Why Consider a Wrap Plan related to your Employee Benefits?

A Wrap Plan is a single welfare benefit plan that combines employee health and welfare benefit plans into one plan. A Wrap Plan can save employers time, filing costs, and ease compliance with reporting and disclosure rules.

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) provides an employer with the option to offer different types of welfare benefit to its employees:

• Medical, surgical, or hospital care or benefits, or
• Benefits in the event of sickness, accident, disability, death or unemployment, or
• Vacation benefits, or
• Apprenticeship or other training programs, or
• Day care centers, or
• Scholarship funds, or
• Prepaid legal services

ERISA requires welfare benefit plan to be codified in a written plan document, to include the following content:

• Benefits and eligibility, and
• Funding of benefits, and
• Procedures for allocating and delegating plan responsibilities, and
• Plan amendment and termination procedures, and
• Designation of named fiduciary, and
• Required provisions for group health plans, such as HIPPA compliance.

Employers must also provide employees with a Summary Plan Description (SPD) alerting them about their eligibility to participate in the plan.  Many employee welfare benefit plans are provided through insurance, and the companies providing coverage will have documents relating to the plans.  However, those documents are typically drafted to comply only with applicable insurance laws without being ERISA-compliant.

A Wrap Plan bundles the ERISA health and welfare benefits and includes all required disclosures. Rather than amending multiple documents after a new law is passed that affects a plan, an employer can make a single change to the Wrap Plan. Additionally, if an employer has plans that have 100 or more participants or are otherwise subject to the filing requirements to file Form 5500, a Wrap Plan also makes this administrative filing easier too. Rather than filing a separate Form 5500 for each health and welfare pan, a Wrap Plan allows the employer to file a single Form 5500 for all benefits covered by the Wrap Plan.

A Wrap Plan is an effective ERISA compliance strategy that allows employers to reduce the amount of time and cost involved in administering various health and welfare benefit plans.

© 2019 Vandenack Weaver LLC

For more information, Contact Us

Integrated HRAs

A new option exists for employers when it comes to paying for employee health care coverage. On June 13^th, the U.S. Departments of the Treasury, Labor, and Health and Human Services (the Departments) issued a final rule allowing employers to use pretax dollars to subsidize employee premiums in the individual health insurance market. Now, employers of all sizes that do not offer a group coverage plan can fund a new health reimbursement arrangement (HRA) known as individual coverage HRA (ICHRA).

Previously, under the Affordable Care Act, employers were prevented from offering stand-alone HRAs that would allow an employee to purchase coverage on the individual market. That has changed. Employers now have the option to provide their workers and their families with tax-preferred funds to pay all or a portion of the cost of coverage that workers purchase in the individual market. The departments posted an FAQs regarding the new regulation. ICHRAs are advantageous to employers because they maintain the tax favored status that apply to a traditional group health plan. Additionally, another employer-sponsored insurance called Excepted Benefit HRAs (EBHRA) allows employers to finance an additional pretax $1,800 per year to reimburse employees for certain qualified medical expenses (such as premiums for vision and dental insurance) even if the employee opts out of enrollment in the traditional group plan.

Qualified Small Employer HRAs (QSEHRA) are still an attractive alternative to group coverage for smaller employers- those with fewer than 50 full-time employees. Under QSEHRAs, employers can give their employees money tax-free to purchase individual health policies through the ACA exchange, similar to ICHRAs. Employees can use these funds to pay all or part of the insurance plan premium or pay for out-of-packet medical costs. While ICHRAs are void of caps on annual allowance amounts, in 2019, QSEHRAs allowance amounts were capped at $5,150 for self-only employees and $10,450 for employees with a family. While ICHRAs are free of caps, employees who choose ICHRAs will not be able to receive any premium tax credit/subsidy for exchange-based coverage. In some instances, if an employer funds an ICHRA or a QSEHRA coupled with individual-market insurance, this will bar the individual-market coverage from becoming part of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

If employers choose to offer ICHRAs, then the new regulations require a written notice be issued to all employees who are eligible. In this notice, employers need to include a provision that states the ICHRA may make them ineligible for a premium tax credit or subsidy when buying an Affordable Care Act exchange-based plan. ICHRAs will be available for plan years starting on or after January 1, 2020. Employers offering an ICHRA with a plan year that begins on January 1, 2020 should help eligible employees understand that they must enroll in individual health insurance coverage during the open enrollment period, November 1, 2019 through December 15, 2019, for individual health insurance coverage that takes effect on January 1, 2020.

ICHRAs and EBHRA are two new health insurance arrangements that could provide smaller employers with innovative and more cost-effective ways to finance worker health insurance coverage. The IRS has noted that including safe harbor provisions to ensure employers still satisfy the ACA’s affordability and minimum value requirements with ICHRAs will come out later this year.

