meps: managing the complexity to maintain their benefit...• therefore, the mep isn‘t established...
TRANSCRIPT
1
MEPs: Managing the Complexity to Maintain their Benefit
Robert M. Richter, VP, FIS Relius
2
Robert M. Richter, VP, FIS Relius
Robert M. Richter, JD, LL.M. is a Vice President with FIS
(formerly SunGard) in Jacksonville, Florida. Robert manages the
consulting department and is instrumental in authoring and
supporting SunGard Corbel's retirement plan documents. He is a
frequent lecturer and author on matters involving qualified
retirement plans and cafeteria plans. Robert is President-Elect of
the American Retirement Association and has held numerous
positions within the American Society of Pension Professionals
and Actuaries (ASPPA) , including President from October 2011
to October 2012 and President-Elect. He is a Fellow of the
American College of Employee Benefits Counsel and is a
member of the Florida Bar as well as other organizations. Robert
received a B.S., with a major in Finance, from the University of
Florida, a J.D. from Florida State University, and an LL.M. in
taxation from the University of Florida.
3
What We’ll Cover
Definitions The mechanics of MEPs Advantages/disadvantages of MEPs Administrative issues and best practices What happens when things go wrong
4
Definitions: What is a MEP?
5
Terminology
• Multiple Employer Plan (MEP) = a ―plan‖ adopted by 2 or
more employers that are not part of a controlled group or
an affiliated service group
• Members of a CG or an ASG are treated as one employer
• Closed MEP = MEP where adopting employers have a
connection to each other
• Open MEP = MEP adopted by employers with little or no
connection to each other
• Multiemployer Plan = union plan
6
What’s a Plan?
• Answer varies for Code vs. ERISA
• We will cover this in detail in later slides
7
Typical MEP Situations
• Staffing firm cosponsors plan with clients PEO
• 2 or more MDs share a suite and some employees Shared employee
• Closely related companies but not controlled group/ASG; ―break-up‖ ―Kissing cousins‖
• Open to all members of professional group (e.g., AMA) Trade association
• No particular relationship between adopting employers Open MEP
• Open to ERs in a state (or all ERs in a certain category); state run State MEP
8
The Mechanics
9
The Code
10
What’s a Plan for Purposes of the Code?
• Treas. Reg. §1.414(l)-(1)(b)
• A plan is a single plan only if all of the plan assets are
available to pay all plan participants and beneficiaries
• Using several trusts doesn‘t create multiple plans
• Using a group trust doesn‘t create a MEP
• Contributions and allocations may still be determined separately
• Walling off assets will create separate plans (e.g., the portion of
the trust attributable to Dr. A can only be used to pay benefits for
Dr. A‘s participants)
• This is why a DB MEP is problematic
11
• IRC §413(c) sets forth rules for a plan adopted by more
than one employer
• A MEP is a single plan, but for a limited number of
purposes it is ―deemed‖ to be separate plans
Multiple Employer Plans
12
Treated as Separate Plans
• Treated as separate plans for purposes of:
• IRC §401(a)(4) nondiscrimination testing
• ADP/ACP testing
• HCE determination
• Top-heavy rules
• Deduction Limits (unless plan was adopted before 1989)
13
Treated as One Plan
• Treated as one plan, and one employer, for purposes of:
• Service
• Eligibility
• Vesting
• Distributable events (i.e., no severance if going from one
participating employer to another)
• 415 annual additions
• Exclusive benefit rule
• Without this the single plan would violate the exclusive benefit rule
14
Massive Plan
• State of Confusion sponsors MEP and invites any
employer in state to cosponsor
• 30,000 employers do so
• Mary left work at one of the 30,000 and goes to work for a new
employer (also a cosponsor)
• Mary is not entitled to a distribution and Mary enters immediately
• How will it know?
• Recipe for operational failure
15
• Aggregate compensation from all employers to
demonstrate compliance with 415
• Each employer counts only its own compensation for
purposes of:
• Testing nondiscrimination (including testing an alternative
definition of compensation to determine if it is nondiscriminatory)
• Analyzing HCE status
• Applying the top-heavy rules
• Applying the 401(a)(17) limit
Compensation
16
Overall Qualification
• A MEP is one plan
• The entire plan must be qualified or the plan as a whole
is disqualified
• One bad apple spoils the barrel
17
Can there be a 403(b) MEP?
• There is no definitive answer
• There is no connection between IRC §413(c) and IRC
§403(b)
• IRS position on pre-approved 403(b) plans is that MEP
provisions are permitted but there is no reliance on the
opinion/advisory letter
• Implies that the IRS believes they are permitted but they don‘t
know whether the rules of IRC §413(c) apply
18
19
What is an Employee Pension Benefit Plan?
