Author: Kelly Kenne

IRS Provides Guidance on SECURE Act Implementation

On September 2, 2020, the IRS issued Notice 2020-68 to provide guidance regarding certain provisions of the SECURE Act affecting qualified retirement plans, 403(b) plans and IRAs. The guidance, which is in the form of questions and answers (Q&As), is intended to assist plan sponsors and IRA custodians with the implementation of this legislation.

The SECURE Act, which was enacted on December 20, 2019, introduced significant changes with respect to retirement plan eligibility, contributions and distributions, among other items. (See our January 7, 2020, edition of Compliance Corner for an article detailing the provisions of the act.) Notice 2020-68 provides needed clarification regarding specific sections of this law and the deadlines for adopting related plan amendments.

First, the notice addresses a new $500 tax credit under Section 105 of the SECURE Act that is available to small businesses (with up to 100 employees who were paid at least $5,000 a year) that newly establish an eligible automatic enrollment arrangement (EACA) to increase qualified plan participation. This one-time credit applies to the three-year period that begins when the EACA feature is first adopted. The $500 credit is available on an employer (as opposed to plan) basis; therefore, each employer participating in a multiple employer plan could be eligible to claim this amount.

Second, clarification is provided regarding Section 107 of the SECURE Act, which permitted certain changes with respect to IRA contributions and distributions beginning in 2020. Specifically, IRA owners are now allowed to make contributions after attainment of age 70.5, which was previously restricted. However, financial institutions that serve as custodian or trustee are not required to accept such post-age 70.5 contributions. Those that elect to do so must amend their IRA contracts by December 31, 2022, and notify accountholders within 30 days of the amendment adoption or effective date.

Additionally, Section 107 of the SECURE Act allows post-age 70.5 IRA owners to exclude from their gross income up to $100,000 of IRA distributions made directly to charities. The excludable amount must be reduced by any post-age 70.5 contributions, and the notice provides specific examples as to how the contribution offset would apply.

Third, the notice clarifies Section 112 of the SECURE Act, which modified 401(k) eligibility requirements to enable participation by long-term part time workers. Specifically, part-timers who have attained age 21 and completed three consecutive years each with 500 hours of service must be eligible to participate. This change is effective for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2021. The Q&As explain that 12-month periods beginning prior to this date would not count in determining a part-time employee’s eligibility to participate, but would count towards the employee’s vesting in any employer contributions.

Fourth, significant guidance is provided with respect to qualified birth or adoption distributions, which are distributions of up to $5,000 from eligible retirement plans made within one year of the birth to or legal adoption of a child by the distributee. Under Section 113 of the SECURE Act, these distributions are taxable, but not subject to the 10% early withdrawal penalty that would normally apply to distributions prior to the age of 59.5. Additionally, the amounts are not subject to the mandatory withholding and notice requirements applicable to eligible rollover distributions, and can be recontributed to an eligible retirement plan or IRA. The Q&As explain that each parent can receive a distribution with respect to the same child and that the $5,000 maximum applies per child in the event of multiple births.

However, eligible retirement plans are not required to offer qualified birth or adoption distributions. Plans that elect to do so must be amended accordingly and must also accept recontributions of distributed amounts. The recontribution is treated by the receiving plan as if a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer of the funds; future IRS guidance will address the timing aspects. Furthermore, if a plan does not offer qualified birth or adoption distributions, an eligible participant can treat an in-service withdrawal as such and recontribute the amount to an IRA.

Other issues addressed by the notice include the optional inclusion of difficulty of care payments, which are a type of qualified foster care payment, in the determination of certain retirement contribution limitations. Guidance regarding retirement plan provisions in the Bipartisan American Miners Act of 2019 were also incorporated.

Finally, the IRS outlines the deadlines for SECURE Act plan amendments. Generally, qualified plans and 403(b) plans must adopt required amendments by the last day of the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022. The deadline for governmental plans and collectively bargained plans is the last day of the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2024. The amendments must be retroactive to the effective date and the plan must operate in accordance with the amendment from such date.

Employers who sponsor retirement plans should be aware of this supplementary SECURE Act guidance. Comments can be submitted (preferably in electronic form) to the IRS through November 1, 2020, regarding the matters discussed in the notice.

