Overtime Exemptions Remain Widely Misunderstood
Original Post from SHRM.org
By: Allen Smith
Even if workers’ pay is higher than the newly raised exempt salary threshold, they still might not be exempt. That’s because the new overtime rule didn’t add any requirements to the duties tests but left the existing duties tests in place. And the tests are widely misunderstood, particularly those for the administrative exemption, according to Robert Boonin, an attorney with Dykema in Detroit and a speaker at the Society for Human Resource Management 2016 Annual Conference & Exposition.
“I’m afraid you may be OD’d on overtime,” Boonin said at his presentation’s outset. But he reminded attendees that the salary level for the white-collar exemption—$455 a week, or $23,660 per year, under the 2004 overtime rule—will be raised to $913 a week, or $47,476 per year, effective Dec. 1 and walked them through potential traps in classifying workers as exempt.
Who’s In, Who’s Out
Paralegals are almost never exempt under the administrative exemption, Boonin remarked, and the same is true for help desk employees and administrative assistants. Other positions that probably don’t fit within the exemption include mortgage loan originators, customer service representatives and insurance adjustors.
To fall under the administrative exemption, an employee must have the primary duty of performing office or nonmanual work related to the employer’s management or general business operations.
He noted that areas likely to be related to management and general operations include:
- Accounting.
- Advertising.
- Auditing.
- Employee benefits.
- Finance.
- Government relations.
- Human resource management.
- Insurance.
- Labor relations.
- Marketing.
- Procurement.
- Public relations.
- Purchasing.
- Quality control.
- Research.
- Safety and health.
- Tax.
- Training and development.
That’s a wide swath of operations.
But, most important, the employee must exercise “independent judgment and discretion” on “matters of significance” to fit within this exemption, he emphasized.
An employee who falls under the exemption should not merely follow marching orders. So, while an HR coordinator who processes applications wouldn’t fit within the exemption, an HR director who oversees an HR department probably would.
‘Independent Judgment and Discretion’
When determining whether someone has discretion and independent judgment, Boonin said, HR should consider whether the employee:
- Has the authority to formulate, affect, interpret, or implement management policies or operating practices.
- Carries out major assignments in conducting the operations of the enterprise.
- Performs work that affects business operations to a substantial degree, even if assignments are related to operation of a particular segment of the business.
- Has authority to commit the employer in matters that have significant financial impact.
- Has authority to waive or deviate from established policies and procedures without prior approval.
- Has authority to negotiate and bind the institution on significant matters.
- Provides consultation or expert advice to management.
- Plans long- or short-term business objectives.
- Investigates and resolves matters of significance on behalf of management.
- Represents the institution in handling complaints, arbitrating disputes or resolving grievances.
Professional Exemption
The professional employee exemption is more straightforward. The primary duties must be in an area requiring specialized higher education and the consistent exercise of discretion and judgment, he said. These areas include:
- Engineering.
- Law.
- Medicine.
- Psychology.
- Science.
- Social work.
- Teaching.
Positions that may not fit within this exemption include accountants, stockbrokers and entry-level engineers.
While the salary threshold in general must be satisfied for white-collar employees to be exempt, the threshold does not apply to:
- Doctors.
- Lawyers.
- Teachers.
*Employees in highly skilled computer-related occupations, such as programmers and network designers who earn at least $27.63 per hour.
Other Exemptions
In addition to the administrative and professional exemptions, the executive exemption is available to employees who supervise at least two full-time workers and have the authority to hire and fire, in addition to primarily managing the enterprise, a department or subdivision.
Boonin noted that the outside sales exemption is for those whose primary duty is to sell services to customers at their place of business. There are no salary or fee requirements for exempt outside sales employees.
Special rules apply to highly compensated employees, who don’t fit within the white-collar exemptions. They perform a combination of nonexempt work (what the Department of Labor now refers to as “overtime-eligible” work) and exempt work, plus are high earners.
Take a sales director. She might not fit within the administrative exemption if the vice president of sales calls all the shots. She also wouldn’t fall under the professional exemption. Nor would she fit within the executive exemption if she supervised two full-time employees but didn’t have the authority to hire or fire them; again, the vice president might reserve that function for herself.
The sales director still would be exempt if her salary is—as of Dec. 1—at least $134,004 because she performs at least one of the duties in the executive, administrative or professional employee exemptions: supervising two full-time employees.