© 2019 Vandenack Weaver LLC

For more information, Contact Us

Legacy ERISA Regulation Triggers Fiduciary Acknowledgement and Disclosures from Plan Advisers

By Monte Schatz

The Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule became effective June 9, 2017.  A whole new set of client disclosures will be required for advisers who previously were not operating under the fiduciary standard.  Interestingly, many of these disclosure requirements are not mandated by the fiduciary rule itself, but under a regulation that was part of the Employment Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 commonly referred to as ERISA.

29 C.F.R. § 408(b)(2) requires certain pension plan service providers to disclose information about the service providers’ compensation and potential conflict of interests.   Ironically, this regulation was introduced originally as an interim rule in 2010.  It was published as a final rule on February 3, 2012.  The intent and purpose of the regulation was to assist plan fiduciaries in assessing the reasonableness of compensation paid for services.  Also, the disclosure requirements are designed to assist plan fiduciaries to act prudently and solely in the interest of the plan’s participants by defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan and avoiding conflicts of interest.

From 2012 to the present day, brokers and other non-fiduciary providers to ERISA retirement plans largely didn’t disclose they were fiduciaries.   However, with the institution of the fiduciary rule the status of those types of advisers have been elevated to the fiduciary standard which triggers the new disclosure requirements.  This subjects those groups to covered provider status.  The three major categories of covered service providers include:

(1) fiduciary investment managers and advisors,

(2) record keeping platforms and broker/dealers, and

(3) providers of other types of services that also receive revenue sharing payments                   or other “indirect” compensation other than from the plan or plan sponsor

The groups that fall under the provisions of 408(b)(2) must provide updated disclosures to plan fiduciaries within 60 days from the date of which the covered service provider is informed of such a change in status.   The 60 day standard is vague as it doesn’t define whether it is June 9^th, 2017 or if the 60 days begins to run from the first day an adviser makes an investment recommendation post-June 9^th.   The general consensus is to take the conservative approach and commence providing updated disclosure immediately and assume the 60 day clock runs from June 9^th, 2017.

For advisers who previously have operated under the fiduciary standard the 408(b)(2) requirements will be “business as usual”.  For those advisers that are new to the fiduciary standard it is imperative that they provide the required disclosures in a concise and understandable one page format.   Previous plan adviser agreements that placed disclosures in multiple documents will no longer satisfy the disclosure requirements that are a critical part of the fiduciary rule.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

SOURCES:

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20170608/FREE/170609941/the-disclosure-401-k-advisers-may-be-missing-under-the-dol-fiduciary?utm_source=Morning-20170609&utm_campaign=investmentnews&utm_medium=email&utm_visit=655100

http://www.investmentnews.com/article/20120202/FREE/120209978/labor-department-unveils-kinder-gentler-fee-disclosure-regs

http://webapps.dol.gov/federalregister/PdfDisplay.aspx?DocId=25781

U.S. Supreme Court Interpretation Permits Thousands of “Church Plans” – Including Many for Hospitals and Health Systems – to Remain Exempt from ERISA

On June 5, 2017, the United States Supreme Court unanimously adopted a “broad” interpretation of the exemption allowed under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (“ERISA”) for “church plans.”   The decision effectively permits thousands of retirement plans adopted by church-affiliated organizations – including numerous hospitals, schools and social-service organizations – to remain exempt from most ERISA requirements.

Plaintiffs in the case of Advocate Health Care Network v. Stapleton argued that a “narrow” interpretation of the “church plan” exemption was appropriate, and that they were damaged by their employers failing to comply with ERISA’s various requirements designed to protect employee retirement savings.  Advocates of the “narrow” interpretation argued that only plans actually established by a church should be eligible for the exemption.

A split among the United States Courts of Appeal between the “broad” and “narrow” interpretations of the exemption had left plan sponsors and participants in an uncertain state where the applicable plan was maintained by a church-affiliated group and not established by the church itself.

A considerable number of plans in question related to church-affiliated hospitals and health systems.  A “narrow” interpretation would render such plans subject to ERISA.

In an 8-0 decision authored by Justice Elena Kagan, the Supreme Court concluded that principles of statutory interpretation favored the conclusion that Congress chose language indicating a “broad” exemption.  The “broad” exemption had been employed in interpretive materials, advisory opinions and private letter rulings of the Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor, so the decision eliminates, for now, the uncertainty that had arisen with respect to plans that had relied on said interpretation.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

IRS Denies Tax-Favored Status to Certain “Self-Funding” Health Plans

By James Pieper

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has issued a memorandum (“Memorandum”) indicating that it will deny tax-favored status to payments received under certain health plans marketed by their promoters as “self-funding.”

