How to Prepare Business Owners for the Approaching CalSavers Deadline

CalSavers is a state-run retirement program that applies to employers who do not already sponsor their own retirement plan.  It automatically enrolls eligible employees in a state-managed system of Roth IRA accounts. It has been in place since September 30, 2020 for employers with more than 100 employees and since June 30, 2021 for employers with more than 50 employees.  On June 31, 2022, it goes into effect for employers with 5 or more employees.  Below we cover key aspects of the CalSavers program, focusing on the types of issues that California business owners might bring to their benefits advisor for further clarification. A version of this post was published in the March 2022 issue of Santa Barbara Lawyer magazine.

Q.1:  What is CalSavers?

A.1:  CalSavers is the byproduct of California Senate Bill 1234, which Governor Brown signed into law in 2016. It is codified in Title 21 of the California Government Code and in applicable regulations. It creates a state board tasked with developing a workplace retirement savings program for private for-profit and non-profit employers with at least 5 employees that do not sponsor their own retirement plans (“Eligible Employers”).  Specifically, CalSavers calls for employees aged at least 18, and who receive a Form W-2 from an eligible employer, to be automatically enrolled in the CalSavers program after a 30-day period, during which they may either opt out, or customize their contribution level and investment choices.   The default is an employee contribution of 5% of their wages subject to income tax withholding, automatically increasing each year by 1% to a maximum contribution level of 8%. Employer contributions currently are prohibited, but they may be allowed at a later date.

Q.2:  If a business wants to comply with CalSavers, what does it need to do?

A.2:  The steps are as follows:

  • Prior to their mandatory participation date – which as mentioned is June 30, 2022 for employers with 5 or more employees, Eligible Employers will receive a notice from the CalSavers program containing an access code, and a written notice that may be forwarded to employees. Eligible Employers must log on to the CalSavers site to either register online, or certify their exemption from Calsavers by stating that their business already maintains a retirement plan. The link to do so is here. To do either, the employer will need its federal Employer Identification Number or Tax Identification Number, as well as the access code provided in the CalSavers notice. 
  • Eligible Employers who enroll in CalSavers will provide some basic employee roster information to CalSavers. CalSavers will then contact employees directly to notify them of the program and to instruct them about how to enroll or opt-out online. Those who enroll will have an online account which they can access in order to change their contribution levels or investment selections.
  • Once an Eligible Employer has enrolled in CalSavers, their subsequent obligations are limited to deducting and remitting each enrolled employee’s contributions each pay period, and to adding new eligible employees within 30 days of hire (or of attaining eligibility by turning age 18, if later).
  • Eligible Employers may delegate their third-party payroll provider to fulfill these functions, if the payroll provider agrees and is equipped to do so.  CalSavers provides information on adding payroll representatives once a business registers.

Q.3:  How does a business prove it is exempt from CalSavers?

A.3:  There are several steps:

  • First, it must have a retirement plan in place as of the mandatory participation date.  This may mean a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) plan, a SEP or SIMPLE plan, or a multiple employer (union) plan. 
  • Employers with plans in place must still register with CalSavers to certify their exemption.  The link is at https://employer.calsavers.com (Select “I need to exempt my business” from the pull-down menu.)  They will need their federal Employer Identification Number or Tax Identification Number and an access code that is provided on a notice they should have received from CalSavers.  If they can’t find their notice, they can call (855) 650-6916.  

Q.4:     How does a business count employees, for the 5 or more threshold?

A.4: To count employees for purposes of the 5 or more threshold, a business takes the average number of employees that it reported to the California Environmental Development Department (EDD) for the previous calendar year.  This is done by counting the employees reported to the EDD on Form DE 9C, “Quarterly Contribution Return and Report of Wages (Continuation)” for the quarter ending December 31 and the previous three quarters, counting full- and part-time employees.   So, for example, if a business reported over 5 employees to EDD for the quarter ending December 31, 2021 and the previous three quarters, combined, and it did not maintain a retirement plan, it would need to register with CalSavers by June 30, 2022.  If a business uses staffing agencies or a payroll company, or a professional employer organization, this will impact its employee headcount. The business should seek legal counsel as the applicable regulations are somewhat complex.

Q.5: What are the consequences of noncompliance with CalSavers requirements?

