Second Opinions – Applying the Employer Mandate Look-Back Rules

Experts from Groom Law Group answer questions about new IRS guidance about applying the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA) employer mandate look-back rules.

Last fall, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) released guidance (Notice 2014-49) that addresses several issues not addressed in the final employer mandate regulations regarding the application of the look-back rules in situations in which the measurement method or period changes.

The final employer mandate regulations describe two measurement methods that applicable large employers (ALEs) can use to determine whether an individual is a full-time employee: (1) the look-back measurement method; or (2) the monthly measurement method.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

Under the final regulations, an employer generally must apply the same measurement method and, if using the look-back method, the same measurement period, to all employees in the same category (e.g., salary vs. hourly). The final regulations include rules on an employee transferring from a category for which one measurement method applies to a category under which the other method applies, but do not address the rules that apply if an employer changes the measurement method or period for a category of employees. 

The Notice describes proposed approaches for applying the look-back rules when an employee transfers from one position to another with an employer and when an employer changes measurement methods or periods for a category of employees. It also requests comments on the potential application of these approaches in the case of corporate transactions such as mergers and acquisitions.  Below we address frequently asked questions related to the Notice. 

How do the look-back rules apply to employees who transfer positions or between employers? 

The Notice addresses situations in which an employee experiences a change in measurement method or period as a result of a transfer between ALE members or between employee categories. Following the transfer, the employer must take into account the hours of service earned in the first position either by counting the hours using the counting method applied to the employee in the first position or recalculating the hours of service earned in the first position using the hours of service counting method applied to the employee in the second position. 

The Notice proposes an approach to apply the look-back measurement method after the change. In general, the application of the look-back rules vary depending upon whether the employee was in a stability period or administrative period applicable to the first position as of the date of the transfer. If the employee was in a stability or administrative period as of the transfer date, the employee’s full-time or part-time status for the first position remains in effect until the end of that stability period. Then, at the end of the applicable stability period, the employee assumes the full-time or part-time status that employee would have had under the look-back method applicable to the second position (and including hours from the first position). 

For employees not in a stability or administrative period as of the transfer date, the employee’s full-time or part-time status is determined solely under the look-back method applicable to the second position as of the date of transfer, including all hours of service in the first position. Otherwise, the general look-back rules, including the rules that apply to new, full-time employees, continue to apply.

How do the look-back rules apply if the employer changes the measurement method or measurement period for a category of employees? 

The Notice includes rules that apply when an employer makes changes in the measurement method, or the duration or start date of the measurement period, that applies to a category of employees. In general, the Notice applies the rules in the final regulations that apply to an employee transferring from a category for which one measurement method applies to a category under which the other method applies to all employees impacted by the employer’s change in methods for a “transition period” after the effective date of the change. In general, the rules in the final regulations apply as if on the date of the change each of those employees had transferred from a position to which the original measurement method or period applied to a position to which the revised measurement method or period applied.

What rules apply in the case of mergers and acquisitions? 

The final regulations provided only limited guidance about the application of the rules in the case of mergers and acquisitions and indicated that the IRS would issue further guidance. The Notice requests comments about the potential application of the approach proposed in the Notice in the context of corporate transactions such as mergers and acquisitions. 

The Notice states that until further guidance is issued and at least through the end of 2016, employers involved in corporate transactions in which employers use different measurement methods may rely on the approaches described in the Notice (i.e., for employee transfers) in determining an employee’s status as a full-time employee. As an example, the IRS describes a situation where one corporation (seller) merges into another corporation (buyer) and both corporations use the look-back method, but with different measurement periods. The corporations may apply the approach set forth in the Notice by treating the seller’s employees as having transferred on the date of the merger from one position (at seller) to another position (at buyer) with a different measurement period.

The Notice also includes a proposed approach under which an ALE member may apply to its newly acquired employees as a result of a transaction the measurement method that applied to the acquired employees immediately before the corporate transaction during a transition period. The IRS notes that this proposed approach for corporate transactions is not necessarily the only permissible approach and requests comments on other possible approaches.