OFCCP Updates Sex Discrimination Rule
From the Department of Labor.
On June 14, 2016, the Office of Federal Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP) announced publication of a Final Rule in the Federal Register that sets forth the requirements that covered contractors must meet under the provisions of Executive Order 11246 prohibiting sex discrimination in employment. This Final Rule updates sex discrimination guidelines from 1970 with new regulations that align with current law and address the realities of today’s workplaces. The Final Rule deals with a variety of sex–based barriers to equal employment and fair pay, including compensation discrimination, sexual harassment, hostile work environments, failure to provide workplace accommodations for pregnant workers, and gender identity and family caregiving discrimination.
The Final Rule becomes effective on August 15, 2016.
Read the final rule.
DOL Overtime Rule Will Impact Hospitality Industry
Originally Posted by SHRM.org
By: Allen Smith
The hospitality industry will be hit hard by the Department of Labor’s updates to the overtime rule implementing the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), experts say. With high overhead costs and a low-profit margin, hotels and restaurants typically don’t have enough money in reserve to give employees big raises to preserve their exempt status or to pay many hours of overtime if employees are eligible.
As a result, hospitality employers will need to explore alternative compensation models, schedules and staffing options to try to mitigate costs, according to Ryan Glasgow, an attorney with Hunton & Williams in Richmond, Va.
Some choices will be simple, he noted. For employees with relatively high salaries who work long hours, the logical choice is to increase their salaries, as the minimum increase in salary likely will be less than the employer would have to pay in substantial overtime hours. As for employees with low salaries who don’t work much overtime, it makes sense to convert them to nonexempt and pay overtime for the few overtime hours they might work.
“For all other employees, the decision will be much more difficult and will require a lot of strategic planning and analysis,” Glasgow said. “For example, in certain circumstances, it may be feasible for the employer to combine two exempt positions into one position so that the cost of increasing the salary for the remaining one employee is offset by the cost-savings from the elimination of the other employee’s position.”
He added that it may be better for the employer to convert a position to nonexempt and hire more employees to perform the work so that none of the employees work overtime. “Similarly, employers should evaluate each impacted position to determine whether there are unnecessary and/or inefficient tasks that can be eliminated or given to another employee so that the position requires fewer hours of work, thus lowering the impact of paying overtime,” he noted.
Domino Effect
Be aware of the potential domino effect when an employee’s salary is increased above the new salary level. The employee and the employee’s supervisor may suddenly be making similar salaries. Supervisors may ask for an increase as well, leading to salary increases up the organizational chart, Glasgow said.
Bonus and commission plans will have to be re-evaluated since there may be overtime pay consequences if employees who have been converted to nonexempt are paid bonuses or commissions, noted Robert Boonin, an attorney with Dykema in Detroit and Ann Arbor, Mich., and immediate past chair of the Wage and Hour Defense Institute, a network of wage and hour lawyers.
Rule’s Potential Winners
Salaried workers earning less than $913 a week or $47,476 annually and who regularly work more than 40 hours per week stand to gain from the overtime rule, said Wendy Stryker, an attorney with Frankfurt Kurnit Klein & Selz in New York City. These workers will have their salaries raised above the new threshold, be paid overtime or have their hours reduced to a 40-hour workweek, she said. These employees include entry and midlevel professionals, such as chefs, sommeliers, and hotel or restaurant managers and assistant managers, she added.
The hospitality industry has a lot of employees earning in this range, according to Stryker. She noted that the average U.S. wage for chefs, head cooks and pastry chefs is $45,920. For bakers, the average U.S. wage is lower, at $26,270, Stryker noted.
While workers may benefit from the overtime rule, Michael Layman, vice president, regulatory affairs for the International Franchise Association in Washington, D.C., said the overtime rule will hit the hospitality industry particularly hard. Its employers “disproportionately face unpredictable season- or weather-dependent schedules and variable labor demands, which makes tracking hours and managing overtime costs a significant challenge,” he said.
“Given the need for onsite guest services, employers in the hospitality industry may have less flexibility than other employers to automate or offshore operations,” said Nancy Vary, director of the compliance consulting center at Xerox HR Services in New York City.
However, Carolyn Richmond, an attorney with Fox Rothschild in New York City, said, “I think we will see the live reservationist all but disappear as reliance on [online booking apps] OpenTable, Resy and the others grows.” She added, “Owners are looking at more and more automation—programs that monitor and control labor costs and even how to replace certain employees.”