A.5:  There are monetary penalties for noncompliance, imposed on the Eligible Employer by CalSavers working together with the Franchise Tax Board. The penalty is $250 per eligible employee for failure to comply after 90 days of receiving the CalSavers notification, and $500 per eligible employee if noncompliance extends to 180 days or more after the notice.  CalSavers has begun enforcing compliance with the program in early 2022, for employers with more than 100 employees who were required to enroll by the September 30, 2020 deadline.   

Q.6:  Are there any legal challenges to CalSavers?

A.6:  Yes, but the main suit challenging the program has exhausted all appeals, without success. A bit of background information is necessary to understand the legal challenge to CalSavers. The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) generally preempts state laws relating to benefits, but a Department of Labor “safe harbor” dating back to 1975 excludes from the definition of an ERISA plan certain “completely voluntary” programs with limited employer involvement. 29 C.F.R. § 2510.3-2(d).  The Obama administration finalized regulations in 2016 that would have expressly classified state programs like CalSavers, as exempt from ERISA coverage, and thus permissible for states to impose. However, Congress passed legislation in 2017 that repealed those regulations, such that the 1975 safe harbor remains applicable. Arguing that the autoenrollment feature of CalSavers program makes CalSavers not completely voluntary and thus takes it out of the 1975 regulatory safe harbor, a California taxpayer association argued that ERISA preempts CalSavers.   On March 29, 2019, a federal court judge concluded that ERISA did not prevent operation of the CalSavers program, because the program only applies to employers who do not have retirement plans governed by ERISA.  The Ninth Circuit affirmed.  In late February 2022, the Supreme Court of the United States declined to review the case. Meanwhile, state-operated IRA savings programs are underway in a number of other states, including Oregon, Illinois and New York, and in the formation stages in yet others. 

Q.7:  Does CalSavers apply to out-of-state employers? 

A.7:  It can.  An employer’s eligibility is based on the number of California employees it employs, as reported to EDD. Eligible employees are any individuals who have the status of an employee under California law, who receive wages subject to California taxes, and who are at least 18 years old. If an out-of-state employer has more than 5 employees meeting that description, as measured in the manner described in Q&A 4, then as of June 30, 2022 it would need to either sponsor a retirement plan, or register for CalSavers.

Q.8.  Does CalSavers apply to businesses located in California, with workers who perform services out of state? 

A.8:  Yes, if the employer is not otherwise exempt, and if they have a sufficient number of employees who have the status of an employee under California law, who receive wages subject to California taxes, and who are at least 18 years old.

Q.9: Can an employer be held liable over the costs, or outcome of CalSavers investments?

A.9:  No.  Eligible Employers concerned about lawsuits should be aware that they are shielded from fiduciary liability to employees that might otherwise arise regarding investment performance or other aspects of participation in the CalSavers program.  In that regard, the CalSavers Program Disclosure Booklet, available online, goes into significant detail about the way CalSavers contributions will be invested; notably the cost of these investments (consisting of an underlying fund fee, a state fee, and a program administration fee).

Q.10:  Can an employer share its opinions about CalSavers, to employees?

A.10.  Not really.  Eligible Employers must remain neutral about the CalSavers program and may not encourage employees to participate, or discourage them from doing so. They should refer employees with questions about CalSavers to the CalSavers website or to Client Services at 855-650-6918 or clientservices@calsavers.com.

The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2022 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

What the Supreme Court’s Hughes Decision Means to Plan Sponsors

“The point is that you’re not insulated from making bad [investment] decisions in your — [ . . . ] plan by the fact that you’ve made some good [investment] decisions in your plan, are you?”[1]

The fiduciaries of two 403(b) plans maintained by Northwestern University were sued for ERISA fiduciary breach on the grounds that the plans paid excessive recordkeeping fees, in part because of the existence of multiple recordkeepers, offered retail share class mutual funds and annuities when cheaper and materially identical institutional class alternatives were available to a plan of Northwestern’s size, and had a too-large roster of investment options that confused participants (Northwestern made changes that corrected some of these issues by the time the Supreme Court heard oral argument.)  The Northwestern fiduciaries moved to dismiss these claims, in part, on the grounds that the participants could have chosen from among lower-priced investments offered by the plans, hence failed to successfully allege that a fiduciary breach occurred.