Notice 2020-68 »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

Second Circuit Holds Employer Liable for Service Provider’s Error

A recent United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit decision reminds employers that fiduciary responsibility under ERISA ultimately lies with the employer, even when the actions of a service provider or third-party administrator (TPA) are in question.

In Sullivan-Mestecky v. Verizon Communications Inc., the Second Circuit vacated the district court’s dismissal of Sullivan-Mestecky’s claim against Verizon and remanded the claim for further proceedings, among other issues. For reference, authorizes a beneficiary of an employee benefit plan to bring an action to seek equitable relief as a result of fiduciary breaches, which are violations under ERISA. As further background, ERISA requires fiduciaries to act “with the care, skill, prudence, and diligence under the circumstances then prevailing that a prudent man acting in a like capacity and familiar with such matters would use.”

In this case, Sullivan-Mestecky, as the beneficiary of a life-insurance policy of her mother Kathleen Sullivan, brought suit against Verizon claiming fiduciary breach for failure to pay the entire life insurance benefit. The facts in this case demonstrate that Sullivan received various communications from Aon Hewitt (a service provider on behalf of Verizon) stating that her life insurance coverage “1x pay” amount was $679,700. However, upon Sullivan’s death, only $11,400 was provided as the death benefit, which was consistent with the terms of the plan.

As it turns out, Aon Hewitt had coded Sullivan’s annual $18,600 income as her weekly income, basing the communicated $679,700 coverage amount on an erroneous salary of $970,920. While the written plan terms were correct, what was repeatedly communicated to Sullivan by Aon Hewitt regarding her coverage amount was incorrect.

The Second Circuit concluded that Sullivan-Mestecky reasonably pled that Verizon breached its fiduciary duties by failing to provide complete and accurate information regarding the plan (supporting its remand of the claim). The Second Circuit further explained as part of its conclusion that as the plan administrator, Verizon was responsible for assessing Sullivan’s eligibility and for enrolling Sullivan in her benefits plan. Further, when Verizon arranged for Aon Hewitt to communicate with Sullivan about her benefits as the service provider, Verizon was performing a fiduciary function and bound by ERISA’s fiduciary requirement to properly administer the plan. The Second Circuit explains that Aon Hewitt’s negligence is imputed to Verizon, as Aon Hewitt’s principal, and states that “Verizon cannot hide behind Aon Hewitt’s actions to evade liability for the fiduciary breach that occurred here.”

The outcome of the case serves as a reminder to employers of fiduciary obligations under ERISA, and that such obligations are that of the employer (as the plan administrator) even when utilizing service providers or TPAs. So employers should routinely review and monitor service providers’ work to ensure that it accurately reflects the plans terms.

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

DOL Releases Interim Final Rule on Lifetime Income Illustrations

On August 18, 2020, the DOL announced an interim final rule regarding lifetime income illustrations for participant benefit statements. The rule’s requirements are applicable to defined contribution plans, which would include 401(k) plans.

As background, the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 (SECURE Act) amended ERISA Section 105 to require an annual income disclosure to be included as part of a participant’s benefit statement. The disclosure is intended to help a participant understand how their account balance translates into monthly income at retirement. As a result, a participant may be better able to prepare for retirement and assess whether current contributions should be increased to achieve retirement income goals.

Accordingly, the disclosure would reflect the monthly payment amounts the participant would receive if their total account balance were used to provide a single life annuity (SLA) for the participant or a qualified joint and survivor annuity (QJSA) that would also provide a benefit for a surviving spouse. As prescribed by the SECURE Act, the interim final rule sets forth the specific assumptions upon which these lifetime income payments would be based.

The first assumption is the annuity commencement date, which is the last day of the statement period. For example, if the annual disclosure was included with the fourth quarter statement, the annuity starting date would be December 31. Second, the assumed age on the annuity starting date is 67, which was chosen because it is the Social Security full retirement age of most workers. However, for participants older than age 67, their actual age must be used instead.

The third assumption focuses upon the specific characteristics of the SLA and QJSA benefits for purposes of the illustrations. The SLA benefit must reflect a single life annuity, which will pay a fixed monthly amount for the life of the participant, with no survivor benefit upon the participant’s death. The QJSA benefit assumes that all participants have a spouse of equal age and provides a 100% survivor annuity, so the same fixed monthly amount would continue for the life of the participant or surviving spouse upon the participant’s death.

