In recent years, there has been an upward trend of regulators focusing on the issue of retirement plan participants not collecting retirement benefits upon reaching retirement age (and we have previously covered the final rule on the missing participants program on this blog). Although there are many reasons why individuals delay collection, in some cases, the individuals are not starting their benefit payments because they are “missing”—meaning the administrators of their retirement plans cannot locate them or the plans lack critical identifying information to locate them.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released IRS Notice 2019-63, which provides a 30-day automatic extension to furnish to employees/covered individuals the 2019 IRS Forms 1095-B (Health Coverage) and 1095-C (Employer-Provided Health Insurance Offer and Coverage) from January 31, 2020 to March 2, 2020. This extension is similar to the extension issued in earlier years and does not impact the deadline to furnish transmittal Forms 1094-C and 1094-B and copies of the individual forms to the IRS. The deadline to file these forms remains February 28, 2020 (March 31, 2020, if filing electronically). 

Morgan Lewis associate Samantha Kapnek co-authored this article.

On December 4, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued Notice 2019-64, which contains the 2019 Required Amendments List for individually designed tax-qualified retirement plans. As background, the IRS issues its Required Amendments List each year to identify statutory and administrative changes to the tax qualification rules that may require sponsors of individually designed retirement plans to amend their plans to comply with the changes. In general, the deadline for adopting any required amendments on the list is the end of the second calendar year after the list is issued.

The 2019 list identifies the following changes that may require amendments to an individually designed retirement plan:

As concerns continue regarding the possibility of an economic downturn, plan sponsors should be aware of the effects that two potential downturn events could have on their qualified plans.

Substantial Cessation of Operations (Section 4062(e) Event)

Where there is a substantial cessation of operations at a facility, an employer maintaining a qualified defined benefit plan may be subject to certain notice requirements and termination liability rules. A substantial cessation of operations occurs when a permanent cessation of operations at a facility results in the loss of employment by employees at the facility who constitute more than 15% of all employees who are eligible under the plan.

The outsourcing of retirement plan recordkeeping and other administrative responsibilities has increased in recent years for both defined contribution and defined benefit plans. Although there is no overarching privacy law governing retirement plans, fiduciaries must adhere to the “prudent expert” standard of care in fulfilling their duties, and be continuously diligent and attentive to the privacy and security of participant data.

This diligence extends to the structuring of outsourcing agreements for administrative responsibilities. Read this post from our Tech & Sourcing @ Morgan Lewis blog for more data security considerations in plan administration outsourcing agreements.

Closed defined benefit plans—i.e., defined benefit plans that are frozen to new participants but that allow existing “grandfathered” participants to continue to accrue benefits—are nearly certain to face challenges in passing nondiscrimination testing. This is because, over time, the grandfathered group that continues to accrue benefits is likely to become disproportionately highly compensated as a result of their longer service and the absence of shorter-service employees participating when they are first hired.

Congratulations to employee benefits partner Daniel Salemi, who was recently named to the 2019 40 Under Forty List in the Chicago Daily Law Bulletin. The Chicago Daily Law Bulletin and Chicago Lawyer selection committee chooses the honorees from a pool of recommendations submitted by peers to recognize those attorneys who have demonstrated intelligence, passion, success in the office, and a desire to help the community through civic or pro bono efforts. Honorees were recognized at a September 19 ceremony celebrating the 20th anniversary of the 40 Under Forty list in Chicago.

In final regulations set to take effect for 2020 Forms W-2, the IRS gives employers the option of using truncated Social Security numbers (SSNs) on employee Forms W-2 issued after December 31, 2020. The new rules are an attempt to assist employer efforts to protect confidential employee identification information from identity theft.

Recent decisions by the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit have reinvigorated the debate over whether mandatory individual arbitration provisions are enforceable with respect to ERISA claims and, if so, whether these provisions are worth including in your ERISA plan document. In Dorman v. Charles Schwab Corp., the Ninth Circuit affirmed that provisions in plan documents requiring individual arbitration of ERISA claims could be arbitrable, a contrast to the Munro v. University of Southern California decision in July 2018. To learn about these changes, please read our LawFlash.

While the economy continues to enjoy steady growth, financial experts warn that an economic slowdown is likely in the not too distant future. Preemptive action may cushion an otherwise bumpy financial ride. Therefore, it’s time again to plan for an economic downturn. We have compiled several suggestions for executive compensation planning for a downturn.

  1. Align Incentive Compensation with an Economic Downturn Strategic Plan. Consider whether performance metrics should be updated to align with the company’s strategic approach to addressing a downturn. For example, companies can review their incentive compensation programs to minimize executive risk-taking, emphasize nonfinancial measures, and underscore near-term successes and sustainability.
  2. Minimize the Need for Discretion in Performance-Based Awards. When setting performance goals for incentive compensation, think about how an economic downturn will affect the company’s ability to meet the performance goals. Setting performance metrics with a view toward appropriate achievability in a variable economy may minimize the use of discretion later.
  3. Cap Payouts. Capping payouts under performance-based plans may alleviate unintended consequences, such as shareholder reaction to a payment substantially above target during a financial downturn. This can be an issue, for example, where one metric exceeds the maximum while another fails to hit the threshold.