Other Significantly Affected Industries
Hospitality isn’t the only industry to feel the brunt of the new overtime rule.
“The construction and retail industries will be impacted significantly because, like the hospitality industry, they have unusually high concentrations of low-salaried managers,” Glasgow said. He also expected large research and educational hospitals to be uniquely impacted because they have many low-salaried professionals.
“Any industry that has traditionally offered low pay to its skilled workers is likely to be hard-hit by the new overtime rules,” Stryker said. “In New York City, this is likely to be the creative industries such as advertising and film/television production, where hours are traditionally long, and the work product cannot necessarily be created on a 40-hour-per-week schedule.”
The point of the rule isn’t to benefit employers, though. “The new overtime rules were created to benefit employees,” Stryker said. “As the president noted when he directed the Department of Labor to update the relevant regulations, the FLSA’s overtime protections “are a linchpin of the middle class, and the failure to keep the salary level requirement for the white-collar exemption up to date has left millions of low-paid salaried workers without this basic protection.”
That said, Richmond noted that “While the Department of Labor hopes and expects these changes will lead to increased wages through overtime, I don’t expect that to be the case in [the hospitality] industry. Payroll has already risen dramatically with minimum wage increases and resulting wage compression, and owners will spend more time looking at controlling overtime.”
Allen Smith, J.D., is the manager of workplace law content for SHRM. Follow him @SHRMlegaleditor.
- See more at: https://shrm.org/legalissues/federalresources/pages/hospitality-industry-weighs-options-in-wake-of-overtime-rule.aspx#sthash.D3BGAwvR.dpuf
5 Things Employers Need to Know About Overtime Rules
Original post benefitsnews.com
With compensation taking up the biggest slice of the benefits pie, employers are paying close attention to the Department of Labor’s proposed changes to the overtime rules – expected to be released as early as this month – under the Fair Labor Standards Act.
The proposed rules bump the salary threshold for overtime from $23,600/year to $50,440/year. If the final rules stay the same as the proposed rules, employees currently working in salaried positions who make less than $50,440 will now be entitled to overtime pay. That’s a 113% increase, which is “incredibly dramatic,” says Lisa Horn, spokesperson for the Partnership to Protect Workplace Opportunity.
“Not only does it raise it that high, but what many have failed to hone in on is the fact that this is an annual increase,” she adds. “That’s quite impactful on top of that huge initial jump in the salary increase.”
Horn says some research predicts that because of that annual increase, which is tied to the 40th percentile of all full-time salaried workers in the country, the minimum salary threshold for overtime could rise as high as $90,000 within five to seven years.
It’s possible the final rules could include a lower salary threshold – Horn says she’s heard it could be $47,000/year instead of $50,440 – but even if that’s the case, it will still mean a big jump. Employers will have to decide whether to increase workers’ salaries to make them exempt from overtime or reclassify them as non-exempt.
And since many employers have different benefit structures for hourly and salaried workers, if some employees need to be reclassified as non-exempt they could see their benefits affected.
Moreover, in the eyes of employees, being reclassified as non-exempt is “seen as a demotion,” says Horn, who also works as SHRM’s director of Congressional affairs. “Because you’re continually trying to climb most employees from that non-exempt hourly status to the more professional exempt status.”
Here are five things employers need to know about the proposed rules from the PPWO, a group of more than 70 employer organizations and companies created to respond to the overtime rule changes:
1. This proposal represents a 113% immediate increase plus an annual increase. The proposed overtime rule would initially raise the salary threshold defining which employees must be paid overtime by 113%, from $23,600 to $50,440. In addition, the DOL has proposed increasing this minimum salary on an annual basis.
2. The proposal will impact millions of workers and cost billions to businesses.According to the DOL, the rule will affect over 10 million workers – workers who may see their workplace flexibility diminished or a loss in other benefits they rely on, says the PPWO. The National Retail Federation estimates retail and restaurant businesses will see an increase of more than $8.4 billion per year in costs.
3. The implementation window is very short. As proposed, the implementation timeline for this rule is only 60 days, which will place a massive burden on HR departments and organizations scrambling to comply, according to the PPWO. “That 60 days is just completely unworkable from an organization’s standpoint and having to implement these changes in such a short time frame,” says Horn. “These are, for some organizations, really massive changes.”
