On September 19, 2019, the final regulations were published making 401(k) hardships easier for participants. Although there are no major departures from last year’s proposed regulations, plan administrators will want to be aware of several key updates, including –
- The list of safe harbor expenses that are considered to satisfy the “immediate and heavy financial need” threshold has been expanded: the home casualty hardship reason is not limited by IRC 165(h)(5) and need not be in a federally declared disaster area, and expenses incurred as a result of certain federally declared disasters are now added to the list of safe harbor expenses for employees who live or work in a disaster area. Relatedly, the Treasury and IRS expect that no more special disaster-relief announcements will be needed.
- Primary designated beneficiaries under the plan may be included among the individuals for whom qualifying medical, educational and funeral expenses may be incurred.
- As in the proposed rules, the six-month suspension of 401(k) contributions is prohibited. There is also no requirement to take plan loans prior to obtaining a hardship distribution (plans may still choose to include a loan requirement).
- Hardship distributions are now permitted from elective contributions, QNECs, QMACs and earnings thereon, but plans may still opt to limit the type of contributions available for hardships.
- The rules for determining if a distribution is necessary to satisfy immediate and heavy financial need are simplified: a hardship distribution may not exceed the amount of the need, the employee must have obtained other available, non-hardship distributions, and the employee must provide a representation that he/she otherwise has insufficient cash or liquid assets. Regarding employee representations, telephonic verbal representations are permitted if recorded. Further, plan administrators may rely on an employee’s representation absent actual knowledge to the contrary. The guidance states that the “actual knowledge” rule is limited to situations where the plan administrator already has sufficiently accurate information to determine the employee’s veracity.
- Minimum distribution amounts for a hardship are permitted, as long as they are nondiscriminatory.
Although the new hardship rules may make hardship withdrawals less burdensome for employees, keeping up with the operational updates may be a challenge. Since many of the hardship changes are permissive, plan administrators will want to consider which of these changes are consistent with their goals. If those goals include providing participants with more access to savings in times of pre-retirement need, then taking steps to loosen the restrictions on hardship withdrawals presents a meaningful opportunity. To take full advantage of this opportunity, in addition to adopting plan amendments effective for January 1, 2020, be sure to communicate these changes to your participants in the SPD, SMM and safe-harbor notice.
- Partner
Antoinette Schindel practices in KMK Law's Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group. Antoinette regularly advises employers regarding Affordable Care Act (ACA) compliance issues, including health coverage and ...
- Partner
Lisa Wintersheimer Michel is the leader of the Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group. Her practice primarily involves all aspects of qualified retirement plans, including profit sharing plans, 401(k) plans ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Labor & Employment Law
- Employment Law
- Wage & Hour
- Labor Law
- Discrimination
- Artificial Intelligence
- EEOC
- Americans with Disabilities Act
- Department of Labor
- Coronavirus
- NLRB
- Pregnancy Discrimination
- OSHA
- Title VII
- Harassment
- Compliance
- Workplace Violence
- Non-Compete Agreements
- Reasonable Accommodation
- Religion Discrimination
- FLSA
- Department of Justice
- Supreme Court
- National Labor Relations Board
- NLRA
- Privacy
- Diversity
- Employee Benefits and Executive Compensation
- Arbitration
- Performance Improvement Plans
- Federal Trade Commission
- FMLA
- Department of Homeland Security
- Immigration and Customs Enforcement
- Foreign Nationals
- Immigration and Nationality Act
- Employment Litigation
- Workplace Accommodations
- Overtime Pay
- Inclusion
- LGBTQ+
- Litigation
- IRS
- Social Media
- Medical Marijuana
- Employer Policies
- Disability Discrimination
- Retirement
- National Labor Relations Act
- Accommodation
- Sexual Orientation Discrimination
- Race Discrimination
- Employer Handbook
- ERISA
- ADAAA
- Unions
- Medical Cannabis Dispensaries
- ACA
- Affordable Car Act
- Employer Rules
- Whistleblower
- Sexual Harassment
- Technology
- United States Supreme Court
- Federal Arbitration Act
- Transgender Issues
- Disability
- 401(k)
- Employment Settlement Agreements
- Sixth Circuit
- Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
- Fair Labor Standards Act
- Benefits
- Class Action Litigation
- Disability Law
- Gender Identity Discrimination
- Paycheck Protection Program
- Posting Requirements
- E-Discovery
- Evidence
- Securities Law
- Environmental Law
- Family and Medical Leave Act
- Preventive Care Benefits
- Health Savings Account
- Privacy Laws
- SECURE Act
- US Department of Labor Employee Benefits Security Administration
- Representative Election Regulations
- Healthcare Reform
- Older Workers' Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA)
- Affirmative Action
- Electronically Stored Information
- Equal Opportunity Clause
- Telecommuting
- Compensable Time
- Occupational Safety and Health Administration
- Security Screening
- E-Discovery Case Law
- Electronic Data Discovery
- ESI
- Attendance Policy
- Return to Work
- Seniority Rights
- Unemployment Insurance Integrity Act
- American Medical Association
- Classification
- Confidentiality
- Disability Leave
- Equal Pay
- Fair Minimum Wage
- Federal Minimum Wage
- Genetic Information Discrimination
- Media Policy
- Misclassification
- National Origin Discrimination
- Retaliation
- Social Media Content
- State Minimum Wage
- Wage Increase
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Taxation
- Antitrust
Recent Posts
- Outsourcing Hiring Won’t Outsource Risk: Implications for Employers Using AI in Hiring
- No Intent, No Liability: Sixth Circuit Narrows Employer Liability for Third-Party Harassment
- AI in Hiring: The Promise, the Pitfalls, and the Response
- Two Big Beautiful Tax Deductions: What Employers Need to Know
- OSHA’s Updated Inspection Program: What Employers Should Know and Expect
- SCOTUS Lowers Bar for Reverse Discrimination Claims
- Revisiting ADA Compliance: Lessons from a Recent Court Decision
- Federal Court Strikes Down Part of EEOC Rule Requiring Accommodations for Elective Abortion Under the PWFA
- More on Equal Opportunity: Executive Order Seeks to End Disparate Impact Liability to promote Equal Opportunity
- PIP This: The Expansion of Actionable Adverse Employment Decisions in the Wake of Muldrow v. City of St. Louis