In a unanimous decision by Justice Sonia Sotomayor in Hughes v. Northwestern University, the Supreme Court addressed a narrow issue on the standard of pleading an ERISA fiduciary breach: 

  • Whether, if plaintiffs can allege the existence of overpriced or otherwise imprudent investment options or recordkeeping arrangements, their complaint will survive a motion to dismiss, and may proceed to trial, even if participants could have chosen from among other investments that were not similarly flawed.

The Supreme Court answered this question “yes,” and remanded the case to the Seventh Circuit to determine whether fiduciary breaches were sufficiently alleged, notwithstanding that the Northwestern University 403(b) plans included some low-cost investment options which participants, in the self-directed arrangement, were free to choose over higher-priced options.

In reaching its conclusion the Supreme Court called out the Seventh Circuit for using “flawed” reasoning in its over-reliance on participant choice: “[s]uch a categorical rule is inconsistent with the context-specific inquiry that ERISA requires and fails to take into account respondents’ duty to monitor all plan investments and remove any imprudent ones.”  Hughes Opinion at p. 2, citing Tibble v. Edison Int’l, 575 U.S. 524, 530 (2015).

In other words, because ERISA fiduciaries must continually monitor investment options (and recordkeeping contracts, and other arrangements whose costs offset the growth of ERISA assets), the maintenance of some options that reflect fiduciary prudence does not excuse the continued presence of other options that do not. 

Reliance throughout the Hughes opinion on the Tibble case is instructive.  In that case, plaintiffs alleged in 2007 that the Edison 401(k) Savings Plan added mutual funds in 1999 and in 2002 with retail share pricing when materially identical, lower-priced institutional-class mutual funds were available.  The district court allowed the allegations regarding the funds added in 2002 to proceed but not the funds added in 1999, because more than six years had passed since the overpriced funds were added to the investment mix, and that exceeded the applicable statute of limitations for fiduciary breach.

The Ninth Circuit affirmed, but the Supreme Court disagreed, holding that ERISA fiduciary’s continuing duty to monitor and remove imprudent investments meant that the statute of limitations with regard to the 1999 fund additions remained open, because imprudent retention of an investment was a fiduciary breach, separate and distinct from a breach that occurs at the point of selecting an investment. 575 U.S. at 529, citing, inter alia, A. Hess, G. Bogert, & G. Bogert, Law of Trusts and Trustees § 684, at 147-148.

While it does not provide bright-line answers to what constitutes a fiduciary breach, the Hughes decision does acknowledge the complexity that the duty of prudence encompasses, stating that examinations of fiduciary prudence “will necessarily be context specific,” turning on the factual circumstances that prevail at the time the fiduciary acts; that at times, the circumstances facing an ERISA fiduciary will implicate “difficult tradeoffs,” and that courts must give “due regard” to the “range of reasonable judgments a fiduciary may make based on her experience and expertise.” Hughes Opinion at p. 6.

What does this mean for plan sponsors, plan investment committees, and other fiduciaries of 401(k), 403(b) and other ERISA retirement plans?  Nothing that common sense did not already dictate, but seeing the issues addressed so succinctly by the country’s highest court should be an impetus for plan fiduciaries to take the proper steps, which include (but are not limited to):

  • They must regularly evaluate the performance and pricing of their entire universe of investment options, as well as their recordkeeping and other vendor relationship, in a regular benchmarking or other apples-to-apples comparison process.
  • They must also put those relationships out to competitive bid at the outset of the relationship and periodically thereafter.
  • The benchmarking and bidding process must be documented in the form of meeting minutes and resolutions as must the periodic, such as quarterly, review of investment performance.
  • Use of a carefully chosen ERISA 3(21) investment advisor or 3(38) investment manager will assist with this process, but the choice and retention of the fiduciary advisor or manager is itself subject to the fiduciary standard and failing to benchmark and bid out those relationships could lead to potential liability.
  • An investment policy statement that articulates the process through which fiduciaries fulfill their duties of prudence, loyalty, and diversification with regard to selection and retention of investments is also advisable. However, care must be taken to not create too specific a set of guidelines as drifting from them could itself give rise to fiduciary liability.

In summary, the Supreme Court has weighed in, and ERISA fiduciaries who can point to some prudent investment options will not defeat fiduciary breach allegations at the pleading stage if they have not also regularly monitored and pruned inefficient and overpriced investments and recordkeeping relationships from their plan lineup.  Plan sponsors and other fiduciaries who already have good fiduciary hygiene practices in place should have little to fear, but those who do not now have no comfort that some is good enough, for defeating allegations of fiduciary imprudence.