4. Many employees will need to be demoted. This change could force employers to reclassify professional employees from salaried to hourly – including many managers and those with advanced degrees – resulting in a loss in benefits, bonuses, and flexibility, and a reduction in professional opportunities.
5. This is a blanket increase that disproportionally impacts lower cost areas. A one-size-fits-all approach is inappropriate for the different industries and various regions of the country. While the threshold of $50,440 may be reasonable in New York City, a comparable cost of living in Birmingham, Alabama, for example, is only about $21,000 – making the threshold unattainable and unrealistic for many small businesses in lower cost of living areas, according to the PPWO.
Fiduciary Rollout: DOL to Extend a Hand
Original post employeebenefitadvisor.com
WASHINGTON -- As the dust begins to settle after the Department of Labor issued its hotly contested fiduciary regulation, one of the key officials who led the rulemaking initiative says that he anticipates issuing clarifying guidance on an ongoing basis as industry feedback trickles back on how the rules are working in practice.
“This is a major undertaking and that we need to be mindful of what impact it's having as people are implementing it,” said Timothy Hauser, a deputy assistant secretary at the Labor Department, on Tuesday at a policy forum hosted by the Investment Company Institute. “We need to have the courage to make changes and to be responsive as problems emerge. And I can assure you we have every intent of doing so."
The ICI is a trade group that has been sharply critical of the rulemaking process.
Rule opponents have argued that many firms would be more likely to abandon middle-income clients planning for retirement, rather than submit to the contractual provisions relating to best-interest advice. But Hauser noted that the department made changes as it redrafted the final rule, in a bid to make the provisions less burdensome.
FURTHER TWEAKS TO RULE
Hauser took pains to explain that that process is still ongoing, insisting that he will entertain further tweaks to the rule and will publish clarifying guidance, likely in a question-and-answer format on a "rolling basis."
"We did our level best, really, to try to find the legitimate concerns and objections people had to what we were doing and try to be responsive," Hauser said. "We'll continue to do that as we move forward."
At the same time, Hauser offered a strong defense of the rule and the underlying rationale for the department's effort to crack down on conflicted advice in the retirement sector.
"The basic idea, first and foremost, is that we want advice to be in the customer's interest rather than in the interest of the adviser," he said. "The basis for this project — the reason we undertook this in the first place — was our belief that there was a significant problem in this marketplace."
The department's solution: update its rules under the 1974 Employee Retirement Income Security Act to extend fiduciary obligations to financial professionals working with retirement savers and plans, a threshold that is generally met when an adviser makes an investment recommendation and in turn receives compensation, Hauser said.
Hauser acknowledged that the ERISA statute has a "strong default position against conflicts of interest," but pointed out that the new rule explicitly permits conflicts such as commissions and proprietary products, provided that advisers offer up-front disclosures and aver in a binding contract that they will act in their clients' best interests.
That so-called best interest contract exemption has been one of the chief complaints of industry critics. But Hauser was quick to remind his audience that the rule will have minimal impact on advisers who offer advice that is free of conflicts.
"[T]there's nothing in the natural order of things that requires people to receive conflicted compensation streams as a condition of giving advice," he said. "However, we also don't outlaw conflicted compensation streams. The firm can continue to get commissions, it can get 12b-1 fees, it can get revenue sharing, it can get the variety of third-party payments."
Hauser continued: "But there's a quid pro quo for that. There's a basic deal that you need to strike with your customer, by and large, if you want to do that, and the deal is simple. You have to make a commitment to the customer that you're going to act in their best interest, and it needs to be enforceable."
NOT FOR PUNITIVE ENFORCEMENT
Hauser also said the DoL is not looking at the rule as a vehicle for a punitive enforcement policy. Instead, he said that the department is hoping to serve as a resource for affected firms and to work with them in a collaborative spirit as they implement the new rules.
"Our primary efforts are not going to be about finding people to sue, it's going to be about helping people to comply," he said. "Any problems you're wrestling with, issues you're trying to deal with, operational issues you're confronting — we'd love to hear from you, we'd love to be able to give advice. I would much rather get advice out early rather than have you build entire systems only to have us say, 'Nah, we don't think that complies.' I think it's in all our interest to make this work."
