Compliance Hurts—ERISA and IRS Penalties Will Hurt Worse
Just after the New Year, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule increasing ERISA's noncompliance penalties.
February 08, 2018 at 12:29 PM
5 minute read
Just after the New Year, the United States Department of Labor (DOL) issued a final rule increasing ERISA's noncompliance penalties. In Department of Labor Federal Civil Penalties Inflation Adjustment Act Annual Adjustments for 2018, 83 Federal Register 7 (Jan. 2, 2018), the DOL announced the annual adjustments that apply to penalties assessed after Jan. 2 for certain violations that occurred after Nov. 2, 2015. On the same day, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released Revenue Procedure 2018-4 which revamps the user fee schedule for qualified plan failures submitted to the IRS Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) for compliance statements pursuant to the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS), set out in Revenue Procedure 2016-51. The IRS announcement is especially significant because the Revenue Procedure eliminates reduced fees for common compliance errors in qualified plans like 401(k) plans and defined benefit plans.
Increased ERISA Penalties
Increased penalties should encourage employers to pay closer attention to the routine plan processes that create operational risks and address compliance concerns immediately so that the new penalties do not (themselves) become an issue. On the ERISA front, this means:
- Issuing automatic contribution notices before the plan year starts—the new penalty is $1,693 per day;
- If it is conceivably possible that a record-keeping platform (or other operational) change restricting plan rights will span longer than three consecutive business days, issuing timely blackout notices—the penalty increases to $136 per day per participant;
- Not ignoring DOL requests for plan information—new penalties start at $152 per day per document request;
- Maintaining predecessor employer records sufficient to determine any applicable creditable service—the penalty increases to $29 per participant per day; and
- Curbing impermissible use of participant genetic information—new penalties increase to $114 per day per participant, plus a potential $2,847 civil monetary penalty that could increase to $17,084 for uncorrected violations that are more than de minimis and $569,468 for egregious unintentional failures.
New Fee Structure for VCP-Corrected Qualified Plan Failures
For qualified plans, the new VCP fee schedule is a stark change because fees now are based on plan assets reported on the most recently filed annual report (Form 5500). There is an exception to use a prior year's Form 5500 if asset information is not available when filing the VCP application, but that exception is not available if the submission is filed more than seven months after the close of the most recent plan year. The deadline for filing Form 5500 is the last day of the seventh month after the plan year ends (without an extension). So, in other words, an employer who has not complied with the Form 5500 requirement cannot file a VCP submission while the untimely/late/delinquent form is outstanding. Both of the compliance failures must be addressed—the late annual report must be filed and the VCP user fee must be calculated based on the plan assets reported on that late form. Otherwise, the IRS will return the VCP filing (possibly without the submitted fee), which may create even more risk if the IRS then considers the substance of that returned filing when determining whether to initiate an audit.
The new VCP fees start at $1,500 for small plans with no more than $500,000 in plan assets, and double ($3,000) for plans between $500,000 and $10 million. For large plans with over $10 million in assets, the fee is $3,500. Common compliance errors that are now more costly to fix include (for large plans):
Failure | Before 1/2/2018 | Now |
Good faith and interim amendment failures | $375 | $3,500 |
Certain late amendment (non-amender) failures | 50% fee reduction | $3,500 |
Required minimum distribution (RMD) failures (when the failure affects less than 150 participants and it is the sole error submitted) | $500 | $3,500 |
Certain plan loan 72(p) limit, duration, amortization and default failures (when the failure affects less than 25% of participants during the impacted year (51-100 participants) and it is the sole error submitted) | $1,000 | $3,500 |
Compliance risks related to RMDs are particularly common and far-reaching because oftentimes participants fail to keep their contact information updated. In October, the Acting Director for IRS Employee Plan Examinations issued an internal memorandum generally instructing agents not to pursue RMD violations related to late commencement of distributions if the relevant plan took specific steps to search diligently for missing/non-responsive participants. Most notably, some of the steps include searches of related plan and plan sponsor records, and enlisting third parties (either a third-party tool or the third party itself). These are prerequisites for IRS audit relief related to late RMDs. Keep in mind that, on a more global ERISA scale, the failure to search diligently creates breach of fiduciary duty risks.
The bottom line is that, although there may be institutional challenges with getting a handle on plan compliance, increased risks and noncompliance penalties will be more painful.
Christina M. Crockett is Senior Counsel (Employee Benefits) at Fifth Third Bank. Before joining Fifth Third, she was in private practice for several years in the Washington, D.C., metropolitan area where she focused exclusively on employee benefits tax and ERISA compliance matters.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllTrump Fires EEOC Commissioners, Kneecapping Democrat-Controlled Civil Rights Agency
Testing Legal Authority, Trump Fires NLRB Member, Leaving Panel Without Quorum
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Gunderson Dettmer Opens Atlanta Office With 3 Partners From Morris Manning
- 2Decision of the Day: Court Holds Accident with Post Driver Was 'Bizarre Occurrence,' Dismisses Action Brought Under Labor Law §240
- 3Judge Recommends Disbarment for Attorney Who Plotted to Hack Judge's Email, Phone
- 4Two Wilkinson Stekloff Associates Among Victims of DC Plane Crash
- 5Two More Victims Alleged in New Sean Combs Sex Trafficking Indictment
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250