

  Preventive Care for Specified Conditions   For Individuals Diagnosed with
Angiotensin Converting Enzyme (ACE) inhibitors Congestive heart failure, diabetes, or coronary artery disease
Anti-resorptive therapy Osteoporosis or osteopenia
Blood pressure monitor Congestive heart failure or coronary artery disease
Inhaled corticosteroids Asthma
Insulin and other glucose-lowering agents Diabetes
Retinopathy screening Diabetes
Peak flow meter Asthma
Glucometer Diabetes
Hemoglobin A1c testing Diabetes
International Normalized Ratio (INR) testing Liver disease or bleeding disorders
Low-density Lipoprotein (LDL) testing Heart disease
Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (SSRIs) Depression
Statins Heart disease and diabetes

 

The IRS and HHS will together review the list approximately every five to ten years to determine whether any items or services should be removed or added.

Changes Arose from Executive Order and Policy Advocacy

The immediate impetus of the change is Section 6 of Executive Order 13877, “Improving Price and Quality Transparently in American Healthcare to Put Patients First,” which was signed by President Trump on June 24, 2019, and which mandated the issuance of guidance permitting HSAs to cover low-cost preventive care to help “maintain health status for individuals with chronic conditions.”

The change also reflects the efforts of various health-policy advisors and advocates, who have long called for allowing first-dollar HDHP coverage for targeted, evidence-based, preventive services that prevent chronic disease progression and related complications.

Key HDHP Sponsor Issues and Next Steps




Employment LawScene Alert:
New Rule Will Permit Employer Reimbursement of Employees’ Individual ACA Coverage Premiums


Beginning January 1, 2020, employers will have the option to reimburse employees’ individual ACA Exchange (or Marketplace) health insurance premiums under an employer-sponsored Health Reimbursement Arrangement (HRA).

This is a significant change from current rules, which generally permit an HRA to reimburse only group (not individual) health insurance coverage, and which prohibit employer reimbursement of any health insurance coverage provided through the ACA Exchange.

HRA Overview

An HRA is a type of account-based plan that an employer may use to provide pre-tax reimbursement, up to employer-determined annual limits, of certain employee medical care expenses. Under applicable law, an HRA is a self-funded health care plan, which may be funded only by employer (not employee) dollars. An HRA is subject to ERISA, HIPAA, and certain IRS rules, including the nondiscrimination requirements that prohibit discrimination in favor of highly compensated employees.

What’s Old is New Again

Under final regulations issued jointly, last week, by the United States Departments of Treasury, Labor, and Health & Human Services (the Departments), Employers can once again reimburse certain individual employee health insurance expenses on a pre-tax basis. This practice was broadly permitted under IRS rules in effect from 1961 through January of 2014, when the IRS put a sudden halt to the practice on the grounds that it violated the Affordable Care Act.

With Some Twists

Prior to 2014, employers could directly reimburse an employee for the cost of that employee’s individual insurance coverage premiums. No additional benefit plan or plan document was required.  Under the new rules, employer reimbursements of individual insurance premiums may not be made directly, but must instead flow through a documented HRA program.  The HRA must conform in form and operation with applicable Department rules.

Under the law in effect over the last few years, an HRA could reimburse group health plan insurance premiums only if it were “integrated with” an ACA-compliant employer-sponsored group health plan. Under the rules that will take effect January 1, 2020, HRA “integration” with ACA-compliant individual coverage will be available for the first time.

Why are the HRA Rules Changing?

The final regulations issued jointly by the three Departments last week ultimately result from an October 2017 Presidential Executive Order intended to expand “healthcare choice” and flexibility. HRAs were one of three priorities identified in President Trump’s Executive Order 13813, which directed the Departments to consider proposing regulations or revising guidance as needed “to expand employers’ ability to offer HRAs to their employees, and to allow HRAs to be used in conjunction with non-group coverage.”

