Posted on

Year End SECURE Act Deadline Looms for Tax-Exempt 457(b) Plans

Despite an extension granted to qualified plans, Section 403(b) plans, and governmental Section 457(b) plans to make necessary amendments under the SECURE Act, no extension past December 31, 2022 currently applies for Section 457(b) plans maintained by private tax-exempt organizations.  That means that, absent future guidance from IRS, these plans must be amended by the end of this year to incorporate the SECURE Act’s changes to required minimum distribution provisions.  Prompt action by those responsible for Section 457(b) benefits is required in order to meet the fast-approaching deadline. 

By way of background, Section 457(b) permits private, tax-exempt organizations to offer deferred compensation plans to a “top-hat” group, consisting of a “select group of management or highly compensated employees.”  Such plans are exempt from most provisions of Title I of ERISA and permit covered participants to defer up to the 457(e)(15) annual dollar limit annually ($22,500 in 2023) in addition to whatever they defer under the tax-exempt employer’s Section 403(b) or other retirement plan.  Governmental employers may also sponsor plans under Section 457(b) without limiting participation to a top-hat group.  Section 457(b) plans, whether sponsored by private tax-exempt employers or governmental entities, are subject to the required minimum distribution rules under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(9).  Those rules require that accounts begin to be distributed to participants by their “required beginning date” or RBD, as defined under Section 401(a)(9)(C), and also govern subsequent distributions to account holders and their beneficiaries.

Enter the SECURE Act in 2019.  The SECURE Act moved the RBD for non-owners out to the later of retirement or April following the year in which a participant reaches age 72, rather than 70 ½, which has been the prior rule, and also required annual required minimum distributions following the death of an account holder to be made over a period not exceeding 10 years for most designated beneficiaries, rather than over a period covering their life expectancy, which had been the case previously.  This is a mandatory change under the SECURE Act; the Act also contains discretionary provisions such as qualified birth and adoption withdrawals. 

The original deadline to amend non-governmental plans under the SECURE Act was the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022 (December 31, 2022 for a calendar plan year).   Governmental employers and multiemployer plans had until the end of 2024, however, as did 403(b) plans maintained by public schools.   In recent months, the IRS extended the SECURE Act amendment deadlines for all types of plans other than Section 457(b) plans maintained by tax-exempt employers.  This was announced in Notice 2022-33, issued in September 2022, whic was followed up by guidance in October of 2022 (Notice 2022-45) that extended the deadline to adopt amendments under applicable provisions of other laws (the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security Act (CARES Act) and Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019 (Miners Act) and the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2020 (Relief Act)).  (More precisely, the deadline extended under Notice 2022-33 included amendments under the CARES Act related to the 2020 waiver of RMDs and Notice 2022-45 covered amendments under other applicable provisions of the CARES Act.)

December 31, 2025 is the new amendment deadline under applicable provisions of SECURE and these other laws for qualified retirement plans, including 401(k) plans, and 403(b) plans.  For governmental pension plans and governmental Section 457(b) plans it is generally 90 days after the close of the third regular legislative session of the legislative body with the authority to amend the plan that begins after December 31, 2023. 

In the absence of further guidance from IRS, December 31, 2022 remains the deadline to amend Section 457(b) plans maintained by private tax-exempt employers to conform to the RMD provisions of the SECURE Act.  It is not unheard of for IRS to issue late-in-the-year deadline extensions, but in this instance, it has been silent on this category of plan twice in close succession.  Employers who maintain such plans should connect with their third-party administrators or benefit attorneys to arrange for timely adoption of the necessary amendment to their plan document, and an update of plan summary information provided to participants.

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: Markus Winkler, Unsplash

Posted on

In A Competitive Job Market, Helping With Student Loan Payments May Give Your Business the Edge

Through 2025, businesses have the opportunity to help employees pay off up to $5,250 in student loans each year ($21,000 total), through adoption of a simple written reimbursement program.  If structured properly, the assistance is deductible by the employer and excluded from employees’ taxable income.