The Memorandum indicates that payments made under such plans will be considered “income” on the part of the employee (and thus not excluded from “gross income” for purposes of the income tax), and will be considered “wages” for purposes of the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA) and Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA) taxes paid by the employer.

The Memorandum cites plans being offered by promoters as “fixed indemnity health plans” with associated “wellness plans.”  The benefit promoted is that the plans are “self-funding” because the purported tax benefits will offset the expense, and employees can gain apparently tax-favored payments as a result of the plan while reducing the FICA purportedly owed by the employer.

The key to the plans is that the employee receives a monthly payment, not as income, but as a “health benefit” in return for a simple but voluntary act such as calling a toll-free number to obtain health advice or participating in biometric screening.  So long as the employee undertakes one act per month, then the benefit is paid.  Promoters of such plans contend that the employee receives comparable take-home pay and the employer receives tax benefits, all on a self-funded basis.

The IRS, however, concludes in the Memorandum that the plans do not constitute “insurance” because the “health benefit” is almost certain to be paid, and, on an actuarial basis, the amount of “benefits” is almost certain to exceed the amount paid as “premium.”

Accordingly, the IRS concluded that payments related to the so-called “self-funding” plans will be considered “income” and “wages” – and, therefore, the apparent “self-funding” mechanism obtained via tax-favored treatment is illusory.

Any employers considering any sort of “self-funding” plan should consider the Memorandum as strong evidence that such a plan is not likely to produce the tax benefits promised.

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

IRS Issues Tax and Reporting Relief for Proposed Fiduciary Standard Consistent with Department of Labor Regulations

By Monte Schatz

There have been a significant series of regulatory announcements and rulings related to the fiduciary duty and its application to employee benefit plans.  The final fiduciary duty rule became effective on June 7, 2016, and has an applicability date of April 10, 2017. The President by Memorandum to the Secretary of Labor directed the Labor Department to examine the impact of the fiduciary duty rule.  On March 2^nd the DOL published 82 FR 12319 seeking public comments about questions raised in the Presidential Memorandum.  The March 2^nd notice also provided that a 60-day delay in implementation would be effective on the date of publication of a final rule

The Principal Transactions Exemptions and the accompanying Best Interest Contract provisions, included as part of the fiduciary duty rule, also have an applicability date of April 10, 2017, with a phased implementation period ending on January 1, 2018. The BIC Exemption effectively states that the fiduciary advisor must sign a “Best Interests Contract” (BIC) with the client, stipulating that the advisor will provide advice that is in the Best Interests of the client.   The Principal Transactions Exemption allows compensation for certain transactions by certain broker-dealers, insurance agents, and others that will act as investment advice fiduciaries that would otherwise violate prohibited transaction rules that trigger excise taxes and civil liability.

Most investment industry groups’ concerns regarding any non-compliance during a “gap period” of the financial fiduciary rule focused on Department of Labor and its potential civil liability enforcement provisions as outlined under ERISA.  Additional concerns were raised concerning Internal Revenue Service enforcement provisions found in Internal Revenue Code §4975 prohibited transaction rules that provides for the imposition of excise taxes for violations of that rule.

As a result of delays of the Fiduciary Standard rules, the Department of Labor published Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2017-01.  FAB 2017-01 provides that, to the extent circumstances surrounding its decision on the proposed delay of the April 10 applicability date give rise to the need for other temporary relief, including retroactive prohibited transaction relief, the DOL will consider taking such additional steps as necessary with respect to the arrangements and transactions covered by the DOL temporary enforcement policy and any subsequent related DOL enforcement guidance.

In Announcement 2017–4 the IRS stated, Because the Code and ERISA contemplate consistency in the enforcement of the prohibited transaction rules by the IRS and the DOL, the Treasury Department and the IRS have determined that it is appropriate to adopt a temporary excise tax non-applicability policy that conforms with the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy described in FAB 2017-01. Accordingly, the IRS will not apply § 4975 and related reporting obligations with respect to any transaction or agreement to which the DOL’s temporary enforcement policy, or other subsequent related enforcement guidance, would apply.

SOURCES:

http://www.asppa.org/News/Article/ArticleID/8480

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/a-17-04.pdf

© 2017 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

New Relief for Late Retirement Account Rollovers

The Internal Revenue Service recently provided new relief for failures to comply with the 60 day deadline for the rollover of distributions from retirement accounts. The 60 day rollover period relates to the process for moving funds from one retirement account to another – a process which is most common when a person is switching jobs. After receiving a distribution from a retirement account, if the funds are not deposited into another retirement account within 60 days, the distribution becomes taxable.

Previously, if an individual unintentionally violated the 60 rollover period, the only option for relief was to request a private letter ruling (PLR) from the Internal Revenue Service, which can cost up to $10,000. As a result of a new Revenue Procedure, there is a new process for failed retirement account rollovers.