Key Requirements

The final regulations exceed 200 pages and provide extensive detail on the requirements applicable to the new individual coverage HRAs (ICHRAs). Among these are the following six key conditions, which must be satisfied in order to successfully integrate an HRA with individual health insurance coverage:

Limited Time to Prepare

In order for employers to reimburse employees’ purchase of individual ACA-regulated health insurance by January 1, 2020, there is much work to do in relatively little time. Before the November 1 start date of the open enrollment period for 2020 ACA coverage:

The State-facilitated Exchanges have been concerned about a possible 2020 rollout since that date was initially mentioned in proposed rules issued late last year. This April, the administrators of all 12 State Exchanges asked the Departments to postpone the effective date.  In response, the Departments have promised to provide technical assistance to the Exchanges to facilitate timely implementation of the new rules.  Nonetheless, the final regulations are extremely detailed and complex. Whether, and to what extent, employers (and Exchanges) are able to embrace ICHRA reimbursement of individual health insurance premiums remains to be seen.

The attorneys of the Employment Law team of O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing are closely following these new developments and are prepared to discuss how the change in HRA rules may impact your strategy regarding employee benefits offerings, ACA compliance, or how to amend an existing HRA or MERP (medical expense reimbursement plan) or to adopt a new HRA document to prepare for the reimbursement of individual coverage.




Employment LawScene Alert:
Creation of New Task Force Signals Increased State Scrutiny of Wisconsin Worker Classification


April 15, 2019 marked not only the end of the 2018 personal income tax season, but also the beginning of a new era of enforcement of Wisconsin employment practices. On that date, Governor Tony Evers issued an Executive Order creating a Joint Task Force on Payroll Fraud and Worker Misclassification (the “Task Force”). This Task Force will focus on workers who should be classified as employees but are misclassified as independent contractors.

The Task Force will be chaired by the Secretary of the Department of Workforce Development (“DWD”) and will be staffed by representatives from the DWD, including its Worker’s Compensation and Unemployment Insurance divisions, the Department of Revenue, and the offices of the Attorney General and the Commissioner of Insurance.

Background

Similar task forces have been implemented in recent years in Connecticut and Massachusetts (2008), New York (2016), Colorado, New Jersey, Tennessee, and Virginia (2018), and Michigan (2019).

One of the catalysts for the Wisconsin Task Force creation was the finding, under DWD audits from January 2016 through April 2019, of 5,841 misclassified employees and the related under-reporting of nearly $70 million in gross wages and $1.8 million in unemployment insurance taxes. Misclassification of employees also results in the underpayment of Social Security and Medicare-related employment law taxes.

Another impetus for the new interagency coordination is the concern that employers who misclassify workers as independent contractors gain an unlawful competitive advantage that allows them to under-bid or out-compete law-abiding employers.

Prior reviews of employer practices reported by the National Employment Law Project posit that audits of Wisconsin employers have typically revealed worker misclassification in 44% of investigated cases.

Task Force Mandates

The new Task Force is required to report annually to the Governor by March to describe its accomplishments and recommendation for the prior year. Specifically, the Task Force report must include the amount of wages, premiums, taxes, and other payments or penalties collected as a result of coordinated agency activities, as well as the number of employers cited for misclassification and the approximate number of affected workers. The Task Force must also identify administrative or legal barriers impeding more effective agency coordination. After consultation with representatives of business, organized labor, members of the legislature, and other agencies, the Task Force will also propose changes to administrative practices, laws, or regulations appropriate to:

Key Take-Away

The Wisconsin Task Force is being implemented at a time when recent federal decisions by the National Labor Relations Board and the United States Supreme Court appear to be permitting some gig economy companies to more easily classify workers as independent contractors, rather than as employees.

As a result of the creation of the Task Force, however, Wisconsin employers should expect increased scrutiny from the DWD and Department of Revenue regarding independent contractor relationships.

The Employment Law team of O’Neil, Cannon, Hollman, DeJong & Laing recently presented client seminars in Pewaukee and Green Bay on the many aspects of worker classification and are well-positioned to assist Wisconsin employers in reviewing current arrangements or discussing how the law applies under various circumstances.




Employment LawScene Alert:
IRS Issues a Second Set of April 2019 Changes to Retirement Plan Correction Program


The IRS Employee Plans division on Friday, April 19, released an updated version of its comprehensive retirement plan correction protocol.  Although touted as a “limited update” to the Employee Plan Compliance Resolution System, or EPCRS, the changes contained in this new Revenue Procedure 2019-19 nonetheless offer substantial savings opportunities for certain employer sponsors of 401(k), 403(b), and profit-sharing plans, and employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs).

