Leaderboard

Did no one explain this to the client during plan setup?

Last time, years ago, when I explained my aversion to naming the “employer” as plan administrator, I got pushback with the perfectly reasonable explanation that with respect to “small” employers my concerns were not well founded and my recommendations were impractical. A fair point. For sole proprietors, and some other businesses with a limited number of active owners, naming the employer as plan administrator is probably not worth much worry. I hope that those active owners understand that they are fiduciaries, and what that means, including potential personal liability. With respect to more complex businesses, the concerns are based on a corporate and agency law. To avoid need for a legal treatise, the practical question to address when the employer is the plan administrator is, “Who is the fiduciary?” Or, asked another way, “Who will be the warm body sitting behind the defendant’s table in a fiduciary lawsuit?” That person has an interest in 1) knowing that they are a fiduciary because without that knowledge, it is impossible to act in accordance with fiduciary standards (attention is the first requirement of a prudent person), and 2) being covered by appropriate insurance (e.g. E&O, D&O, special ERISA policies). To illustrate, if I were a plaintiff’s lawyer or the Department of Labor pursuing a claim of fiduciary breach, and a corporation were the “employer” named as plan administrator (without further specific identification or express delegation), I would name every individual board member and executive officer personally as defendants. And let us not forget the poor HR administrator, who is always on the front line of dealing with benefits and may be a fiduciary by default because they are forced by practicalities to engage in fiduciary activity without the pleasure of being named as a fiduciary. Maybe most of those people could get themselves dismissed, but it would not be fun or happy. This is how the “small employer” exception makes sense. A single owner who also handles all executive functions is on the hook as “employer” no matter what because there is no one else to bother. That is the crux of it. How best to identify the plan administrator, and to align fiduciary responsibility, depends on the organization, its personnel, and its circumstances. There is not an arrangement that fits all, and the appropriate arrangement is often not given any thought when a plan is adopted or restated. I suspect you were asking for some specific models. I am playing the lawyers card of “it depends”.* The organization could name the “employer” as plan administrator, but then a lot of other actions and documentation would be required to achieve the proper identification and alignment. For the most part, that ain’t gonna happen. Even if it does, the Department of Labor can be so ham-fisted that it won’t understand or respect the niceties, and it likes as many people as possible to sweat personal liability. *For a corporation, how about designating the CEO as plan administrator, with authority to delegate, including the authority to designate other named fiduciaries. Depending on circumstances, the CEO will delegate authority rather than directly undertake the functions. The CEO’s corporate responsibility for oversight of company business, and fiduciary responsibility for oversight of persons the CEO names as fiduciary, overlap nicely. For a large organization, corporate or partnership (e.g. professional services), I like fiduciary committees, which can be designated as plan administrator, and populated by a CEO or equivalent. The CEO is still a fiduciary for this purpose.

I guess in a narrow view, nobody HAD to explain it to the ER. It's up to them to understand the plan document they are signing, and they are the ones (usually) tasked with operating the plan. However, I'm guessing someone approached the ER about setting up the plan and steering them to a SH arrangement. Whoever did that should have at least explained it to the ER the mandatory contribs and the conditions under which they would be made. It's certainly possible that the ER just tuned out and/or only heard the PS part of the funding. Or maybe thought the SH and PS were the same... I guess they can remove the SH for '26 and just do ADP testing. And tehy doen' even have to give refunds! They can do a QNEC. And guess what? Those don't even have to go to those employed on the last day of the year either!

Is there something in EPCRS that addresses the issue of an Employer mistakenly deducting (from a paycheck) and depositing Roth funds for a participant when the ppt's election was pre-tax? In other words I would correct this int he same manner as in my example above, regardless of its relevance to catch-ups.

Yes, I'd allow.

For non-FMLA leave situations where health FSA coverage continues, you would generally use the standard pre-pay, pay-as-you-go, or catch-up contribution options set forth in the cafeteria plan FMLA rules. I understand you're talking about a non-FMLA leave, but that's really all we have to go with. More details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/health-fsa-for-employees-on-leave How to Collect Health FSA Contributions for the Leave Period The Section 125 rules provide three ways for employers to collect the employee’s health FSA (or any other group health plan) contributions during the leave: 1. Pre-Pay: Under the pre-pay option, the employee is given the opportunity to pay for the continued coverage in advance (i.e., before commencing the leave). Employees can elect to reduce their final pre-leave paycheck(s) with pre-tax salary reduction contributions for all or a part of the expected leave period. Pre-Pay Limitations: The pre-pay option cannot be the sole option offered. Employers offering this approach must offer at least one of the other two options to employees. Pre-pay cannot be used to pay for coverage in a subsequent plan year on a pre-tax basis. If the leave is expected to spill over into a subsequent plan year, the employee can only make pre-tax contributions for the part of the leave that occurs during the initial plan year. 2. Pay-As-You-Go: Under this approach, employees pay their contribution in installments during the leave. If it is a paid leave, the employee can continue to use the Section 125 cafeteria plan to contribute on a pre-tax basis from the stream of compensation through payroll. Otherwise, these contributions would have to be made by the employee on an after-tax basis (e.g., by check). 3. Catch-Up: With the catch-up approach, employees agree in advance to pay their contributions upon returning from leave. These catch-up contributions will reduce their initial return paycheck(s) by the contribution amount missed during the leave period. Although not entirely clear, it appears that employees may make catch-up contributions on a pre-tax basis even if the leave straddles two plan years. In general, employees on a paid leave will prefer the pay-as-you-go option because it facilitates pre-tax contributions in a consistent manner without any disruption. Employees on unpaid leave will generally prefer the pre-pay or catch-up options to avoid having to make contributions on an after-tax basis outside of payroll. Although the cafeteria plan regulations explicitly address these three payment options only in the context of FMLA leaves, employers are generally comfortable following the same approach for any other form of leave (e.g., state protected leave) where the employee will continue health FSA or other group health plan coverage. Slide summary: 2025 Newfront Health Benefits While on Leave Guide

There are different options you could take for how to handle. There's no right answer here--just what you find to be the most appropriate for your situation. The employee already authorized the deductions via the Sections 125 cafeteria plan election, so that's not an issue. The options are: Spread Repayment Over Multiple Pay Periods: Take the missed contribution amount in intervals over the remainder of the year. Lump Sum Repayment: Take the missed contribution amount in a lump sum. Convert Missed Amounts to Employer Contributions: Forgive the employee contributions and not require the employees to repay. I posted a full walkthrough on all these options (including template employee communications) here-- https://www.newfront.com/blog/correcting-missed-cafeteria-plan-contributions Slide summary: Newfront Office Hours Webinar: Section 125 Cafeteria Plans

Cuse is correct. If your client needs proof, you can point them to IRC sec. 401(k)(12) which requires that the contribution be made to "each employee who is not a highly compensated employee and who is eligible to participate in the arrangement." Also see Example 4 in 1.401(k)-3(c)(7) of the regulations which is exactly on point that you can not impose a last day requirement on a safe harbor contribution.