The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2022 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo credit: Bill Mason, Unsplash


[1] Justice Elena Kagan, Transcript of Oral Argument, Hughes v. Northwestern (19-1401), Retrieved at https://www.supremecourt.gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2021/19-1401_d18f.pdf

IRS Announces 2022 Retirement Plan Limits

On November 4, 2021, the IRS announced 2022 cost-of-living adjustments for annual contribution and other dollar limits affecting 401(k) and other retirement plans.  The maximum annual limit on salary deferral contributions to 401(k), 403(b), and 457(b) plans increased $1,000 to $20,500, but the catch-up contribution limit for employees aged 50 and older stayed the same at $6,500.  That raises the total deferral limit for a participant aged 50 or older to $27,000.  The Section 415(c) dollar limit for annual additions to a retirement account was increased to $61,000 from $58,000, and the $6,500 catch-up limit increases that to $67,500 for participants aged 50 or older.   In addition, the maximum limit on annual compensation under Section 401(a)(17) increased to $305,000 from $290,000, and the compensation threshold for Highly Compensated Employees increased to $135,000, from $130,000.  Other dollar limits that increased for 2021 are summarized below; citations are to the Internal Revenue Code.  Unchanged were the annual deductible IRA contribution and age 50 catch-up limit ($6,000 and $1,000, respectively), and the age 50 SIMPLE catch-up limit of $3,000.  In a separate announcement, the Social Security Taxable Wage Base for 2022 increased to $147,000 from the prior limit of $142,800 in 2021.

Photo credit: Atturi Jalli, Unsplash.

IRS Prioritizes Guidance on Student Loan Repayment Contributions

On September 9, 2021 the Department of the Treasury issued its 2021-2022 Priority Guidance Plan listing guidance projects that are priorities for the Treasury Department and IRS during the twelve months ending June 30, 2022.  Among the Employee Benefits topics is “[g]uidance on student loan payments and qualified retirement plans and §403(b) plans.” This post reviews the state of the law on student loan repayments through retirement plans and briefly discusses what type of guidance might be forthcoming. 

Current State of the Law

The current state of guidance on using student loan repayments as a base for employer contributions to a qualified retirement plan or 403(b) plan is limited to a private letter ruling issued in 2018 to Abbott Labs.  In addition, proposed measures are contained in various pieces of federal legislation including the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021, commonly referred to as SECURE 2.0.

In the private letter ruling (PLR 201833012), discussed in our earlier post, the employer sought approval of an arrangement under which they made a 5% nonelective contribution on behalf of participants who contributed up to 2% of their compensation towards student loan repayments.  Those participants could still make elective deferral contributions under the plan, but would not receive a matching contribution (also equal to 5% of compensation) for the same pay periods in which they participated in the student loan repayment program.  Both the nonelective and matching contributions were made after the end of the plan year and only on behalf of employees who either were employed on the last day of the plan year or had terminated employment due to death or disability.  The nonelective contributions based on student loan repayments also vested at the same rate as regular matching contributions did.

 The PLR addressed whether the nonelective contribution made on behalf of student loan repayments violated the “contingent benefit rule.”  Under that rule, a 401(k) plan is not qualified if the employer makes any other benefit (with the exception of matching contributions) contingent on whether or not an employee makes elective deferrals.  The IRS concluded that the program did not violate the contingent benefit rule because employees in the program could still make elective deferrals, but simply would not receive the regular employer match on those amounts during pay periods in which they received the nonelective contribution based on student loan repayments.

Only Abbott Labs has reliance on the terms of the PLR, although the PLR may indicate the approach the IRS will take in any new guidance regarding student loan repayments as a basis for retirement plan contributions.  

Proposed Legislation

Congress has noticed the impact that student loan repayment obligations has had on employees’ ability to save for retirement.  As mentioned, the most significant bill that would address this issue is the Securing a Strong Retirement Act of 2021, commonly known as SECURE 2.0.  Specifically, Section 109 of the Bill would treat “qualified student loan payments” equal to elective deferral contributions, for purposes of employer matching contributions under a 401(k) plan, a 403(b) plan, a governmental 457(b) plan, or a SIMPLE IRA plan, and would permit separate nondiscrimination testing of employees who receive the matching contribution based on student loan repayments.  “Qualified student loan payments” would be defined to include any indebtedness incurred by the employee in order to pay their own higher education expenses.   Under SECURE 2.0, total student loan repayments that are matched, plus conventional elective deferrals, would be capped at the dollar limit under Internal Revenue Code (“Code”) Section 402(g) ($19,500 in 2021).   

