IRS Provides New Guidance on Midyear Changes to Safe Harbor 401(k) Plans

Feb 2, 2016

Reading Time : 3 min

Safe Harbor Plans

Contributions to a Section 401(k) plan must be nondiscriminatory in amount. A 401(k) plan meets this requirement either by satisfying annual tests for elective and matching contributions made on behalf of highly compensated employees or by being structured as a “safe harbor” plan. Safe harbor plans must satisfy the requirements set forth in IRS regulations regarding contributions and providing safe harbor notices, and the requirement that certain plan provisions generally must remain in effect for an entire 12-month plan year.

Midyear Changes to Safe Harbor Plans and Safe Harbor Notices

Due to the IRS’s previously limited guidance, it has been widely assumed that no midyear amendments are permitted for safe harbor plans, unless expressly permitted by the safe harbor plan regulations or in generally applicable guidance published by the IRS, even if they do not change any plan provisions required for safe harbor plan status. However, Notice 2016-16 now makes clear that a midyear change to a safe harbor plan, or to the required safe harbor notice content, does not violate the safe harbor plan regulations merely because it is a midyear change, as long as it is not described in the notice’s list of specifically prohibited midyear changes. The notice defines a “midyear change” as either (1) a change that is first effective during a plan year, but not as of the beginning of the plan year, or (2) a change that is effective as of the beginning of the plan year, but adopted after the beginning of the plan year.

The notice also sets out special notice and election opportunity conditions that must be satisfied for any midyear change to the safe harbor notice content. Specifically, an updated safe harbor notice describing the midyear change and its effective date must be provided to each employee otherwise required to receive a safe harbor notice within a reasonable period—generally at least 30 days, and not more than 90 days—before the change’s effective date. If providing the updated safe harbor notice before a change’s effective date is not practicable, then it must be provided no later than 30 days after the date the change is adopted. Each affected employee must then be given a reasonable opportunity and a 30-day election period to make or change the employee’s elective deferral election.

Prohibited Midyear Changes

Notice 2016-16 identifies the following midyear changes as prohibited for a safe harbor plan, unless specifically required by applicable law to be made midyear:

  • a midyear increase in the number of completed years of service required for an employee to have a nonforfeitable right to his or her account balance attributable to QACA safe harbor contributions
  • a midyear reduction in number, or otherwise narrowing, of the group of employees eligible to receive safe harbor contributions
  • a midyear change to the type of safe harbor plan, such as changing from a traditional 401(k) safe harbor plan to a QACA 401(k) safe harbor plan
  • a midyear change to modify or add a matching contribution formula (including the definition of compensation used to determine matching contributions), if the change increased the amount of matching contributions, or to permit discretionary matching contributions.

However, the last type of change will not be prohibited if the change is adopted and the updated safe harbor notice and election opportunity are provided, at least three months before the end of the plan year, and the change is retroactively effective for the entire plan year.

In addition, certain midyear changes are not subject to the notice, but instead must satisfy applicable conditions under the safe harbor plan regulations. These include the adoption of a short plan year or any change to the plan year, adoption of safe harbor plan status on or after the beginning of the plan year, and reduction or suspension of safe harbor contributions or changing from safe harbor to non-safe-harbor plan status.

Notice 2016-16 also requests comments on additional guidance that may be needed, in particular with respect to midyear changes to safe harbor plans where a plan sponsor is involved in a merger or acquisition. Comments must be submitted in writing no later than April 28, 2016.