An individual may now provide a financial institution with a “self-certification” to correct a failed rollover based on specific permitted reasons. Those reasons are listed below:

1. The financial institution receiving the contribution or making the distribution to which the contribution relates made an error;
2. The distribution check was misplaced and never cashed;
3. The distribution was deposited into an account that the taxpayer mistakenly thought was an eligible retirement plan;
4. The taxpayer’s principal residence was severely damaged;
5. A member of the taxpayer’s family died;
6. The taxpayer or a member of the taxpayer’s family was seriously ill;
7. The taxpayer was incarcerated;
8. Restrictions were imposed by a foreign country;
9. The post office made an error;
10. The distribution was made on account of a levy under Sec. 6331, the proceeds of which have been returned to the taxpayer; or
11. The party making the distribution delayed providing information that the receiving plan or IRA required to complete the rollover despite the taxpayer’s reasonable efforts to obtain it.

For more information, see the Internal Revenue Service, Revenue Procedure 2016-47, available at https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-16-47.pdf.

© 2016 Vandenack Weaver LLC
For more information, Contact Us

 

Small Business Health Care Tax Credit

As a result of the Affordable Care Act (ACA), qualified small employers may be eligible to receive a tax credit for a portion of the health insurance premiums paid on behalf of their employees. The Internal Revenue Service recently released a reminder regarding the credit.

There are several requirements for small businesses to qualify for the credit. The small business must have fewer than twenty-five (25) full time equivalent employees, pay an average wage of less than $50,000 a year, and pay at least half of the employee health insurance premiums. Additionally, the employers must be enrolled in a qualified health plan offered through a Small Business Health Options Program Marketplace, or meet certain exceptions to the requirement.

The maximum credit is 50% of the premiums paid. Portions of the credit are phased out for employers paying employees over $25,000 and employers with more than 10 full time employees. The credit may not be claimed for more than two consecutive years.

If your business might qualify for the Small Business Health Care Tax Credit, a calculator is available through Healthcare.gov to estimate your tax credit, see https://www.healthcare.gov/shop-calculators-taxcredit/

© 2016 Vandenack Williams LLC
For more information, Contact Us

IRS Announces New Corrective Procedure for Failure to Adopt a Plan Restatement

By Joshua A. Diveley

Retirement plan sponsors that adopted a defined contribution plan document pre-approved for use by the IRS generally must restate their plan in full every six years. The next restatement deadline is April 30, 2016. If a plan sponsor does not adopt a restated plan document by the deadline, the plan is considered disqualified and is no longer entitled to tax-favored treatment. This may reduce the permissible deduction for contributions to the plan and make it harder for employees to save for their retirement and make tax-favored rollovers of distributions to other plans or individual retirement accounts.

Previously, the only way an employer could correct a failure to adopt a pre-approved plan by the deadline was to complete a submission under the Voluntary Correction Program. A new option allows a financial institution or service provider to request a closing agreement on behalf of plan sponsors. These would be similar to a group submission under the VCP, but under these closing agreements the organization doesn’t need to have made a systemic error.

For more information regarding the new corrective option, see: https://www.irs.gov/Retirement-Plans/New-Program-Allows-Providers-of-Pre-Approved-Plan-to-Correct-Missed-Deadlines.

© 2016 Vandenack Williams LLC
For more information, Contact Us

SEC Announces Priorities for 2016; Protecting the Retail Investor From Retirement Advisors

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) announced their priorities for 2016 and examining retirement plan advisors remains a focal point. In June of 2015, the SEC, through their Office of Compliance Inspections and Examinations (OCIE), launched the Retirement-Targeted Industry Reviews and Examinations initiative (ReTIRE). Since that time, OCIE has conducted over 160 examinations of retirement advisors and brokers, with over 115 on the advisors. The purpose, generally, is to protect retail investors and their retirement accounts.

With a priority on protecting retail investors, OCIE is examining SEC registered advisors to ensure they are taking adequate steps to follow their fiduciary obligation towards their client’s best interests. This often means the advisor’s fee is scrutinized, with practices such as reverse churning being the target. Reverse churning, in sum, is a practice of advisors putting investors into accounts that pay a fixed fee to the advisor, but usually fail to perform in a manner to justify that fee. For 2016, the review is expanding and will now include the practice, disclosures, and sales strategies for exchange traded funds (ETF). Two other new priorities include examining the sale of variable annuities and undisclosed public pension advisor gifts and entertainment.

The effort by OCIE is not to be confused with the Department of Labor (DOL) examination on retirement advisors, which is running concurrently. The DOL examinations under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, however, is similarly focused on protecting the retail investor. Comments by those at the SEC and DOL suggest that the focus on protecting the retail investor through these investigations are likely to continue for some time.

© 2016 Vandenack Williams LLC
For more information, Contact Us