The update is effective immediately, and is notable for being the second change in the EPCRS rules to take effect in April 2019.  Under a previously-issued update to the program, a new online-only submission requirement took effect on April 1, 2019.  As of that date, plan sponsors are no longer permitted to submit EPCRS correction applications or payments by mail.

Bottom Line

The effect of the April 19 update is to expand the circumstances under which a plan sponsor is permitted to correct a self-identified error under the self-correction program (SCP), rather than having to submit a formal application, and accompanying fee, to the IRS.

This expansion of the opportunities for self-correction is a welcome opportunity for plan sponsors who become aware of certain plan compliance failures involving the language of the plan document as well as particular types of errors in the operation of participant loan programs.  Correction of the specified errors may now be made on a less formal basis. Provided that the proper correction protocol is followed and documented, a correction can now be completed without having to pay the usual IRS submission fee, which ranges from $1,500 to $3,500.

EPCRS Background

The purpose of the IRS EPCRS program, generally, is to provide a system of correction programs and procedures for sponsors of tax-qualified retirement plans that have fallen outside of the qualification requirements either because of errors in the language of the plan document or because of mistakes in how the plan is operated.  The EPCRS correction program permits plan sponsors to correct these errors and thereby to continue to offer retirement benefits to their employees on a tax-favored basis.

Depending on the nature and severity of a retirement plan compliance error, three different EPCRS programs exist, each with slightly different rules:

 

 

Potential Opportunity to Make Key Corrections at a Lower Cost

The Treasury Department and IRS expect to continue to update the EPCRS program, in whole or in part, from time to time. Given the ever-changing and highly fact-specific nature of the IRS correction program, the severely adverse threat of plan tax-disqualification, and the need to determine the most effective correction strategy, plan sponsors who suspect or know that a retirement plan has a compliance error are advised to work confidentially with legal counsel specifically experienced in this area of practice.  Because an error cannot be corrected under either the SCP or VCP programs after an IRS audit has begun, it is always best to respond to a compliance error quickly and proactively.

Now that the opportunities for self-correction have been expanded, there is no time like the present for plan sponsors to review their tax-qualified plan documentation and operations. Because more types of compliance errors can now be self-corrected, the cost of bringing an employer-sponsored retirement plan back into good standing may now be reduced.




Employment LawScene Alert:
Remember March 1 Deadline for Reporting a “Small” HIPAA Breach


Employers who are classified as covered entities under HIPAA are required to report any 2018 breach of protected health information that affected fewer than 500 individuals (also known as a small breach) by March 1, 2019. This current breach notification requirement arises from amendments made to HIPAA under the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health (HITECH) Act, as finalized in 2013. HIPAA defines a covered entity as either (1)  a group health plan, (2) a health care clearinghouse, or (3) a health care provider who electronically transmits any protected health information.  A covered entity may be an individual, an institution, or an organization.

Background 

Under applicable rules, a breach is defined as an impermissible use or disclosure under the HIPAA Privacy Rule that compromises the security or privacy of the protected health information. Some exceptions apply, so that not all incidents will rise to the level of a breach. Still, an impermissible use or disclosure of protected health information is generally presumed to be a breach unless the covered entity demonstrates that there is a low probability that the protected health information has been compromised based on a risk assessment of several specified factors.

Notification Requirement

Upon the occurrence of a confirmed (or in some cases, suspected) breach, the affected individuals must be provided with detailed notification letters without unreasonable delay and no later than 60 days after the discovery of the breach. While the covered entity, most often, provides the required notifications, the final rules permit the delegation of reporting duties to a business associate.

A HIPAA breach also triggers an obligation to notify the Office of Civil Rights (OCR) of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).

For a small breach occurring any time in 2018, the deadline to report that breach to OCR is March 1, 2019.

Small Breach Reporting Details

A reporting entity is not required to wait until the March 1 deadline to report a small breach. Small breaches may be reported as early as contemporaneously with the occurrence of the breach. Regardless of timing, all small breaches must be reported to OCR in the same manner. Specifically a reporting entity must report the breaches online through the OCR’s “Breach Portal.”