• ERISA 3(2):
• …The terms ―employee pension benefit plan‖ and
―pension plan‖ mean any plan, fund, or program which
was heretofore or is hereafter established or maintained
by an employer or by an employee organization [union],
or by both, to the extent that by its express terms or as a
result of surrounding circumstances such plan, fund, or
program—
• provides retirement income to employees, or
• results in a deferral of income by employees for periods extending
to the termination of covered employment or beyond, . . .
20
What’s an Employer for Plan Status?
• ERISA §3(5):
• The term ―employer‖ means any person acting directly as
an employer, or indirectly in the interest of an employer,
in relation to an employee benefit plan; and includes a
group or association of employers acting for an employer
in such capacity.
21
Who’s an Employer for ERISA?
• Employers don‘t include organizations which don‘t
employ employees
• For ERISA, employees don‘t include
• Sole proprietors
• Partners
• Sole shareholders of corporations
• Spouses of above
22
How Does this Relate to MEPs?
• Numerous DOL Advisory Opinions focusing on whether
an arrangement is established or maintained by an
employer or by an employee organization
• DOL interprets ―group or association of employers‖ to
mean a ―bona fide‖ group of association of employers
• Key issue for MEP: are the employers a bona fide group
or association?
• Bona fide group: facts and circumstances test
• Likely not an issue for shared employee or kissing cousin
situations
23
Factors Used to Determine Bona Fide Group Status
• How members are solicited;
• Who is entitled to participate and who actually
participates in the association;
• The process by which the association was formed, the
purposes for which it was formed, and what, if any, were
the preexisting relationships of its members;
24
Factors Used to Determine Bona Fide Group Status
• The powers, rights, and privileges of employer members
that exist by reason of their status as employers; and
• Who actually controls and directs the activities and
operations of the benefit program.
• The employers that participate in a benefit program must, either
directly or indirectly, exercise control over the program, both in
form and in substance, in order to act as a bona fide employer
group or association with respect to the program.
25
Summary: Commonality and Control
• Commonality
• Participating employers must have a ―common employment
bond‖
• Must be genuine economic or representational interests unrelated to
the provision of benefits
• Many associations (e.g., automobile dealers) are OK
• Chambers of commerce probably too broad
• Control
• Exercised either directly or indirectly by participating employers
26
How Does this Relate to Open MEPs?
• DOL Advisory Opinion 2012-04A holds that an open MEP
is not established by a bona fide group or association of
employers
• Not one point in their favor
• Therefore, the MEP isn‘t established and maintained by an
employer
• Therefore, the MEP isn‘t an ERISA plan
• However, each underlying ―employer‖ has adopted a
separate ERISA plan
• So MEP is holding ERISA plan assets – lots of ERISA plans
• Each employer is the plan sponsor of its plan (regardless of what
document may say)
27
Rejected Arguments
• Saying each employer is separately adopting the plan
doesn‘t make it one plan
• Most of the advisory opinions deal with welfare plans
• DOL has been more concerned about abusive multiple employer
welfare plans
• But the law uses the same definitions for pension and welfare
plans
• The 413(c) service rules create commonality between the
sponsors
• Not cited in any advisory opinion
• Doesn‘t affect ERISA status
28
DOL Interpretive Bulletin (11/18/2015)
• DOL: A state is considered to act indirectly in the interest
of the participating employers
• A state has a unique representational interest in the health and
welfare of its citizens that connects it to the in-state employers
that choose to participate in the state MEP and their employees
• Therefore a state run MEP is not an open-MEP
29
Who’s the Fiduciary?
• MEP operators are ERISA fiduciaries
• Subject to ERISA prohibited transaction rules both as fiduciaries
and as service providers
• Each employer sponsor of a plan that participates in the
arrangement is a fiduciary
• Employers must act prudently in electing and monitoring a MEP
provider (FAB 2002-03 & 2015 Interpretive bulletin)
30
DOL Interpretive Bulletin (11/18/2015)
• The continuing involvement by participating employers in
the ongoing operation and administration of a MEP could
be limited to enrolling employees in the state plan and
forwarding voluntary employee and employer
contributions to the plan
• When an employer joins a carefully structured MEP, the
employer is not the ‗‗sponsor‘‘ of the plan under ERISA,
and also would not act as a plan administrator or named
fiduciary
31
What About Annual Filing and Audits?