Compliance Alert: New Affordable Care Act FAQs Released
Original post jdsupra.com
The U.S. Department of Labor, the Department of Health and Human Services, and the Department of the Treasury (collectively, the “Departments”) have jointly issued a new set of answers to frequently asked questions about the Affordable Care Act (the “ACA”). Below are some highlights from the FAQs.
Rescissions of Coverage
The FAQs provides some specific guidance regarding rescissions of coverage that is of interest for K-12 schools and higher education institutions. Under the ACA, a plan generally cannot retroactively cancel coverage (referred to as a “rescission” of coverage) unless the participant commits fraud or makes an intentional misrepresentation of material fact prohibited by the terms of the plan. The FAQs answer a very specific question about rescissions, which may have broader application. The question raised by the FAQs is whether a school can retroactively cancel coverage for a teacher who was employed on a 10-month contract from August 1 to May 31 and gave notice of resignation on July 31. The plan attempted to terminate coverage retroactively to May 31. According to the FAQs, such a rescission violates the ACA’s restrictions.
Preventive Care Mandate
Under the ACA, non-grandfathered group health plans must cover certain preventive services without imposing any cost-sharing requirements. In the new FAQs, the Departments issued the following guidance regarding preventive services:
- Any required preparation for a preventive screening colonoscopy is an integral part of the procedure and must be covered without cost-sharing.
- Plans and issuers that use reasonable medical management techniques for specific methods of contraception can develop a standard exception form and instructions for providers to use in prescribing a particular service or FDA-approved item based on medical necessity. The Medicare Part D Coverage Determination Request Form can be used as a model in developing a standard exception form.
Additionally, the FAQs clarify that if a non-grandfathered plan pays a fixed amount (a “reference price”) for a particular procedure, the plan must either (1) ensure that participants have adequate access to quality providers that accept the reference price as payment in full or (2) count an individual’s out-of-pocket expenses for providers who do not accept the reference price toward the individual’s maximum out-of-pocket limit.
Out-of-Network Emergency Services Coverage
The ACA also prohibitsnon-grandfathered group health plans from imposing cost-sharing on out-of-network emergency services in an amount that is greater than that imposed for in-network emergency services. The statute does not specify whether “balance billing” is included in the definition of cost-sharing. “Balance billing” is the practice of providers billing a patient for the difference between the provider’s billed charges and the amount collected from the plan plus the amount collected from the patient in the form of a copay or coinsurance. To avoid circumvention of the ACA requirements, the Departments previously issued regulations requiring a plan or issuer to pay a reasonable amount before the patient becomes responsible for balance billing. Under this regulation, the plan or issuer must provide benefits at least equal to the greatest of: (1) the median amount negotiated with in-network providers for the emergency service; (2) the amount for the emergency service calculated using the same method the plan generally uses to determine payments for out-of-network services; or (3) the amount that would be paid under Medicare for the emergency service (collectively, the “Minimum Payment Standards”). The FAQs now make clear that plans that are subject to the Employee Retirement Income Security Act must disclose the documentation and data they use to calculate the Minimum Payment Standards (1) upon request by a participant (or authorized representative) or (2) if relevant to an appeal of an adverse benefit determination.
Mental Health Parity
Lastly, the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act (“MHPAEA”) and underlying regulations generally prohibit group health plans from imposing more restrictions on financial requirements and treatment limitations provided for mental health/substance abuse disorder services than the “predominant” financial requirements and treatment limitations that apply to “substantially all” medical/surgical services. “Substantially all” for this purpose is a requirement or limitations that apply to at least 2/3 of all medical/surgical benefits in a classification. If a limitation meets the substantially all requirement, then the “predominant” level that may apply to the mental health/substance abuse disorder benefits is the one that applies to more than half of the medical/surgical benefits within the classification. In the FAQs, the Departments clarify that when calculating the “substantially all” and “predominant” tests, a plan or issuer may not base its analysis on an issuer’s entire book of business for the year. Group health plan-specific data must be used where available. If not available, data from plans with similar structures and demographics can be used.
The FAQs also clarify that under MHPAEA, criteria for medical necessity determinations must be made available to any current or potential enrollee in a group health plan, not just active participants.
This is the 31st set of FAQs issued by the Departments on the ACA, which reflects the complexity of implementing the ACA’s many requirements.
