Missing 401(k) Contributions Must Be Restored, Court Rules

More than $150,000 ordered paid to a Maryland company's retirement plan; company and owner barred from any future ERISA fiduciary roles.

A federal court in Maryland has entered a consent judgment that requires a Baltimore logistics, engineering and management support company and its owner to restore more than $150,000 in missing contributions and interest to the firm’s 401(k) plan.

The consent judgment is the result of an investigation by the U.S. Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration, which found that Bicallis LLC and its owner Bryan Hill did not forward employees’ pay deductions for plan contributions and failed to collect matching and safe harbor contributions the company owed the plan from October 2017 through December 2019.

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

Under the consent judgment, Bicallis and Hill have been removed from their fiduciary positions with the plan, and they are permanently barred from serving in a fiduciary capacity for any plan covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act in the future. The firm and its owner must also pay for the cost of an independent fiduciary to administer the plan and distribute benefits to its participants and beneficiaries.

The court appointed AMI Benefit Plan Administrators, Inc. as the independent fiduciary for the plan. AMI will have plenary authority over the administration, management and assets of the plan, and will be subject to ERISA’s fiduciary duties. Once AMI has completed distributing the plan’s assets, the new fiduciary will decide whether it is appropriate to terminate the plan. If it does, AMI will have authority to perform all actions necessary to wind down and terminate the plan. Bicallis and Hill will also be assessed a penalty of 20% of the applicable recovery amount.

“When fiduciaries fail to take required actions regarding the hard-earned retirement savings of participants in plans they manage, workers lose trust in those managing their retirement earnings and the fund’s growth is compromised,” EBSA Regional Director in Philadelphia Michael Schloss said in a statement. “EBSA is committed to ensuring the integrity of employee benefit programs and holding those who violate the law accountable.”

IRS Issues ‘Helpful’ Bulletin for Preapproved Plans

An IRS bulletin for preapproved plan sponsors warns of consequences for missing the restated adoption agreement deadline.

In a bulletin, the IRS has put preapproved defined contribution plans on notice of the consequences for missing the July 31 deadline to submit restated plan documents.

Preapproved plans are required to be restated every six years to incorporate changes to the retirement plan and new laws and regulations.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

“The IRS expects that a lot of people will end up missing that deadline,” says David Klimaszewski, partner at law firm Culhane Meadows. “They came out with this particular bulletin to let companies know what would happen if they screwed up and they missed the deadline for restating their plan, if they have a prototype plan.”

The bulletin came in the midst of the IRS fielding questions about the issue and anticipating many more questions before July ends, Klimaszewski explains.

“The IRS bulletin is basically a warning for employers,” he adds. “It was a very helpful piece of guidance to get; it did actually answer several questions that I had with the self-correction procedure.”

Several flavors of preapproved retirement plans operate under IRS regulations. Preapproved retirement plans, including prototype and volume submitter plans, are DC retirement plans sold to an employer by a financial institution or benefits practitioner.

Preapproved plan sponsors have generally operated the plans under IRS opinion or advisory letters detailing the tax-qualified status of their DC plan.

“The IRS issued this to make it clear what the consequences were, and the consequences are [that] if you do not timely adopt a restated document then technically you have an individually designed plan,” adds Klimaszewski. “And of course it doesn’t satisfy the qualification requirements, but you can fix that by going through the IRS’ self-correction procedures.”

Restatements are an opportunity for employers with preapproved plans to ensure that documents fully integrate law changes, adds Klimaszewski.

“Typically, the restatements are a good chance to update the plan, but a restatement also will reflect better the new law,” he says. “You don’t just regurgitate the code—what Congress has said—you actually go in and explain it and figure out how that’s going to affect your plan and address the appropriate provisions.”

DC plans are grouped into five cycles for submitting restated plan adoption agreements. This year concerns cycle three plans, which are sponsored by a company with an employer identification number that ends in two or seven, Klimaszewski adds.

“Basically, one-fifth of the prototype plans that are out there have to be restated by this July 31, and another 20% will be restated by July 31, 2023, and then another 20% by July 31, 2024, et cetera,” he says.

The IRS bulletin specifically addresses 401(a) and 403(b) plans.

In the bulletin, the regulator explains that 401(a) and 403(b) plans that fail to sign and submit restated plan adoption agreements by the deadline could self-correct faults under the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System if the fault has existed for less than the past three years.

For these plan types, the bulletin says, “If you find a defect that has existed for less than the past 3 years, you can correct it under SCP. For older form defects, you would have to file a Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) application to correct the failure.”

The statement concludes by advising plan sponsors that “being a pre-approved plan is one method of meeting the requirement to have an updated written plan document.” It continues, “If the employer who sponsors a plan does not timely adopt a current pre-approved plan, it can still meet the written document requirements as an individually designed plan. Individually designed plans that don’t meet those requirements can be self-corrected under the circumstances detailed in Rev. Proc. 2021-30, Part IV.”

«