Note that even when a covered entity delegates the reporting function to a business associate, the covered entity retains ultimate legal responsibility for proper reporting. Accordingly, covered entities who delegate reporting may want to require proof of timely reporting.

Be aware that, while the reporting entity may report all small breaches on a single date, each separate breach incident will require a separate submission. Instead of simply uploading a log of breach incidents occurring in the prior year, the reporting entity must complete a six-section questionnaire to provide: (1) general information; (2) identification of the covered entity, business associate, and relevant contact information; (3) the nature of the breach; (4) a summary of related notices provided and actions taken; (5) an attestation, and; (6) a summary. Multiple fields must be completed within each of these six sections. The HIPAA status of a reporting party (as either a HIPAA covered entity or a business associate) must be indicated on the “Contact” tab of the online filing form.

The online reporting form also requires the reporting entity to indicate the level of pre-breach HIPAA compliance status, including whether or not HIPAA Privacy Rule safeguards and HIPAA Security Rule safeguards were in place.

Because filing the breach notice can be time-consuming, parties tasked with reporting 2018 small HIPAA breaches of unsecured protected health information are advised to gather and prepare the content to be reported before actually logging on to the OCR Breach Portal. Because any changes or updates to the submitted information must be entered as a separate entry, it is preferable to ensure that each submission is fully accurate. Moreover, because the content of Breach Notifications to OCR can form the basis for a future OCR investigation and enforcement action, it is advisable to have legal counsel review content prior to submission.

In addition to ensuring that 2018 breaches affecting fewer than 500 individuals are reported by March 1, covered entities and business associates should continue to ensure that HIPAA Policies and Procedures, as well as the applicable administrative, physical and technical safeguards are up to date and periodically reviewed.




Employment LawScene Alert:
Recent Legislation Impacts Qualified Retirement Plan Hardship Withdrawal and Plan Rollover Rules


The two-year budget agreement passed by Congress on Friday, February 9th, and signed by President Trump later that day, includes tax policy changes that affect qualified retirement plans. Specifically, qualified retirement plan hardship withdrawal operations will be impacted by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 (the Budget Act) as follows:

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (the Tax Act), signed into law by President Trump on December 22, 2017, affects certain plan loan distributions. Specifically, for all tax-qualified retirement plans that offer loans, including 401(k), 401(a), 403(b), and governmental 457(b) plans, the Tax Act provides for an:

Caution: No Change to Basic Tax Rules

Although recent legislation is trending toward easing the rules relating to hardship withdrawals and plan loans, it is important to remember that nothing about the fundamental tax treatment of these distributions have changed.

A common misconception (especially among participants) is that if a participant qualifies for a hardship distribution, then the distribution from the plan is tax-free. A hardship distribution is subject to the same taxation rules as other plan distributions. Satisfying the standards for a hardship distribution simply entitles the participant to receive an in-service distribution of elective deferrals (and other contributions) from the plan, but the hardship distribution is subject to income taxes applicable to plan distributions. A hardship distribution is also generally subject to a 10% early distribution penalty, unless the participant has reached age 59-1/2. A hardship distribution is never eligible to be rolled over into an IRA.

Similarly, once a plan loan has been deemed distributed (either due to a plan loan repayment default, because a plan does not provide for an offset option upon distribution, or because an offset is not timely rolled into an IRA), the deemed distribution of a plan loan is taxed in the same manner as a regular plan distribution for purposes of determining the tax, including any early distribution penalty. A deemed distribution may never be rolled over into an IRA.

Plan Sponsor Action Items:

With respect to plan hardship distributions, employer sponsors of 401(k) and 403(b) plans should prepare for the 2019 plan year by:

With respect to plan loans, plan sponsors of plans that permit loans should:




Employment LawScene Alert:
Internal Revenue Code Section 409A Survives Repeal-and-Replace Attempt


Employer sponsors of nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plans, as well as the executives and other service providers, who benefit from them, can breathe a sigh of relief. The ability to reward and retain key employees with incentive and compensation plans that provide a current opportunity to earn a payment to be provided (and taxed) in the future, will continue to be available, as it has been under American tax law for more than 80 years.  Since late 2004, NQDC agreements have been regulated primarily by Internal Revenue Code (Code) Section 409A.