This is thanks to one of the lesser known provisions of the CARES Act of 2020, which expended the use of the existing Internal Revenue Code Section 127 for tuition reimbursement programs, to permit repayments of principal or interest on an eligible employee’s “qualified education loan,” as defined under 26 U.S.C. 221(d).  This generally refers to debt incurred for eduction leading “to a degree, certificate, or other education credential” from an “eligible educational institution,” which is widely defined to include any accredited public, non-profit or privately owned for-profit college, university, trade school, or other post-secondary educational institution.  The CARES Act provision was meant to expire in 2021 but was extended, through December 31, 2025, under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.  As mentioned, the annual limit on tuition assistance, and by extension on student loan repayment assistance, is $5,250, but if a reimbursement plan is put into place in 2022 and used each year to the maximum limit, a participating employee can chop up to $21,000 off of existing student debt. 

For employers looking to put a student loan reimbursement plan in place, or amend an existing tuition reimbursement plan to add a student loan feature, there are a few rules to keep in mind.

  1. The $5,250 annual limit applies to both student loan repayments, and tuition reimbursement.  Therefore, an employee who is paying off qualified education loans while incurring new tuition expenses would have to allocate the $5,250 annual budget between the two expense categories.  No double dipping.
  2. You need a written plan document.  This is a requirement of Section 127.  It needs to spell out who is eligible to receive benefits (note that nondiscrimination rules apply), whether tuition reimbursement or student loan repayments, or both, are offered, the annual dollar limit (whether $5,250, or a lower amount), and any applicable limitations on benefits.  In this regard, some plans require repayment of benefits if employees leave employment within one year after receiving tuition or loan repayment assistance.  
  3. The assistance must be fully employer-funded and may not be offered as an alternative to employees’ existing or additional cash compensation.
  4. You must substantiate proper use of the funds for permitted tuition or student loan repayments.  Substantiation is required whether employers pay student loans directly to vendors (or pay educators directly for tuition) or reimburse employees for payments they incur.

Making your company stand out with a valuable benefit offering may help it attract and retain employees in today’s tight job market.  For more information on student loan reimbursement plans, visit our prior post on this topic.  And if you need help adding or amending a reimbursement program for 2022 to permit student loan repayments, use EforERISA’s contact form or reach out at croberts@mullenlaw.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. © 2021 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo credit: Standsome Worklifestyle, Unsplash

Posted on

Fast Facts About the COBRA Subsidy

The recently enacted American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARPA) contains a number of financial aid measures to help Americans coping with the economic fallout of the COVID-19 pandemic, including a 100% subsidy of COBRA continuation coverage premiums for a period of up to six months.  The subsidy provisions are set forth at Title IX, Subsection F of ARPA, Section 9501, titled “Preserving health benefits for workers.”  The following fast facts on the COBRA subsidy will help employers and benefit advisors prepare for more detailed guidance and model notices that are soon to follow from the Department of Labor. 

Subsidy Period

  • The subsidy is first available April 1, 2021 and ends, unless terminated earlier as described below, on September 30, 2021 (the “subsidy period,” as used herein).  The subsidy covers 100% of COBRA premiums, including the 2% administrative fee, for medical, dental and vision coverage during that time.  It does not apply to continuation coverage under a health flexible spending account.

Assistance Eligible Individuals

  • The subsidy applies to “assistance eligible individuals.”  This means someone who is eligible for continuation coverage during some or all of the subsidy period, by reason of an involuntary termination of employment or a reduction of hours.  The subsidy would also appear to apply to that person’s dependents.  
  • The subsidy is not available to those who resign or voluntarily quit employment.  
  • The change in employment status need not be directly related to COVID-19.  The usual exception for termination due to gross misconduct applies, but remember that that exception is applied sparingly.

Extended Election Period

  • Under a special extended election period, the subsidy is available not only to assistance eligible individuals who newly become COBRA eligible as of April 1, 2021, but also to persons who earlier declined COBRA, or elected COBRA but let it expire.  For instance, this group may include assistance eligible individuals who first became COBRA on or after November 1, 2019 (April 2021 would be the 18th month of COBRA coverage).  
  • The subsidized continuation coverage would apply prospectively only, in such instance.
  • A notice of the extended election period must be provided, triggering a 60-day period to elect to re-instate COBRA .  The Department of Labor is required to provide a model notice within 30 days of the March 11 ARPA enactment date.  