How Employers Should Respond to Increased DOL Audits
Original post benefitnews.com
The Department of Labor says it will be stepping up enforcement efforts and employer audits, which should prompt brokers, who formerly worried little about such regulatory efforts, to prepare to serve as a trusted adviser to clients concerned about such efforts, says Julie Hulsey, president and CEO of Amarillo, Texas-based Zynia Business Solutions.
Speaking at an industry conference in Hollywood, Fla. last week, Hulsey said employers are feeling pressured by the weight of increased DOL and health care reform regulations and brokers need to stay up to date on regulations, including those related to the Affordable Care Act and ERISA.
The ACA reporting requirements have brought increased scrutiny of employer-sponsored health care plans and the government is largely expected to respond to anomalies or red flags with an employer audit. But industry experts agree the government won’t limit its inquiries to ACA-related information only, and employers should be prepared for full-blown audits of health care plans.
Quoting from a DOL presentation in Austin, Texas, Hulsey says the Department said, “leniency is over; the EBSA has staffed up and is focusing its resources on health and welfare plan ERISA compliance.”
Additionally, in her small Texas town alone, she says she’s heard that the DOL has added 10-12 auditors, who are conducting random audits of employers, mostly on the smaller employee size.
Increased compliance needs can be a strain for small employers, some of which may not even have a designated Human Resources department or manager.
When a DOL audit is announced, an employer’s first phone call will be their broker or an attorney.
Among the topics that brokers should be aware,
- Variable Employee Testing: Based on employee classifications, an employer can group employees into different groups, such as part-time and seasonal.
- HR 3236-The Transportation and Veteran Health care Choice Improvement Act of 2016: This Act regulates that employees covered by Tricare can be excluded from counting employee numbers.
- Cadillac Tax: Although delayed until 2020, it is important to start planning now.
- Waivers: If employers offer a minimum-essential coverage plan that meets affordable and minimum value test and an employee declines coverage, it is important the employer have a signed waiver. “That waiver is gold,” Hulsey said.
- Individual Mandate: The period will run from Nov. 1, 2016 to Jan. 31, 2016.
- Special Enrollment Period: Presenting a sales opportunity to brokers, these enrollment periods take affect when an employee experiences any change that affects income or household size, such as becoming pregnant. Other special enrollments include marriage/divorce, changing place of residence and having a change in disability.
The DOL has the authority to audit for compliance with several laws, including the ACA, HIPAA and the Mental Health Parity and Addiction Equity Act. They also have the authority to audit for minimum loss ratio rebates and PECORI fees.
IRS: Skip Form 5500’s Optional Compliance Questions
Original post shrm.org
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently added new questions to the 2015 Form 5500 and 5500-SF (short form) annual retirement plan returns. The Form 5500 series of returns are used by retirement plans to report the financial condition, investments and operations of the plans to the Department of Labor (DOL) and IRS.
When the new IRS compliance questions were originally introduced, the IRS described the questions as optional for plan year 2015. However, in its most recent instructions, the IRS has specifically advised plan sponsors not to complete these questions for the 2015 plan year.
The IRS decision to delay completion is due to privacy and misreporting concerns raised by retirement plan administrators and advisors.
The new compliance questions are intended to aid the IRS in determining whether a retirement plan, such as a 401(k) plan, is in compliance with applicable law—in particular, how the plan is satisfying discrimination testing and making timely plan amendments. The new questions also ask whether the plan trust incurred unrelated business taxable income and if the plan made in-service distributions, such as hardships. Specifically, the following new lines were added:
Form 5500 Annual Return (Report of Employee Benefit Plan)
• Provide preparer information including name, address and telephone number.
Schedules H (Financial Informaiton) and Schedule I (Small Plan Financial Information)
• Did the plan trust incur unrelated business taxable income?
• Were in-service distributions made during the plan year?
• Provide trust information including trust name, EIN, and name and telephone number of trustee or custodian.
Schedule R (Retirement Plan Information) – New Part VII: IRS Compliance Questions
• Is the plan a 401(k) plan?
• How does the 401(k) plan satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements for employee deferrals and employer matching contributions?
• If the Average Deferral Percentage (ADP) test or Average Contribution Percentage (ACP) test is used, did the plan perform testing using the “current year testing method” for non-highly compensated employees?
• Did the plan use the ratio percentage test or the average benefit test to satisfy the coverage requirements under Section 410(b)?
• Does the plan satisfy the coverage and nondiscrimination tests by combining this plan with any other plans under the permissive aggregation rules?