What Future IRS Guidance Might Hold

Based on the Abbott Labs PLR and SECURE 2.0, we might hope or anticipate that any future IRS guidance on programs that condition employer retirement plan contributions on participant student loan repayments would include the following:

  • Guidance on how such programs may comply with the contingent benefit rule, including whether it will suffice simply that program participants may continue making elective salary deferrals (while likely foregoing regular matching contributions while student loan repayments are being matched).
  • Guidance on whether such a program, by nature limited to employees with student loans, is a “benefit, right or feature” that must be made available on a nondiscriminatory manner under Code Section 401(a)(4), and if so how it might satisfy applicable requirements.
  • Guidance on whether, and how, employers can confirm that loan repayments are being made, including whether (as SECURE 2.0 would permit), employers may rely on an employee’s certification of repayment status.
  • Guidance on nondiscrimination testing of contributions under a student loan repayment program, including provision for separate testing, as SECURE 2.0 would permit.

Additionally, plan sponsors would no doubt appreciate guidance on use of outside vendors for student loan repayment programs and how they might interact with conventional retirement plan record keepers and third party administrators.

Photo credit:  Mohammad Shahhosseini, Unsplash

The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2021 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

IRS Plays Musical Chairs With Voluntary Correction Programs

Section 401(k) and other retirement plans are notoriously complicated to operate and no plan sponsor gets it 100% correct, 100% of the time. When problems arise, plan sponsors may correct certain errors – technically “failures” — under an IRS program called the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System, or EPCRS. Failures corrected this way cannot later be the basis for revoking the tax-qualified status of the plan, or imposing other tax penalties or interest. EPCRS is set forth in a Revenue Procedure that the IRS updates every few years. On July 16, 2021 the IRS published the latest EPCRS upgrade in Revenue Procedure 2021-30, in which, like musical chairs, some ground is gained while some is taken away. Below is a summary of some of the key changes.

Expansion of Self-Correction Period

Under the Self Correction Program, a plan sponsor may at any time, without IRS review or approval, correct “insignificant” failures in the way a plan has been operated (operational failures), and failures relating to plan documentation such as missed amendment deadlines (plan document failures). Further, a plan sponsor may self-correct “significant” failures of these types, provided that the significant failure is identified and fixed within a set “correction period.”

In the past, the correction period ended on the last day of the second plan year following the plan year for which the failure occurred. The EPCRS upgrade adds a whole additional year to the correction period. Now, self-correction of significant failures may be made by the end of the third plan year following the plan year in which the failure occurred. Thus, a plan sponsor with a calendar plan year and a significant operational error occurring in 2018 will have until the end of 2021 to correct the error.

There are two follow-on effects of this extension:

  • The three-year self-correction period for significant operational failures does not begin to run until after the statutory correction period for ADP and ACP testing failures, which is the 12-month period following the close of the plan year for which the test was failed. In effect there is four years to correct these errors – the original statutory period of 12 months, followed by the three plan year self-correction period.
  • For errors involving a failure to offer or implement elective deferrals, corrective contributions equal to 50% of what would have been deferred generally must be made to the plan. That percentage is reduced to 25% of what would have been contributed if certain requirements are met, including that the period during which the error occurred lasted more than three months, but not longer than the self-correction period for significant failures. That period has now been extended a year, from two to three plan years.

Plan sponsors wishing to use the Self-Correction Program should be mindful not just of the correction period deadline, but of several other pre-requisites. First, the plan sponsor must have established compliance practices and procedures in place, and the error must have arisen due to a lapse in their normal application. Plan document failures may only be self-corrected if a “favorable letter” for the plan exists. The plan sponsor must also assess a number of facts and circumstances in order to determine whether the failure is “insignificant” or “significant.” For those seeking more information, the IRS provides helpful online guidance on Self-Correction (but the two-year correction period had yet to be updated as of the date of this post), as well as Self-Correction FAQs.