Option to Change Coverage

  • Assistance eligible individuals may receive the subsidy for the same coverage they were enrolled in at the time of their qualifying event, or they may elect a different coverage option so long the applicable premium does not exceed the premium for the coverage they had at the time of the qualifying event.  This is an optional feature of the subsidy provisions and an employer may choose not to extend the option to change coverage.

Termination of Subsidy Period

  • The subsidy period will end prior to September 30, 2021 in the event the assistance eligible individual’s maximum COBRA period ends (for instance, with regard to someone who made a special extended COBRA election).
  • Alternatively, it will end when an assistance eligible individual becomes eligible for coverage under another group health plan, or becomes eligible for Medicare.  
  • Eligibility under other group coverage or Medicare triggers a duty to notify the group health plan providing the COBRA subsidy.  The Department of Labor will further define the form and timing of the notice.  
  • A $250 penalty applies to each failure to provide the notice, and a higher penalty, equal to 110% of the applicable COBRA premium, may apply to an intentional failure to notify.  An exception to the penalty applies in the case the failure to notify was due to reasonable cause and not willful neglect.

Notification Duties

  • ARPA requires an update to COBRA notices sent to assistance eligible individuals who first became eligible for COBRA before the subsidy period, describing the premium assistance and the option to enroll in different coverage, if that latter option is extended by the employer, as well as the duty to provide notice of eligibility for other group coverage or Medicare.   The deadline to provide the new information is 60 days from April 1, 2021.  
  • This information must also be added to new COBRA qualifying event notices for assistance eligible individuals.  The new information may either be provided as part of amended qualifying event notices or in a separate document provided with the qualifying event notice.
  • As mentioned above, a special notice about the extended election period must be provided, and triggers a 60-day election period.  If the option to choose different coverage of an equal or lower premium is extended, an additional 30-day election period, for a total of 90 days, applies.
  • Advance notice of the expiration of the subsidy period is also required to be provided.  The Secretary of Labor will provide a model notice no later than 45 days from the March 11 enactment date.  

Subsidy is Not Taxable Income

  • The dollar value of the COBRA subsidy is excluded from the gross income of assistance eligible individuals.

Payment for Subsidy:  Credit Against Medicare Taxes

  • The person to whom COBRA premiums are payable will be entitled to reimbursement for the subsidy, in the form of a credit against the Medicare component of Social Security taxes.  
  • The employer is the person to whom premiums are payable, and who may claim the credit, in the case of a self-insured plan or an insured plan subject to federal COBRA  It is the plan itself in the case of a multiemployer plan.  
  • If the credit exceeds taxes payable the excess is treated as a refundable overpayment.   

DOL Outreach

  • ARPA allots $10 million to the Department of Labor to help implement the COBRA subsidy, enabling it to provide outreach in the form of public education and enrollment assistance to employers, group health plan administrators, and other stakeholders.

The above information is provided for general informational purposes only and does not create an attorney-client relationship between the author and the reader. Readers should not apply the information to any specific factual situation other than on the advice of an attorney engaged specifically for that or a related purpose. © 2021 Christine P. Roberts, all rights reserved.

Photo Credit:  Marten Bjork, Unsplash

Posted on

COVID-19 Vaccines: Employer Mandate & Incentive Issues UPDATED

Regular readers of this blog know that I limit my practice to ERISA and employee benefit issues. However, my partner Paul Wilcox has stepped in as a guest co-author to address the employment law issues around COVID-19 vaccines and your workforce (Q&A 1 – 4, below). I follow up below with a few questions on using wellness incentives to encourage employees to get vaccinated. This updated post reflects EEOC guidance on COVID-19 vaccinations that was issued on December 16, 2020.

Q.1: Now that COVID-19 vaccines are coming, can I require employees be vaccinated as a condition of employment?
A.1: The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has recently issued guidance indicating that requiring vaccination of employees is generally permissible. However, the EEOC also says that employer must consider accommodation of disabilities and sincerely held religious beliefs that are inconsistent with vaccination.  Additionally, some commentators have questioned whether the fact that the current COVID-19 vaccine was approved by the FDA on an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) might limit the employer’s authority to mandate vaccination.  Whether there is any merit to that argument has yet to be resolved, but the EEOC guidance indicating the mandating vaccination is generally permissible mentions the EUA status of the current vaccine but says nothing that directly indicates that EUA authorization by the FDA limits the right of employers to require vaccination.  This is an open question.