Fourth, the assumed interest rate is the 10 year constant maturity Treasury rate, which was selected because it approximates the rates used by insurers for immediate annuities. Finally, the assumed life expectancies are to be based upon gender neutral mortality tables that are currently used by defined benefit pension plans to determine lump sum payments.

Explanations must also be provided to participants that describe how the illustrative payments were calculated and that emphasize the portrayed estimates are not guarantees. Model language is provided for this purpose. Plan administrators can either insert the eleven model provisions into their existing statement formats or attach one of the Model Benefit Statement Supplements as an addendum.

Significantly, the rule provides ERISA liability relief to plan sponsors and fiduciaries for providing lifetime income illustrations that conform to the specified requirements. This relief was intended to address sponsor concerns of potential participant lawsuits if their actual monthly payments at retirement were less than the statement projections.

Defined contribution plan sponsors should be aware of the interim final rule’s requirements and consult with their service providers regarding incorporation of the disclosures in participant benefit statements. The rule is effective one year from publication in the federal register and applies to benefit statements provided after such date.

Interim Final Rule »
Fact Sheet »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

IRS Updates Employer Shared Responsibility Questions and Answers

Employer Shared Responsibility Q&As On August 19, 2020, the IRS updated its guidance on the employer mandate (also known as employer shared responsibility).

The Q&A updates reflect index adjustments to penalties and the affordability percentage for calendar year 2021. The employer shared responsibility payment, which is the penalty an applicable large employer must pay if it does not offer minimum essential coverage to at least 95% of its full-time employees, is now the product of $2,700 (which is up from $2,570 in 2020) multiplied by the number of full-time employees employed for the calendar year. The penalty for failing to offer affordable coverage or coverage that does not provide minimum value, which is computed separately for each month, is the product of $4,060 (up from $3,860 in 2020) multiplied by the number of full-time employees who received premium tax credits in that month. The update also confirms that the percentage used to determine whether coverage is affordable (the affordability threshold) for plan years beginning in 2021 is now 9.83% (up from 9.78% for plan years beginning in 2020).

As a reminder, the draft 2020 versions of the ACA employer shared responsibility reporting forms were discussed in the July 21, 2020, edition of Compliance Corner.

Employers should be aware of these updates when determining premiums for 2021 and preparing their employer shared responsibility reporting forms for the calendar year 2021.

Source: NFP BenefitsParters

Filed under: Abentras Blog

Stolen Laptop Leads to $1M Settlement for HIPAA Covered Entity

Lifespan Health System Affiliated Covered Entity (Lifespan ACE), a Rhode Island based non-profit health system comprised of hospitals and other healthcare providers, agreed to pay $1,040,000 to HHS’s Office of Civil Rights (OCR) and to implement a corrective action plan in order to resolve an investigation into potential violations of HIPAA. The investigation arose from the theft of an unencrypted laptop.

Specifically, in April 2017, an affiliated hospital employee’s laptop was stolen. The laptop reportedly had the electronic protected health information (ePHI) of over 20,000 individuals including patient names, medical record numbers, and medication information. The breach was reported to OCR, which oversees enforcement of the HIPAA Privacy and Security rules.

OCR’s investigation found a failure to encrypt ePHI on laptops after Lifespan ACE’s internal polices had determined encryption was reasonable and appropriate. There also wasn’t a business associate agreement in place with Lifespan ACE’s parent company and business associate, Lifespan Corporation.

The breach resulted in a settlement in which Lifespan ACE agrees to pay OCR $1,040,000, implement encryption within 90 days, revise its policies and procedures, and be monitored by OCR for two years.

OCR Director Roger Severino cautioned “laptops, cellphones, and other mobile devices are stolen every day, that’s the hard reality. Covered entities can best protect their…data by encrypting mobile devices to thwart identity thieves.”

Employer plan sponsors should review their policies and procedures for compliance. While encryption is still not required of covered entities or business associates, employers should consider it as an effective defense against a breach of privacy information.