Share This Insight

Categories

Previous Entries

Deal Diary

June 27, 2024

On June 24, 2024, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) published five new Form 8-K Compliance and Disclosure Interpretations (C&DIs) expanding the agency’s interpretations of cybersecurity incident disclosures pursuant to Item 1.05 of Form 8-K. In July 2023, the SEC adopted final rules with respect to cybersecurity incidents that generally require public companies to disclose (i) material cybersecurity incidents within four business days after determining the incident was material and (ii) material information regarding their cybersecurity risk management, strategy and governance on an annual basis. We wrote about the final cybersecurity disclosure rules here.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 12, 2024

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) recently adopted final rules (available here; also see the fact sheet and press release) representing significant changes to  special purpose acquisition companies (SPACs), shell companies and the disclosure of projections. These rules aim to enhance disclosures, protect investors and align the regulatory framework for SPACs with traditional IPOs. The following summarizes the key aspects of these rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

October 4, 2023

On September 20, 2023, the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) issued a final rule amending the so-called “Names Rule” (found here) that is “designed to modernize and enhance” protections under Rule 35d-1 of the Investment Company Act of 1940. The final rule is part of the SEC’s holistic efforts to regulate environmental, social and governance (ESG) matters, and is the SEC’s latest attempt to curb greenwashing in U.S. capital markets. The amendments require registered investment funds that include ESG factors in their names to place 80% of their assets in investments corresponding to those factors, thereby extending to ESG funds the SEC’s long-standing approach of regulating the names of registered funds to ensure they are marketed to investors truthfully. Fund complexes with more than $1 billion in assets will have two years from the final rule’s effective date (60 days after publication in the Federal Register) to comply, while fund complexes with less than $1 billion in assets will be given a compliance period of 30 months.

Chair Gary Gensler said “[t]he Names Rule reflects a basic idea: A fund’s investment portfolio should match a fund’s advertised investment focus. In essence, if a fund’s name suggests an investment focus, the fund in turn needs to invest shareholders’ dollars in a manner consistent with that investment focus. Otherwise, a fund’s portfolio might be inconsistent with what fund investors desired when selecting a fund based upon its name.” The sole dissenting vote against the rule modification, Commissioner Mark Uyeda, said “[w]ith these amendments, the Commission overemphasizes the importance of a fund’s name, as if to suggest that investors and their financial professionals need not look at the prospectus disclosures.” Commissioner Uyeda also expressed concern that fund investors will bear the increased compliance costs associated with the rule change.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 31, 2023

As discussed in our prior publication (found here), the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) adopted amendments on December 14, 2022, regarding Rule 10b5-1 insider trading plans and related disclosures. On May 25, 2023, the SEC issued three new compliance and disclosure interpretations (C&DIs) relating to the Rule 10b5-1 amendments.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 24, 2023

On May 15, 2023, the Eastern District of California ruled that California Assembly Bill No. 979 (“AB 979”) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. As enacted, California’s Board Diversity Statute, required public companies with headquarters in the state to include a minimum number of directors from “underrepresented communities” or be subject to fines for violating the statute. AB 979 defines a “director from an underrepresented community” as “an individual who self-identifies as Black, African American, Hispanic, Latino, Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, Native Hawaiian, or Alaska Native, or who self-identifies as gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgender.”

...

Read More

Deal Diary

May 9, 2023

Update: On October 31, 2023, the Fifth Circuit granted the US Chamber of Commerce's petition for review of the SEC's share repurchase disclosure rules, holding that the SEC acted arbitrarily and capriciously in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act. The court directed the SEC to correct the defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 1, 2023, the SEC informed the Fifth Circuit that it was unable to correct the rule's defects within 30 days of the opinion. On December 19, 2023, the Fifth Circuit vacated the SEC’s share repurchase disclosure rules.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

April 12, 2023

We have released our 2023 ESG Survey which includes a collection of reports reflecting on significant ESG themes and trends from 2022, as well as what we believe to be key developments for 2023.

...

Read More

Deal Diary

February 6, 2023

As companies begin preparing for the 2023 proxy season, we note that Institutional Shareholder Services Inc. (ISS) and Glass Lewis, the leading providers of corporate governance solutions and proxy advisory services, issued updated benchmark policies (proxy voting guidelines), which can be found here and here, respectively. The updated proxy voting guidelines generally focus on board accountability and oversight considerations and address topics such as climate accountability, board diversity, shareholder rights, corporate governance standards, executive compensation and social issues. What follows is a summary of the proxy voting guidelines published by ISS and Glass Lewis for the 2023 proxy season.

...

Read More

© 2024 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.