Can Employers Use PPP Funds to Contribute to HSAs?

Limited guidance on the regulations makes this answer complex for plan sponsors.

The recent passage of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act has left some employers scrambling for more guidance. Among the issues they’re clamoring to understand are Small Business Administration (SBA) loans and the Paycheck Protection Program (PPP), experts say.

According to Alison Moore, vice president of health marketing at HealthSavings, a health savings account (HSA) provider, these loans can help employers add contributions to their employees’ HSAs. “At this time when employers are looking for ways to help their employees, one of the things they could do is help fund their employees’ HSAs,” she says.

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

A number of new rules that came out under the COVID-19 relief package added health benefits for employees. Now, employed workers may use their HSAs to cover telehealth—an issue that was swept under the rug for years before the coronavirus pandemic—and over-the-counter medicine without a prescription. Additionally, if a worker is laid off or unemployed, they may use their HSA to cover COBRA [Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act] premiums tax-free. “This fits right at the intersection with financial health and wellness,” Moore says. “It’s a vehicle that employees can use to put money in tax-free, it can grow tax-free and it can be used tax-free for qualifying medical expenses.”

Yet the emergence of additional guidance can be taxing on employers, who continue to find little clarification on some regulations. Some employers, says Kevin Robertson, chief revenue officer at HSA Bank, an HSA administration provider, can run the risk of hurting their compliance, even if their actions are a mistake or an oversight.

While employers can begin or increase contributions for their employee population under SBA loans, it’s important to note that they cannot selectively contribute to a singular employee’s account, Robertson adds. For instance, an employer is prohibited from making an extra contribution to an individual worker who is falling under tough times. If they do, they can be subject to HSA comparability rules if the contribution is made outside of a Section 125 plan, or nondiscrimination rules if made inside a Section 125 plan, according to Robertson. “They just have to remain cognizant because they may ultimately be causing a compliance issue for themselves,” he says. “As a rule of thumb, what they do for one, they should do for all.”

Under the CARES Act, the rules on the PPP state that employers can use the money from these loans for payroll costs. If an employer applies for the program and is accepted, they must use at least 75% of the loan on payroll services. “But what technically applies as a payroll cost?” Robertson asks. The complexity behind the PPP is enough to sway small business employers from potentially offering or increasing HSA contributions—and the confusion led the Treasury Department to issue a set of frequently asked questions (FAQs) for additional guidance and the SBA to release a brief explaining how to apply, yet both make no mention of HSAs.

However, because these loans are intended for employees, plan sponsors may use them toward HSA features, Moore says. “Generally, the PPP loans are for employers to provide benefits and compensation to their employees, and HSAs do qualify as a benefit,” she explains.

But while employers may want to help with health care costs, Robertson, on the other hand, urges plan sponsors to think twice before applying PPP funds to increase HSA contributions, mainly because of limited understanding around the regulation. Since the ruling’s generalization can be subject to interpretation, it’s best to halt before using funds for HSA contributions and consult with an Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) attorney. “There’s no linear answer,” Robertson says.

DOL, Wilmington Trust Reach Agreement Over ESOP Overpricing

The agreement requires Wilmington Trust to pay $80 million to 21 employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) for which it served as trustee.

The Secretary of Labor has reached an agreement with Wilmington Trust requiring it to pay a combined $80 million to 21 employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) for which it served as trustee and $8 million to the government.

Wilmington Trust has also agreed to reimburse sponsors of the ESOPs for legal costs and expenses advanced in connection with the Department of Labor (DOL)’s investigations and litigation. The Delaware-based bank and trust company agreed to settle claims without admitting or denying any allegations.

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

The DOL says investigations by its Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) found that Wilmington Trust caused losses to the ESOPs when it authorized them to pay more than fair market value for privately held employer stock, a violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

The agreement resolves three lawsuits brought by the Secretary and 18 investigations by the EBSA. The Solicitor of Labor’s Plan Benefits Security Division and Regional Solicitor’s Office in Chicago litigated the three lawsuits involving the ESOPs sponsored by Graphite Sales Inc., HCMC Legal Inc. and Stargate Apparel Inc.

The investigations resolved by the agreement also involve the ESOPs sponsored by the following companies:

  • A.H. Schreiber Co.
  • Axia Consulting
  • Best Restaurant Equipment and Design
  • Cohen Ventures
  • Consolidated Bus Transit
  • Cost Containment Group
  • Evy of California
  • FST Logistics
  • Henny Penny Corp.
  • Life’s Abundance
  • Mapsys
  • Paramount Marketing Consultants
  • Ram 1971
  • The Retina Institute
  • Sterling Staffing
  • Trius
  • The Vertex Companies
  • West-Camp Press

The agreement is expected to result in payments to approximately 5,000 participants in those plans.

In a statement, Wilmington Trust said: “We are pleased to resolve all claims in these cases and avoid what could have been a protracted and expensive legal proceeding. While we deny all allegations with respect to these claims, we feel that this settlement is the best way for all parties to move forward. As always, we believe we have acted in accordance with all applicable laws, industry best practices and will continue to carry out our legacy and commitment to quality client services.”

The firm adds, “ESOP trustees work with accredited valuation professionals, lawyers and other experts in an attempt to purchase closely held companies for fair market value. Valuing unique, closely-held businesses is a complex process. ESOP appraisers follow longstanding methods set forth under the Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. DOL has not issued any definitive guidance to help ESOP trustees or issued regulations relating to company valuations or the manner in which trustees approach stock purchases.”

Wilmington Trust points to a 2018 letter in which members of Congress accused the DOL of “regulation through litigation” and asked that clear guidance regarding valuation and other important issues be developed.

«