You can find a handy list of Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and their effective dates at http://www.groom.com/HCR-Chart.html   

Contributors:   

Christy Tinnes is a principal in the Health & Welfare Group of Groom Law Group in Washington, D.C. She is involved in all aspects of health and welfare plans, including ERISA, HIPAA portability, HIPAA privacy, COBRA, and Medicare. She represents employers designing health plans as well as insurers designing new products. Most recently, she has been extensively involved in the insurance market reform and employer mandate provisions of the health-care reform legislation.   

Brigen Winters is a principal at Groom Law Group, Chartered, where he co-chairs the firm's Policy and Legislation group. He counsels plan sponsors, insurers, and other financial institutions regarding health and welfare, executive compensation, and tax-qualified arrangements, and advises clients on legislative and regulatory matters, with a particular focus on the recently enacted health-reform legislation.  

 

PLEASE NOTE:  This feature is intended to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.

Factors Still Ripe for Choosing Pension Risk Transfer

The market is poised for accelerated defined benefit pension plan risk transfer activity, according to speakers featured in a Mercer webcast.

Mercer has seen that roughly half of defined benefit (DB) plans considering risk transfers have done a lump-sum window for terminated, vested participants in last two years or have one underway for 2015, according to Matt McDaniel, principal and business leader for Mercer’s Philadelphia retirement practice.

The trend now is annuity buyouts for retirees, he told attendees of a Mercer webcast.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

Lump-sum economics are different from buyout economics, McDaniel notes, and the reason some plan sponsors are considering lump sums in 2015 is if they look ahead, the situation could get worse. He explains that lump-sum calculations for participants are higher with interest rates low, so plan sponsors may think they should wait until interest rates rise. However, it is anticipated the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) will update mortality tables for lump-sum calculations just like the Society of Actuaries updated mortality tables for accounting purposes—Mercer is hearing from some sources that updated IRS tables could be fast tracked to be effective 2016, McDaniel says—which will make lump-sum calculations even higher.

“Interest rates would have to rise significantly for lump sums to be reduced to below 2015 levels,” he notes. “So there could be a cost to waiting.” He adds that increased Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) premiums also add to the cost of holding liabilities.

Sean Brennan, a partner in Mercer’s Buyout Strategy group in New York, notes that the Mercer U.S. Buyout Index finds the average premium for purchasing an annuity to cover DB liabilities decreased from 9% of the total liability as of November 30 to 5.3% as of December 31. This is primarily due to the adoption of new Society of Actuaries mortality tables; plan sponsor accounting liabilities now look more like what insurers have been basing their pricing on. Mercer thinks this will drive more plan sponsors to considering annuity buyouts for the DB plans, Brennan says.

Richard McEvoy, a partner in Mercer’s financial strategy group in New York, says low interest rates and volatile markets are hindering some pension risk transfer action, but many plan sponsors are tired of trying to second guess interest rate and market movements.

Some plan sponsors have accounting concerns; they have the view that investors will punish de-risking activity. But, according to McEvoy, there is no evidence that this is happening. “There is a one-time charge to absorb, but in the long-term, accounting is better.”

Some DB plans have increasing plan deficits, in part, because of new mortality assumptions, which result in higher cash costs for pension buyouts. But, McEvoy notes that increasing PBGC rates are making pre-funding DB plans through an annuity purchase compelling. “Plan sponsors will save up to 3% a year on variable rate premiums,” he says.

Mercer recommends creating a strategic plan, monitoring preparedness for risk transfer in an ongoing way so the plan sponsor will be ready to execute, and evaluating DB plan participant security. He notes that the Mercer Pension Risk Exchange is a solution that helps plan sponsors with these steps. It includes ongoing price monitoring to be able to execute a risk transfer when the time is right, as well as investment advice to coordinate with de-risking activity.

Looking at DB risk transfer deals over the years, Brennan notes that traditionally the annuity selected was backed by the insurer’s general account, now it is becoming more popular to choose an annuity backed by a pool of assets dedicated to obligations in a separate account—if the separate account assets become insufficient, they are backed by the general account. However, increased focus on participant security has created an emerging trend of using an annuity that is split between insurers, or splitting liabilities by groups of participants and using multiple annuities This strategy was used for the recently announced Kimberly-Clark pension risk transfer transaction. “It can enhance guarantee protection for participants,” Brennan says.

«