Anonymous VCP Repealed after 2021

In addition to Self-Correction, EPCRS includes the Voluntary Compliance Program (VCP), which involves an online submission, IRS approval of the proposed correction method, and payment of a VCP fee. Normally the name of the plan sponsor and the plan involved are revealed in the VCP submission process. However the IRS has for some years maintained an Anonymous VCP process, particularly for plan sponsors whose proposed corrections do not fit within the preapproved or “safe harbor” methods outlined in EPCRS. In Anonymous VCP, a representative of the plan sponsor, such as a law firm, files the submission without identifying the plan sponsor or plan. If the IRS approves the proposed correction, the plan sponsor reveals is identity and the process converts to a conventional VCP submission. If the IRS rejects the proposed correction method, the plan sponsor remains anonymous and has the option of later participating in regular VCP with an alternative proposed correction.

For reasons that it does not explain, the IRS is retiring Anonymous VCP and will not accept any more Anonymous VCP submissions after December 31, 2021. In its place the IRS is introducing a new program effective January 1, 2022, which it refers to as an “anonymous, no-fee VCP pre-submission conference.” This new program is intended for proposed corrections that fall outside the safe-harbor correction methods set forth in Appendices A and B to the EPCRS Revenue Procedure. The VCP pre-submission conference is available only if the plan sponsor is eligible for and intends to submit a conventional VCP submission. Following a VCP pre-submission conference, the IRS will provide oral feedback on the failures and proposed correction method that is “advisory only, is not binding on the IRS.” The IRS will only confirm in writing that a VCP pre-submission conference took place but will not appear to provide anything substantive in writing about what was discussed.

VCP pre-submission conferences are held only at the discretion of the IRS and “as time permits.” Given limited IRS funding and significant understaffing in recent years, one wonders how widely and promptly available this program will be. It is also unclear whether or not the introduction of the VCP pre-submission conference means that VCP coordinators at IRS will no longer informally discuss proposed corrections with attorneys and other practitioners, as has been the practice in the past.

Other Changes

  • EPCRS generally requires full correction of operational errors, but makes an exception for certain de minimis amounts. Effective July 16, 2021, the de minimis threshold increases from $100 to $250, and erroneous contributions (plus earnings) of $250 or less will not need to be pulled from a participant’s account or recouped after distribution to a participant.
  • In the past, when a participant received a lump sum distribution of a more than de minimis amount (“Overpayment”), the plan was required to seek recoupment in a lump sum repayment. Now, repayment in installments is also an option. For defined benefit plans, the Revenue Procedure describes certain conditions under which recoupment of Overpayments may be avoided altogether.
  • The Revenue Procedure restores a safe harbor correction method for failures arising from automatic contribution arrangements, which had expired on December 31, 2020. The new expiration date is December 31, 2023; until then no corrective contributions are required for certain automatic contribution failures that do not extend beyond 9 ½ months following the end of the plan year of the failure. Other correction criteria apply including provision of written notice to affected employees.
  • The Revenue Procedure substantially liberalizes self-correction of certain operational failures through a plan amendment that retroactively reflects how a plan has been operated. Such retroactive amendments must increase benefits, rights or features under the plan, rather than reduce them. In the past it has been required that the benefit increase or enhancement apply to all eligible participants under the plan, which made many proposed corrections unaffordable. The new Revenue Procedure lifts the universality requirement, so that a retroactive amendment may increase benefits only for those participants affected by the operational error. This will make this form of correction much more flexible and attainable for plan sponsors.

Photo credit: Federica Campanaro, Unsplash

The above information is a brief summary of legal developments that is provided for general guidance only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers are encouraged to seek individualized legal advice in regard to any particular factual situation. © 2021 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Happy 10th Birthday, EforERISA

December 16, 2020 marks the 10th anniversary of our first post on this blog and this week EforERISA is debuting a fresh new look and redesign courtesy of Ashli Smith and her team at Spotted Monkey Marketing. We are always looking for ways to make this site better and more impactful so your constructive criticism and comments on the redesign are welcome. We also welcome suggestions on topics to cover in our future posts.

2021 promises to be a busy year on the benefits front, with a new administration in gear and light at the end of the tunnel for our economy as vaccination becomes more widespread. We look forward to keeping you posted on the benefits news you need to have, whether you are an employer sponsoring benefit plans for your employees, or a benefits broker or consultant for whom compliance is your stock in trade.