• Has the plan been timely amended for all required tax law changes?
• Provide the date of the last plan amendment/restatement for the required tax law changes.
• If the plan sponsor is an adopter of a pre-approved master and prototype or volume submitter plan that is subject to a favorable IRS opinion or advisory letter, provide the date and serial number of that letter.
• If the plan is an individually-designed plan and received a favorable determination letter from the IRS, provide the date of the plan’s last favorable determination letter.
• Is the plan maintained in a U.S. territory?
Form 5500-SF Annual Return (Report of Small Employee Benefit Plan)
• Asks for all the information added to the Forms and Schedules above.
• Were required minimum distributions made to 5 percent owners who have attained age 70½?
When plan sponsors and plan administrators are eventually required to respond to these new questions, their responses could highlight plan compliance issues of which the plan sponsor or the IRS may not have been aware, and could lead to follow-up investigations from the IRS. The new questions are helpful guidance for plan sponsors to make certain that their 401(k) and 403(b) plans are in compliance.
5 things to know about the DOL fiduciary rule
Original post benefitspro.com
Tomorrow marks the last day the White House’s Office of Management and Budget will accept meetings with industry stakeholders hoping to influence the finalization of the Department of Labor’s fiduciary rule.
1. When will the DOL fiduciary rule be finalized?
That means a final rule could emerge as early as next week, but more likely by the end of the month, according to Brad Campbell, an ERISA attorney with Drinker Biddle.
Campbell and Fred Reish, who chairs Drinker Biddle’s ERISA team, addressed a conference call on the DOL rule’s potential impact.
Nearly 1,000 stakeholders participated, testament to the wide-ranging impact the rule is expected to have on advisors and service providers to workplace retirement plans and individual retirement accounts.
2. Will the DOL rule be stopped?
Several legislative efforts that would delay or defund the rule’s implementation, as well as strategies to address the rule through the appropriations process or the Congressional Review Act, are “real and substantive,” said Campbell, but stand little chance of blocking implementation of the rule.
“The likelihood that Congress can stop DOL is low,” said Campbell.
He expects more Democrats to find the rule to be problematic once it is finalized, but not enough to create the two-thirds majority needed to override a veto from President Obama, which would be all but guaranteed of any legislation Congress passes.
3. When would compliance be expected?
Campbell also said he expects the Obama Administration to waste little time making industry comply with the new rule. An end-of-year compliance date should be expected, he said.
“Obama is going to want to have a deadline in place before he leaves. That will make it much harder for the next administration to undue” the rule, said Bradford.
4. Will others try to block the rule?
While Congressional efforts to block the rule will likely prove impotent, Campbell said private lawsuits seeking to block the rule’s implementation are “a very real possibility.”
“DOL has done some things I think they lack the authority to do,” explained Campbell, who referenced a recent majority report from the Senate Committee on Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs.
That report alleged the Obama Administration was “predetermined to regulate the industry” and sought economic evidence to “justify its preferred action” in directing the DOL to write a rule that would expand the definition of fiduciary to include nearly all advisors to 401(k) plans and IRAs.
The report also claims DOL willfully ignored recommendations from the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Treasury Department and the OMB as it crafted its proposed rule.
Campbell called those arguments and others enumerated in the Committee’s report “legitimate.”
If lawsuits from stakeholders do emerge, courts may delay implementation of the rule as claims are litigated, but Campbell seemed to dissuade stakeholders from holding out too much hope for that possibility.
“No one can predict where the courts will go,” he said.
5. What will the fiduciary rule’s impact be?
Fully preparing for the rule’s impact is of course impossible before it is finalized.
Nonetheless, Campbell and Reish itemized the ways a final rule is likely to impact industry. They are hoping regulators address several vague areas of the proposal in the final weeks of the rulemaking process.
Still unknown is whether the rule will provide a grandfather provision for tens of millions of IRA accounts already in existence.
Also at question is the proposal’s education carve-out, which could greatly impact how service providers’ call centers interact with plan participants, and whether including specific funds in asset allocation models would rise to the level of fiduciary advice.
Campbell said he expects the DOL to finalize an education carve-out that is a bit more forgiving than what was initially proposed. He expects a final rule will allow specific investments to be mentioned, so long as a range of comparable options are offered as well.
There also is the question of whether or not 401(k) and IRA platform providers will be allowed to offer access to 3(21) and 3(38) fiduciaries, and whether or not doing so would be a fiduciary action.