The House Tax Bill

The ongoing viability of NQDC came under direct threat in the initial draft of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Creation Act (TCJA) as proposed by the U.S. House of Representatives Ways and Means Committee on November 2, 2017 (the House Tax Bill). Section 3801 of the House Tax Bill, which was proposed in substantially similar form to the Section 409A repeal-and-replace proposal introduced in a proposed Tax Reform Act of 2014, would have drastically reduced the ability of employers to reward key employees with deferred compensation arrangements.

As drafted, the House Tax Bill would have eliminated Section 409A and supplanted it with a new Section 409B. These changes, intended to be effective for services performed on and after January 1, 2018, would have meant, as of the New Year, that all NQDC arrangements would become fully taxable upon vesting, with only very limited opportunity to defer taxation until a future year. The proposed law would have applied not only to the common elective, nonelective, incentive payment, and phantom stock forms of NQDC, but would have also expressly included the (currently) sometimes-exempt equity-based compensation forms such as stock options, restricted stock units, and stock and stock appreciation rights.

The Joint Tax Committee had estimated that the proposed change would increase revenues by $16.2 billion between 2018 and 2027.

2017 Senate Tax Bill

The language that would repeal section 409A and replace it with a new Section 409B was removed from the final version of the House Ways & Means Committee’s Tax House Bill, as issued on November 9, 2017. The Chairman’s Mark of the Senate tax reform proposal issued on the same day, however, resurrected the proposals. As unveiled on November 9, 2017 by Senator Orrin Hatch, Chairman of the Senate Finance Committee, the initial Senate version of the TCJA (the Senate Tax Bill) contained the identical Section 409A repeal-and-replace provisions.

Senate Finance Committee Mark Up

Finally, upon the successful amendment offered by Senator Rob Portman, the Section 409A repeal-and-replace proposal was stricken in its entirety from the legislation. This action preserves the current, well-established system, which would have been rendered virtually extinct by the repeal-and-replace proposal. The proposal’s demise became known concurrent with the Joint Committee on Taxation’s issuance of the Chairman’s Modification to the Chairman’s Mark of the TCJA late in the day on November 14, 2017.

Impact

The retention of the existing system of taxation for NQDC arrangements is great news for employers and key employees, who can now continue to offer (and benefit from) compensation packages as appropriate to reward and retain top talent. It is also good policy, in that it does not impose limitations on the ability to earn and save for retirement at a time when the general retirement savings rates of Americans across nearly all income levels are widely reported to be insufficient.




Employment LawScene Alert:
ACA Employer Payment Notices Arriving Soon


Buried in IRS guidance issued on November 2 is news that the IRS will soon be issuing notices to employers of potential ACA taxes. While the ACA employer payments are widely referred to as “penalties,” they are actually “assessable payments” in the form an excise tax.

Specifically, the IRS has announced that applicable large employers (ALEs) will begin receiving notices of potential liability “in late 2017” if the information reported for 2015 on Forms 1094-C and 1095-C indicates that the employer may owe an employer shared responsibility payment. ALEs are employers with 50 or more full-time (including full-time equivalent) employees for a calendar year. Internal Revenue Code Section 4980H, generally, provides for two circumstances under which an employer may owe an employer shared responsibility payment.

First, under Section 4980H(a), an ALE in 2015 may be penalized if it did not offer health coverage to at least 70% of full-time (30 hour-per-week) employees (and their dependents). The Section 4980H(a) penalty, for 2015, was $177.33 per month (or $2,080 per year, if applicable in all months), multiplied by all full-time employees, and reduced by the first 80 full-time employees. This assessed payment would be triggered if at least one employee (of an ALE not offering coverage) enrolled in subsidized coverage through the Exchange.