Q.2: Do we have to treat all employee objections to vaccination equally or do some types of objections trigger legal duties of accommodation, etc.?
Q.2: The law requires employers to consider reasonable accommodations for persons with disabilities who may be particularly impacted by vaccination and for people with religious beliefs that are inconsistent with vaccination. Whether an accommodation of a disability or religious belief is required depends on the circumstances, but the employer generally must consider the issue even if the ultimate answer is that the requested accommodation will not be granted. In its recent guidance on mandatory vaccinations, the EEOC noted that, however, accommodations which would result in a direct risk of harm to other persons are not required.

Q.3: Will I get in trouble if I only require some employees, such as customer-facing workers, get vaccinated but not other employee groups?
A.3: No, not necessarily. Making distinctions between employees based on job duties is generally permissible.

Q.4: Will my company face potential liability if an employee has a bad reaction to the vaccination? Does it matter that the current vaccine was approved by the FDA on an EUA?
A.4: The law also does not provide a clear answer to this question, although the general answer is that employer liability for work-related injuries is confined to the workers’ compensation system, so any liability might be covered by workers’ compensation insurance. Workers’ compensation is a “no fault” system, meaning that whether the injury was caused by negligence or in the absence of negligence is not a relevant issue.

Q.5: Can I offer wellness program incentives to encourage employees to get a COVID-19 vaccine?
A.5: Yes. The incentive could take the form of a cash reward or gift card, for instance. Note that cash and cash equivalent rewards are taxable to employees and are generally compensation counted under 401(k) and other retirement plans.

Q:6: Is there a dollar limit on the incentive I could offer?
A.6: Not a flat dollar amount or percentage, but the incentive must be reasonable in amount. As Paul noted above, vaccinations are characterized as medical examinations and therefore you must abide by ADA regulations governing wellness plans. Those regulations are aimed at insuring, among other things, that employee participation in work-related wellness programs that include medical examinations, such as health risk assessments, is voluntary on the part of the employee. In past years the EEOC has sued employers whose wellness rewards it deemed to be excessive. On January 7, 2021, the EEOC issued proposed regulations that would permit only de minimis incentives for participatory wellness programs such as a vaccination program. Examples of de minimis incentives include a water bottle or small gift card. The regulations will be reviewed by the Biden Administration and may not be finalized as currently drafted, but employers whose wellness programs include COVID-19 vaccinations should consult with counsel as to whether or not they should limit incentives to de minimis amounts or items. Employers that are offering an incentive to employees to obtain COVID-19 vaccinations from public agencies or third party vendors who are not part of the employer’s wellness program or group health plan may not be subject to the de minimis incentive limitation, but should confirm with independent legal advice.

Q.7: If employees have a disability that makes the vaccination inappropriate for them, do we still need to offer a way for them to earn the vaccination incentive?
A.7: Yes. Reasonable accommodation provisions in the ADA wellness regulations remain in effect, such that you must modify or adjust your wellness program for persons with disabilities that make the COVID-19 vaccine medically inadvisable. Examples might be virtual/remote attendance at a class on COVI9-19 mitigation measures such as mask wearing, hand washing, and social distancing.

Q.8: Do I have to notify employees about the special incentive offered for getting a COVID-19 vaccine?
Q.8: That is not clear at the present time. Notification duties under ADA wellness regulations form 2016 would have required a notice be provided when employees’ medical information is gathered, such as in a vaccination process. The 2016 regulations required that the notice be written in a language reasonably likely to be understood by the participating employees, describe the type of information that will be gathered, and describe the confidentiality measures that are in place to protect this information. In its proposed 2021 wellness regulations the EEOC waives the notice requirement as unnecessary when the de minimis incentive applies. Employers with participatory wellness programs that would be subject to the de minimis incentive limit, if enforced, should consult counsel as to whether or not to comply with the notice requirements from the 2016 EEOC wellness regulations.

Note: 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.

(c) 2021 Christine P. Roberts and Paul K. Wilcox, all rights reserved.

Photo Credit: Top photo: Emin Baycan, Unsplash