But the biggest questions impacting a final rule’s ultimate impact relates to the proposal’s Best Interest Contract Exemption, said both Campbell and Reish.
How those exemptions are ultimately finalized will shape the IRA market and how providers and advisors recommend rollovers from 401(k) plans.
The attorneys said they expect a final rule to consider rollover recommendations a fiduciary act.
One concern for advisors will be when they need an exemption to advise on a rollover.
If general education on rollovers is offered, without advice, one natural consequence is that investors will ask advisors what they should do, said the attorneys.
“Is no advice better than so-called conflicted advice?” asked Reish rhetorically. “Prudent advice can still be prohibited” under the rule’s proposal, he said.
That fundamental question is likely to make whatever rule that emerges “extraordinarily disruptive” to the IRA market, the attorneys said.
Using Compliance Reviews to Prepare Employers for Audit
Original post benefitsnews.com
A retirement plan sponsor has a fiduciary duty to ensure that the plan complies with all federal and state rules and regulations. Plan sponsors must follow the plan’s provisions without deviating from them unless the plan has been amended accordingly. Failure to follow the provisions can lead to plan disqualification. For the 2015 fiscal year, the Employee Benefits Security Administration reported that 67.2% of employee benefit plans investigated resulted in financial penalties or other corrective actions.
An operational compliance review can help. It’s different from a financial audit. An audit reviews the plan as it relates to the presentation of financial data; it is not designed to ensure compliance with all of ERISA’s provisions or other requirements applicable under the Internal Revenue Code. Operational compliance reviews, on the other hand, are concerned with validating the process being reviewed, with no restriction on whether it impacts the financials. An operational compliance reviewer wants to know that the process works, whether it is replicable, and consistent with the plan document.
Where to Begin
First, employers need to define the scope of the plan. To help define the scope, advisers and employers consider the following questions:
- Does the plan sponsor have a prototype, volume submitter, or individually designed plan document?
- Have there been any recent changes to the plan document?
- Have there been any changes to any of the service providers, including payroll and record keepers, over the past few years?
- Has the plan sponsor had to perform any corrections recently, perhaps without fully understanding how the errors occurred?
- Have there been any data changes or file changes as they are provided to the record keeper?
- Is there money in the budget to cover the review?
With the scope defined, a thorough operational compliance review should involve the following key steps:
- Review of the plan document and amendments, along with summary plan descriptions and a summary of material modifications;
- Review of required notices sent to participants, such as quarterly statements, initial and annual 404(a)(5) participant fee disclosures, Qualified Default Investment Alternative notices, safe harbor notices, etc.;
- Review of service provider contracts, such as record keepers and trustees/custodians;
- Discussions with the people who administer the plan, which may include the record keeper, trustee/custodian, payroll and benefits administration personnel;
- Review of plan administrative manuals, record keeper operational manuals, procedural documents and policy statements; and
- Review of sample participant transactions and data for each of the areas being reviewed.
Reviewing and comparing a record keeper’s administrative or operational manual with the plan document is an essential step in the review process. There tends to be a higher propensity for errors to occur when a record keeper is administering a plan that has an individually designed document versus its own prototype document. Lack of documented procedures can be cause for concern in ensuring the consistency and integrity of administering the plan, especially when there are any changes to the record keeping infrastructure, such as changes to plan provisions, modifications or upgrades to the record keeping system, or even personnel turnover.
While this process may lead to the discovery of errors you don’t necessarily want to find, you do want to gain perspective and overall confidence on your plan’s operations. Aside from finding errors, here are some things you should capture from an operational compliance review:
Areas of improvement for operational efficiency, including opportunities to maximize record keeper’s outsourcing capabilities;
- Answers to questions on whether the plan’s provisions and administration would be considered “typical”, and how they compare to industry best practices;
- An overall rating or report card of how a record keeper or service provider compares to industry peers; and
- Confidence that if your client’s plan is approached by the DOL or IRS, it’s ready for an investigation that will conclude with a letter saying “no further action is contemplated at this time”.
Embarking on an operational review may seem intimidating but, with a well-thought-out plan, process, and the right resources, a successful review will uncover potential issues that can be resolved the IRS or DOL arrive at your client’s door. The rewards for your efforts may include perspective on industry best practices and how you can operate the plan more efficiently.