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
© 2024 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 AllEmployers Scramble to Get Immigration Records in Order Ahead of Trump Crackdown
6 minute readNLRB Bans 'Captive Audience' Meetings, Yanking Away Platform Employers Used to Combat Unionizing
3 GOP States Join Paid Sick Leave Movement, Passing Ballot Measures by Wide Margins
5 minute readElection Outcome Could Spur Policy U-Turns Across Employment Landscape
6 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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