Second, under Section 4980H(b), an ALE in 2015 may be penalized if although it offered coverage to at least 70 percent of its full-time employees (and their dependents), at least one full-time employee received a premium tax credit to help pay for coverage through the Exchange, which may occur because the ALE did not offer coverage to that particular employee or because the coverage the employer offered that employee was either unaffordable or did not provide minimum value. The Section 4980H(b) penalty, for 2015, was $260 per month (or $3,120 per year, if applicable in all months) per full-time employee who was not offered coverage (or was offered coverage that was either unaffordable, or did not provide minimum value), and who enrolled in subsidized coverage through the Exchange.

Any potential employer shared responsibility payment that might be assessed would relate to coverage offered (or not offered) to the employer’s full-time employees during the 2015 calendar year.

What Information Will the IRS Letter Contain?

The proposed payment notice will be in the form of IRS Letter 226J, which will include:

The response to Letter 226J will be due by a specified date, which will generally be 30 days from the date of Letter 226J.

Letter 226J will contain the name and contact information of a specific IRS employee that the ALE should contact if the ALE has questions about the letter.

What Do I Need to Do?

If your business receives a Letter 226J from the IRS, you should carefully review all information and determine whether you believe the proposed payment amount is correct. You may want to consider whether your company was eligible for any transition relief in 2015.

If the Letter is Correct

If you agree with the payment amount determination, you should complete, and return to the IRS the enclosed Form 14764. You should also provide full payment for the amount, either by check, or electronically, using the Electronic Federal Tax Payment System EFTPS system.

If the Letter is Incorrect

If you disagree with the payment amount determination, you will be required to complete and return the “ESRP Response” section of the enclosed Form 14764 to substantiate the basis for your disagreement. Your response may include supporting documentation, such as proof that health insurance was offered, or relevant coverage records. Your response must also specify, on the “Employee PTC List,” which changes are requested in order to correct the Forms 1094-C and 1095-C filed for 2015. The Letter 226J will include instructions on how to complete the required forms.

The IRS will respond to an ALE’s formal disagreement by sending Letter 227, acknowledging the ALE’s response and describing any further actions required. If the ALE disagrees with the IRS conclusions in the Letter 227, the ALE may request, within 30 days, a “pre-conference assessment” with the IRS Office of Appeals.

If, after any additional correspondence or discussions, the IRS ultimately determines that the payment is owed, the ALE will be provide the ALE with Notice CP 220J, which is a notice and demand for payment.

In light of the imminent arrival of the ACA potential payment notices, employers should be prepared to review and respond to Letter 226J quickly. Now is a good time to revisit the coverage offered in 2015, and to ensure easy access to applicable records.

It is important to note that, while scammers might see an opportunity to contact employers to demand payments, the IRS will initially contact ALEs about ACA payments only by letter (and not by email or phone).




Employment LawScene Alert:
IRS Announces 2018 FSA, Transportation, and Employee Benefit Plan Limits


The Internal Revenue Service has released the cost-of-living adjustments to the dollar limits under various employer-sponsored benefit plans for 2018. Several key limits (indicated in bold, below) have been increased for 2018.

Employer-sponsors of benefit plans should update payroll and plan administration systems for the 2018 limits and ensure that any new limits are incorporated into relevant participant communications, enrollment materials and summary plan descriptions, as applicable.

Health FSA Employee Contribution and Transportation Plan Limits

2018 Qualified Retirement Plan Limits

For retirement plans beginning on and after January 1, 2018, the following dollar limitations apply for tax-qualified retirement plans:

Prior Guidance on Additional 2018 Limits

Social Security Taxable Wage Base

As announced in mid-October (and adjusted in November), the Social Security Administration announced that the Social Security wage base for 2018 will increase slightly (from $127,000) to $128,400. This is the maximum wage base subject to the FICA tax and is also the maximum “integration level” for retirement plans using “permitted disparity.”  (The 2018 increase is about 1% higher than the 2017 wage base.  In contrast, the 2017 wage base increase was more than 7% higher than the 2016 amount).

2018 Health Savings Account Limits

In May of this year, the IRS announced that combined annual contributions to a Health Savings Account (HSA) in 2018 must not exceed the maximum annual deductible HSA contribution, which will be $3,450 for single coverage and $6,900 for family coverage.  These limits reflect a $50 and $150 increase over the 2017 maximums, respectively.  The catch-up contribution for eligible individuals who will attain age 55 or older by year end remains at $1,000.