OCR Press Release »
Resolution Agreement »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

Court Blocks Final Section 1557 Rule

On August 17, 2020, in Walker v. Azar, the US District Court for the Eastern District of New York blocked the Trump administration’s final rule concerning Section 1557 of the ACA. As reported in the June 23, 2020, edition of Compliance Corner, HHS issued a final rule that amended the agency’s prior regulation concerning Section 1557 of the ACA. This rule scaled back explicit protections based upon gender identity introduced by the previous administration, relying instead on broader protections against discrimination on the basis of sex provided for in the ACA. The final rule was to take effect on August 18, 2020.

This federal district case was initiated by two transgender women seeking medical care for ongoing health conditions. Both claim that they experience discrimination in their efforts to obtain that care and they asked the district court to vacate the final rule because it is contrary to a recent Supreme Court ruling that held that discrimination based upon gender identity is prohibited by Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. As a preliminary matter, the plaintiffs asked that the Trump administration be enjoined from enforcing the final rule, pending the resolution of the litigation.

In this case, the district judge agreed that the final rule was contrary to the Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton Cty., Ga. As was also previously reported in the June 23 edition of Compliance Corner, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination based upon sexual orientation or sexual identity is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. That opinion resolved three cases involving homosexual and transgender plaintiffs alleging that they were fired from their jobs based upon their sexual orientation or sexual identity. The court reasoned that Title VII’s prohibition against discrimination based on sex was broad enough to include sexual orientation and sexual identity because those things are inextricably linked to sex. Accordingly, employers cannot rely upon traditional notions of gender when considering terminating someone’s employment.

The federal district court noted that HHS adopted a position in its final rule regarding what constituted discrimination based upon sex that was soon to be rejected by the Supreme Court. HHS was aware that the Supreme Court case was coming when it issued its final rule, and did not attempt to change or pull down its final rule after the Supreme Court issued its ruling. So it appeared to the district court that the agency was taking a position that was rejected by the Supreme Court and was, therefore, contrary to law. In addition, by failing to take action that harmonized with the Supreme Court’s ruling, the agency was deemed to be acting in an arbitrary and capricious manner. As a result of these determinations, the federal district court stayed the implementation of the final rule until further order from the court.

This ruling is part of ongoing litigation and could be appealed, so the ultimate disposition of the final rule is unknown. Employers that would operate their plans in a manner consistent with the final rules should consult with legal counsel about the implications of this decision. We will keep an eye on developments in this area to see how they may affect the benefits employers provide to their employees.

Walker v. Azar »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

DOL Updates Revised FMLA Forms and Requests Information Regarding Future Enhancements

Revised FMLA Forms

The DOL recently released updated FMLA Forms. The new forms released by the Wage and Hour Division (WHD) are simpler and designed for electronic use. The information gathered and presented is essentially the same, but the forms now feature more check boxes versus blank spaces for free form answers. For example:

*The Notice of Eligibility & Rights and Responsibilities contains a section regarding Substitution of Paid Leave. The employer has the following options available and would select the appropriate option by marking the checkbox: “Some or all of your FMLA leave will not be paid,” “You have requested to use some or all of your available paid leave,” “We are requiring you to use some or all of your available paid leave,” or “Other” for short/long-term disability, workers compensation, or state leave laws.
*On the revised Heath Care Provider Certification, the health care provider would select one qualifying condition from: inpatient care, incapacity plus treatment, pregnancy, chronic conditions, permanent or long term conditions, or conditions requiring multiple treatments. There is a section with relevant definitions. Also, the form clarifies that specific medical details such as diagnosis and symptoms are not required information as some state laws prohibit such.

WHD believes the changes will reduce the time users spend providing information, improve communications between leave applicants and administrators, and reduce the likelihood of violations.

The forms have a revision date of June 2020 with an expiration date of June 30, 2023. Employers who utilize the model FMLA forms for administration should begin using the revised forms as soon as possible.

WHD Request for Information

On July 17, 2020, the WHD requested information from the public concerning the effectiveness of the current FMLA regulations and related compliance resources. Specifically, the WHD would like to know:

*What changes would help employees better understand and effectuate their rights and obligations under FMLA?
*What challenges if any have employers and employees had in applying the definition of a serious health condition, administering leave on an intermittent basis or reduced leave schedule, and processing medical certifications?
*Should additional guidance on topics addressed in recent opinion letters be addressed through regulatory action? Those topics include individualized education plans, organ donation and compensability of frequent 15-minute breaks.