• Each plan files a separate 5500
• Large plans include an audit
• Strategy: Have an MEP file a 5500 as a DFE
• Requires audit
• Simplifies 5500 and audits for large underlying plans
• Each plan files a separate 8955-SSA
• The more returns filed means there will be higher chance
of an IRS audit
32
Bonding Requirements
• Each underlying plan subject to the ERISA fidelity bond
requirement
• Lesser of 10% or $500,000 (if qualified assets)
• Can get a bond covering multiple plans (FAB 2008-04)
• But claim of one plan can‘t reduce coverage of another covered
plan
• Total bond for the MEP = sum of the bonds for the
underlying plans
33
Concern Over Use of Assets
• Likely can‘t have assets of ERISA plan A (or revenue
sharing from those assets) used to pay expenses of
ERISA plan B
• One fund requirement of IRC §413(c) arguably violates
ERISA‘s exclusive purpose requirement
• Result is that if an open MEP for purposes of ERISA then
plan will need to be separate plans for purpose of the
Code
34
35
• One 5500 (if MEP is single plan for ERISA)
• Lower cost investments due to aggregation
• Savings on audit
• If plan otherwise subject to an audit and MEP is single plan for
ERISA
• Growing pains if separate plans would not otherwise be subject to
audit (fewer employers to spread out cost in early years of MEP)
• One plan document
• But depending on how much flexibility is offered, participation
agreements can get lengthy
The Benefits
36
The Benefits
• Reduced fiduciary risk
• Duty to select and monitor MEP sponsor
• Other aspects depend on arrangement of plan
• Reduced employer responsibilities
• Professional management of plan
• Easy to market to association members
• If single plan for ERISA, reduced risk of audit?
37
The Disadvantages
• Combined 415 limit
• One bad apple spoils the barrel
• Combined service for eligibility and vesting
• Practical concern on tracking
• Affects eligibility
• Reduces amount of forfeitures
• May have to deal with many different payroll providers
• Separate compliance testing (but no worse off then if
separate plans)
• Employer loses control
38
The Nuts and Bolts
39
Plan Documents
• MEPs are allowed in pre-approved plans
• Issues to consider
• Provisions to kick-out bad apples
• As a practical matter can MEP sponsor create new plan for the bad
apple?
• How much flexibility to offer each employer?
• Will generic pre-approved plans work?
• With an open MEP there may not be a lead employer
• Are responsibilities appropriately allocated?
• Can service provider amend on behalf of adopting employers?
• Separate SPD for each employer?
40
Plan Design
• Ways to overcome some of the problematic operational
issues:
• Immediate eligibility and vesting
• Avoids service crediting issues (but not distributable event)
• ADP/ACP test safe harbor plan that meets TH exemption
• No ADP test; no TH rules
• If allow other employer contributions, design to satisfy TH
minimums and use a safe harbor allocation method
• If employer is permitted to have other plans, provide that 415
limits and TH (if applicable) are corrected in other plans before
the MEP
41
EPCRS for a MEP
• If only one employer ―at fault‖ VCP filing fee based on
that employer‘s participants
• Audit CAP sanction also determined on individual
employer basis
• Plan administrator must file for plan as a whole
42
Clean Up Your Own Mess
• Plan and/or contracts should require each employer to:
• Cooperate with administrator‘s requests
• Hold others harmless for issues related to its portion of the plan
• Accuracy of information
• Making required contributions
• Paying for correction of failures
• But what happens if the employer doesn‘t (or can‘t) follow
through?
• Someone else has to step up or, or entire plan potentially
disqualified
• Kick out non-cooperating employer
43
Exiting a MEP
• Some MEPs restrict exiting
• Possible breach of fiduciary duties in selecting the MEP
• If exiting employer wishes to continue to maintain a plan:
• Spin-off
• Create mirror plan and then transfer assets
• No distributable event
• If exiting employer wants to terminate it‘s plan:
• Spin-off followed by termination
• Termination is distributable event
44
The Inadvertent MEP
• Carol owns 100% of Companies A & B
• A & B are both in same plan
• Carol sells Company B to Carl (unrelated) during 2016
• Becomes a MEP upon the sale
• No guidance on ADP/ACP testing
• IRC §410(b)(6)(C) only provides a transitional rule for coverage
testing
45
How does MEP Sponsor get Paid?
• Self-dealing if TPA sets up a MEP and wants to hire itself
to provide TPA services
• Have independent fiduciary approve all expenses
• Costly
• Have adopting employers review and approve expenses
• Is that realistic?
46
MEPs: Managing the Complexity to Maintain their Benefit
Robert M. Richter, VP, FIS Relius