Photo Credit: Robert Anderson, Unsplash

California’s Dynamex Decision: What it Means for ERISA Plans

The California Supreme Court ruled on April 30, 2018 that, for purposes of coverage under California wage orders, employers must start with the presumption that a worker is a common law employee, and then may properly classify him or her as an independent contractor only if all of the following three criteria are met:

  1. The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring business in connection with the performance of the work;
  2. The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
  3. The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.

Although the Dynamex ruling is limited to classification of workers under the California wage orders, it’s practical effect is likely to be much broader, as employers are unlikely to use one definition of employee for wage and hour purposes, and another definition for, say, reimbursement of business expenses, or benefit plan eligibility.

Speaking of which, what is the likely impact of the Dynamex ruling on employee benefit plans? Will employers have to offer coverage retroactively to the hire date of the now-reclassified independent contractors? Must they offer coverage going forward?

ERISA plans look to the federal definition of common law employee, which in turn looks to federal case law and an IRS multi-factor test.   So the Dynamex decision does not itself create eligibility under an ERISA plan.   What if individuals who were reclassified as employees under the ABC test were to claim retroactive eligibility under an ERISA plan, however?  As a starting point, it is helpful to look at how most plan documents currently define “eligible employee” and how they treat the issue of workers who were engaged as independent contractors, but later are classified as common law employees.

Most prototype 401(k) plan documents – and some health plan documents in use by “self-insured” employers – contain what is commonly referred to as “Microsoft language” — under which plan eligibility will not extend retroactively to individuals who are hired as independent contractors, even if they later are classified as employees. The language came into common use after the Ninth Circuit ruling in Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 120 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 1997), cert. denied.522 U.S. 1098 (1998), which held that long-term, “temporary” workers, hired as independent contractors, were employees for purposes of Microsoft’s 401(k) and stock purchase plan.[1]

For example, a prototype 401(k)/profit sharing plan that is in wide use provides as follows:

“Eligible Employee” means any Employee of the Employer who is in the class of Employees eligible to participate in the Plan. The Employer must specify in Subsection 1.04(d) of the Adoption Agreement any Employee or class of Employees not eligible to participate in the Plan. Regardless of the provisions of Subsection 1.04(d) of the Adoption Agreement, the following Employees are automatically excluded from eligibility to participate in the Plan:

(1) any individual who is a signatory to a contract, letter of agreement, or other document that acknowledges his status as an independent contractor not entitled to benefits under the Plan or any individual (other than a Self-Employed Individual) who is not otherwise classified by the Employer as a common law employee, even if such independent contractor or other individual is later determined to be a common law employee; and  (2) any Employee who is a resident of Puerto Rico.

And a self-insured group health plan document from a well-known provider states as follows:

The term “Employee” shall not include any individual for the period of time such individual was classified by the Employer as an independent contractor, leased employee (whether or not a “Leased Employee” under the Code section § 414(n)) or any other classification other than Employee. In the event an individual who is excluded from Employee status under the preceding sentence is reclassified as an Employee of the Employer pursuant to a final determination by the Internal Revenue Service, another governmental entity with authority to make such a reclassification, or a court of competent jurisdiction, such individual shall not retroactively be an Employee under this Plan. Such reclassified Employee may become a Covered Person in this Plan at such later time as the individual satisfies the conditions of participation set forth in this Plan. (Emphasis added.)

The Microsoft language, if present, may resolve the issue of retroactive coverage. What about coverage going forward? If a worker has provided services as an independent contractor but cannot retain that status under the ABC test, and is hired as a common-law, W-2 employee, does the first hour of service counted under the plan begin the day they become a W-2 employee, or the date they signed on as an independent contractor? The Microsoft provisions quoted above would suggest that service would start only when the common-law relationship starts, however employers are cautioned to read their specific plan documents carefully and to consult qualified employment and benefits law counsel for clarification. If the desire is to credit past service worked as an independent contractor, it may be advisable to seek IRS guidance before doing so, as fiduciary duties require that plan sponsors act in strict accordance with the written terms of their plan documents.

Finally, what about insured group health and welfare documents, such as fully insured medical, dental, vision, disability or life insurance? The policies and benefit summaries that govern these benefits probably won’t contain Microsoft language and may define eligible status as simply as “you are a regular full-time employee, as defined by your [Employer].”