The WHD hopes to obtain feedback on challenges and best practices in the use and administration of FMLA. Information collected will help the DOL identify areas for additional compliance assistance to ensure that FMLA is understood by both employers and employees.

Comments are due on or before September 15, 2020.

Women’s Bureau Request for Information

On July 16, 2020, the DOL’s Women’s Bureau issued a Request for Information related to paid leave. As background, the Women’s Bureau’s stated mission is to formulate standards and policies that promote the welfare of wage-earning women, improve their working conditions, increase their efficiency and advance their opportunities for profitable employment.

The request included reference to the findings of several studies (both by the DOL and outside parties) indicating that access to paid leave increases a new mother’s likelihood of being employed after childbirth, and that paid leave is offered by more employers in the private sector with higher paid earners versus low-income workers.

The bureau acknowledges that some states and localities have enacted paid family and medical leave laws that provide covered workers with the right to partial wage replacement through a state-run insurance program when they are not working due to their own or a family member’s serious health needs or bonding with a new child. Also, effective October 1, 2020, eligible federal workers will be entitled to 12 weeks of paid parental leave for the birth, adoption or fostering of a new child. This provision was part of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act. The Families First Coronavirus Response Act (FFCRA), enacted earlier this year, requires certain employers to provide employees with paid sick leave or expanded FMLA for specific reasons related to COVID-19.

The bureau is seeking input from a variety of stakeholders to determine what state, local, private employer, or FFCRA leave provisions could serve as best practices when developing a paid leave program. These stakeholders include state and local officials, employers, unions, workers, individuals who are not currently employed, faith-based and other community organizations, universities and other institutions of higher education, foundations, chambers of commerce and other interested parties with experience or expertise in paid leave.

For the purposes of this information collection, paid leave means absence from work, during which an employee receives compensation, to care for a spouse, parent, child, or his or her own health.

The bureau is specifically requesting information based on 23 questions, including:

*Who benefits from paid leave and who bears the costs?
*What could be done to improve the existing patchwork of programs, which include state and employer-sponsored paid options? What are the impediments, cost and otherwise, faced in implementing those improvements?
*Do employer-provided paid leave programs offer more generous benefits than state paid leave programs?
*What is the ideal leave duration and how much pay should be replaced?
*If you do not have access to paid leave, have you experienced individual or family circumstances for which you would have taken paid leave if it had been available? How might paid leave have affected those particular situations or outcomes?

Comments are due on or before September 14, 2020.

These documents make it clear that the DOL is looking to possibly make changes to FMLA rights and responsibilities. Employers should comment if interested. We will continue to follow developments that come out of this process.

DOL Press Release »
Revised FMLA Forms »
WHD Request for Information »
Women’s Bureau Request for Information »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

President Issues Executive Order on Drug Pricing

On July 24, 2020, President Trump issued Executive Order 13939, which seeks to lower drug prices by eliminating or discouraging rebates paid to pharmacy benefit managers (PBMs) and other middlemen involved in purchasing drugs on behalf of Medicare Part D insurance plans. According to the order, PBMs negotiate prices with drug manufacturers at amounts lower than the list prices that a Medicare patient would pay for drugs. The difference between the amount paid by the patient and the amount the PBM negotiated is kept by the PBM as a rebate.

Federal kickback statutes have a safe harbor that protects these rebates, and the order seeks to eliminate or narrow this safe harbor in an effort to discourage or prevent PBMs from contributing to higher drug prices paid by Medicare patients. Accordingly, the order instructs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to begin the rulemaking process to both deny safe harbor protection for these rebates and to create new safe harbor protections for patient discounts while allowing for bona fide PBM service fees. However, the secretary must first determine that these new rules would not add to the federal debt, increase Medicare premiums or patient out-of-pocket costs.

Although the order specifically targets Medicare Part D drug plans, the elimination or narrowing of the federal kickback safe harbor could affect employer plan sponsors. We will continue to follow and report on any potential developments concerning these requirements.

Executive Order 13939 »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

Agencies Propose Rule to Increase Flexibility for Grandfathered Group Health Plans

On July 10, 2020, the DOL, HHS and IRS released a proposed rule to amend certain requirements for grandfathered group health plans seeking to maintain their grandfathered status. The proposal is designed to provide such plans greater flexibility to make changes with respect to fixed-amount cost-sharing increases, including those necessary to maintain HDHP status.

As background, the ACA permits certain group health plans that existed as of the law’s enactment on March 23, 2010, to be treated as grandfathered health plans. By such treatment, the plans are exempt from some of the ACA’s mandates. However, to preserve such status, these plans are limited in their ability to alter the plan design or increase cost sharing.

The proposal follows a public request for information by the agencies on February 25, 2019. This request was designed to gather feedback as to whether the existing 2015 grandfathered plan rules could be modified to better assist plan sponsors responding to rising healthcare costs, while maintaining affordability for employees.

Under the current regulations, increases for fixed-amount cost sharing other than copayments (e.g., deductibles and out-of-pocket maximums) cannot exceed thresholds determined by the Consumer Price Index (CPI) measure of medical inflation. However, this component of the CPI index includes not only prices for private insurance, but also self-pay patients and Medicare, which would not be reflected in group health plan costs.

Accordingly, the proposed rule provides the alternative method of measuring permitted increases in such fixed-amount cost sharing by using the premium adjustment percentage published each year by HHS in the annual notice of benefit and payment parameters. The premium adjustment percentage reflects the cumulative historic growth from 2013 through the preceding calendar year in premiums for private health insurance. Therefore, this measure is viewed as more accurately reflecting the cost increases for grandfathered group health plans than the CPI measure.

The proposal does not eliminate use of the CPI index, but rather allows an employer to use the method that yields the greater result. Therefore, the increases to non-copay fixed-amount cost-sharing for grandfathered group health plans could not exceed the greater of the CPI measure of medical inflation percentage or the applicable premium adjustment percentage, plus 15 percentage points.

In addition, the proposal clarifies that a grandfathered group HDHP may increase fixed-amount cost-sharing requirements, such as deductibles, to the extent necessary to maintain their HDHP status without losing grandfathered status. This change was initiated to ensure that participants enrolled in that coverage remain eligible to contribute to an HSA.

Employers who sponsor grandfathered plans should be aware of these developments. The agencies are accepting public comments on the proposal through August 14, 2020. The proposed changes would become effective 30 days following the publication of a final rule and would not have retroactive effect.

Grandfathered Group Health Plans and Health Insurance Coverage Proposed Rule »
Agency FAQs »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog

IRS Extends July 15 Tax and Other Deadlines for People and Businesses Affected by Recent Tornados, Storms and Floods

On June 23, 2020, the IRS announced in a press release that it will extend the deadline for tax filings for persons and businesses affected by tornados, storms and floods in parts of Mississippi, Tennessee and South Carolina. As of the date of the press release, this relief is extended to people living in the following counties: Clarke, Covington, Grenada, Jasper, Jefferson Davis, Jones, Lawrence, Panola and Walthall counties in Mississippi; Bradley and Hamilton counties in Tennessee; and Aiken, Barnwell, Berkeley, Colleton, Hampton, Marlboro, Oconee, Orangeburg and Pickens counties in South Carolina. This relief automatically extends to people and businesses in others areas designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) as qualifying for such assistance. The deadline to file personal and business tax returns, and to pay taxes, will be extended from July 15, 2020, to October 15, 2020.>

In addition to the tax deadlines, the extension applies to 2019 IRA contributions, estimated tax payments for the first two quarters of 2020, and the third quarter estimated tax payment normally due on September 15. It also includes the quarterly payroll and excise tax returns normally due on April 30 and July 31.

In addition, penalties on payroll and excise tax deposits due on or after April 12 and before April 27 will be abated as long as the deposits were made by April 27.

This extension will apply to various employee benefit filing requirements. For example, the Form 5500 due date for calendar-year plans could likely be extended. Employers in affected areas should be aware of these deadline extensions, and work with service providers to take advantage of the extension. Other employers should keep an eye on FEMA announcements in the event that their county is included in the list in the future.

IRS Press Release »

Source: NFP BenefitsPartners

Filed under: Abentras Blog