Employers that are “applicable large employers” under the Affordable Care Act must count individuals who have been re-classified as common-law employees under the ABC test toward the group of employees to whom they offer minimum essential coverage; this group must comprise all but 5% (or, if greater, all but 5) of its full-time employees.  Unfortunately, there is potential ACA liability for failing the 95% offer on a retroactive basis. Public comments on the final employer shared responsibility regulations requested relief from retroactive coverage when independent contractors were reclassified as common-law employees, but the Treasury Department specifically failed to grant such relief, noting in the preamble to the final regulations that doing so could encourage worker misclassification.  Whether the customary 3-year tax statute of limitations would apply in such situations is not entirely clear; also unclear is whether employers could successfully argue that workers that fail the ABC test still somehow could classify as non-employees for federal common-law purposes.

Bottom line? Every California employer paying workers other than as W-2 employees should be re-examining those relationships under the ABC test and should be consulting qualified employment law counsel, and benefits law counsel, about the consequences of any misclassification, both on a retroactive basis (particularly with regard to the ACA), and going forward (all benefit plans).

[1] Another Ninth Circuit case, Burrey v. Pacific Gas & Elec. Co., 159 F.3d 388 (9th Cir. 1998), essentially followed the Microsoft ruling, but with specific regard to “leased employees” as defined under Internal Revenue Code § 414(n). A discussion of leased employees is beyond the scope of this post.

401(k) Fee Disclosure Deadlines Extended Three Months; Other Changes Made in Final Regulations Under ERISA 408(b)(2)

On February 2, 2012 the Department of Labor issued a final rule under ERISA Section 408(b)(2), governing disclosures that plan service providers must make to plan fiduciaries to allow them to confirm that the providers receive only “reasonable” amounts of compensation from plan assets in exchange for their services. The types of providers affected include Registered Investment Advisors, certain broker-dealers, third party administrators, and other service providers receiving $1,000 or more in direct or indirect compensation from plan assets. The rule extends the deadline for the initial disclosure three months, from April 1, 2012 to July 1, 2012.

The plan-level fee disclosure rules originally issued in July 2010 with a one-year deadline for implementation deadline, but that deadline was extended to April 1, 2012 last July. This is probably the last such extension (though anything is possible in an election year).

There is no prescribed manner of providing the required disclosures other than that it is in writing. Because compensation information may be conveyed through multiple or complex documents, the final rule includes a placeholder for rules on a “guide or similar tool” that would help fiduciaries locate information in disparate sources. An appendix to the final rule also includes a Sample Guide to get service providers working towards a disclosure roadmap.

Another significant change in the final rule is that it carves out, from plans that are covered by the disclosure rule, “pre-2009” 403(b) annuity contracts or custodial accounts that meet all the requirements set forth in DOL Field Assistance Bulletins 2009-02 and 2010-1 providing limited relief from Form 5500 reporting duties. More information on how to identify a pre-2009 contract or account is found in the FABs.

Failure to comply with the fee disclosure requirements constitutes a prohibited transaction (PT) for the responsible fiduciary, whereas compliance qualifies the fiduciary for a PT exemption. The final rule changes one of the conditions for the PT exemption when a service provider has failed to provide compensation information and also has not responded to the fiduciary’s written request for the information within 90 days. If the information relates to futures services and is not disclosed promptly after the 90-day period, the final rule requires the fiduciary to terminate the service arrangement “as expeditiously as possible.”

The final rule cuts service providers some slack, however, allowing them to provide “reasonable and good faith estimates” of compensation or cost amounts that are difficult to itemize, so long as the service provider explains the methods and assumptions it used to arrive at the estimate.

Additionally, disclosures of indirect compensation paid by third parties to the service provider must be accompanied by a description of the arrangement between the service provider and the third party pursuant to whom the payments are made.

The three-month extension of the plan-level fee disclosure rule triggers an equal extension of the participant-level fee disclosure rules under ERISA Section 404(a)(2). Technically plan sponsors (employers) must make these disclosures to plan participants, but for practical purposes institutional investment providers will provide most of the content. The deadline to distribute the initial written disclosure has moved from May 31, 2012 to August 30, 2012, and the deadline to distribute the first quarterly statement under the rule has moved from August 14, 2012 to November 14, 2012.