HSA

IRS Details Additional Temporary Guidance for Cafeteria Plans

The IRS has issued Notice 2021-15, providing additional guidance and flexibility to employee benefit plans offering health FSA and dependent care arrangements. Because of COVID-19, employees participating in these programs are more likely to have unused amounts in these accounts as a result of changes in anticipated expenses during the pandemic. To qualify as a cafeteria plan under IRC Section 125, funds remaining at the end of the plan year generally cannot be carried over to future plan years, and restrictions apply when modifying elections after the start of the plan year.

While initial temporary relief was made available for 2020, the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021, enacted in December 2020, provides the following additional flexibility for 2021 and 2022 plan years.

  • Permits post-termination reimbursements through the end of the plan year that participation ceased for health and dependent care FSAs.
  • Creates special rule for dependent care programs, allowing the plan to substitute “under age 14” for “under age 13” as the maximum age for qualifying dependents.
  • Provides carryover of unused funds into the subsequent plan year from the 2020 and 2021 plan years.
  • Allows health and dependent care FSAs to offer a grace period extension of 12 months after the end of the plan year.
  • Permits mid-year election changes by plan participants of health and dependent care FSAs for plan years ending in 2021 without a change in status.

Notice 2021-15 provides illustrative examples of these provisions, details on interaction with COBRA continuation coverage, and timing of plan amendments. The notice also provides additional relief that allows employers to retroactively amend their

  • cafeteria plans to permit mid-year election changes for employer-sponsored health coverage, and
  • health reimbursement arrangements to permit reimbursement of over-the-counter drugs without a prescription and menstrual care products.

Retirement Spotlight: IRS Aims to Clarify 60-Day Postponement Rule for Federally Declared Disasters

At the end of 2019, the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) was amended to create a mandatory 60-day postponement for certain federal tax-related deadlines in the event of a disaster. This new provision was designed to ensure that affected taxpayers would have guaranteed relief while recovering from a natural disaster or other emergency. But this measure didn’t seem to affect how the IRS had already been responding to such events. In fact, the new law created some ambiguity. In an effort to address this uncertainty, the IRS has released proposed regulations. These regulations provide more information about

  • what time-sensitive tax acts are covered;
  • how the 60-day postponement is determined; and
  • how the phrase, “federally declared disaster,” is defined for purposes of this 60-day period.

These regulations make it clear that the practical applicability of the automatic 60-day rule still ultimately depends on the IRS’s granting of deadline relief when disasters happen. And because the IRS has already been doing this—typically granting more than 60 days—there may not be a noticeable change.

60-Day Postponement Rule

The mandatory 60-day postponement rule was added (as IRC Sec. 7508A(d)) by the Taxpayer Certainty and Disaster Tax Relief Act of 2019. (This act was part of the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act, which also contained the SECURE Act.) It requires the IRS to automatically postpone for 60 days certain time-sensitive, federal tax-related deadlines—including those related to retirement savings plans—in response to federally declared disasters that occur on or after December 21, 2019.

The rule applies to taxpayers

  • who reside in or were injured or killed in a disaster area,
  • who have principal places of business in the disaster area,
  • who are relief workers providing assistance in a disaster area, or
  • whose tax records necessary to meet a tax deadline are located in a disaster area.

The IRS already had the authority under IRC Sec. 7508A to extend certain tax-related deadlines for up to one year in response to presidentially declared disasters or terroristic or military actions. The IRS typically makes disaster declarations through news releases, describing the counties affected and the length of the deadline postponement. Extensions typically are 120 days. Some are less. But the 60-day postponement rule ensures at least a minimum time to complete the acts covered by the guidance.

Time-Sensitive Tax Acts

The 60-day postponement statute contains a list of specific time-sensitive, tax-related acts. Those that pertain to retirement plans are

  • making IRA or retirement plan contributions,
  • removing excess IRA contributions,
  • recharacterizing IRA contributions, and
  • completing rollovers.

The proposed regulations point to other time-sensitive acts—specified under IRC Sec. 7508, Treasury Regulations, and IRS Revenue Procedure 2018-58—such as filing IRS Form 5500 for retirement plans and making retirement plan loan payments. Thus, the proposed regulations do not limit the mandatory 60-day postponement to only those acts listed in new IRC Sec. 7508A(d). Instead, they reinforce the IRS’s discretion in identifying which tax-related acts will be postponed.

So, despite the seemingly automatic nature of the new 60-day extension, individuals must still wait for the IRS to grant relief that applies to a specific disaster and to a specific area. If the IRS decides not to postpone a time-sensitive act, the 60-day postponement statute simply doesn’t apply. On the other hand (for disasters with incident dates), if the IRS postpones an act, the postponement must be for at least 60 days.

60-Day Postponement Period

The mandatory 60-day postponement period generally begins on the earliest “incident date” specified in a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) disaster declaration and ends on the date that is 60 days after the latest incident date. For example, consider a hurricane battering a coastal state for several days. FEMA announces a disaster declaration that is approved by the president. It specifies the earliest incident date for the affected counties as August 15 and the latest incident date (when the flooding ends) as August 19. The deadline postponement begins on August 15 and ends 60 days from August 19.

Under the 60-day postponement statute, however, it is unclear how the 60-day period is calculated when the disaster declaration either does not contain an incident end date or does not contain any incident dates. This happened with the president’s March 13, 2020, emergency coronavirus declaration: no incident date was specified, and no latest incident date has yet been determined. The proposed regulations simply state that in such a case no mandatory postponement period applies. Rather, the IRS will determine the postponement period—under its discretionary authority under IRC Sec. 7508A(a)—not to exceed one year.

Federally Declared Disaster

The 60-day postponement statute uses the phrases “disaster area” and “federally declared disaster” and cites the definitions found in IRC Sec. 165(i)(5). There, “federally declared disaster” is defined as ‘‘any disaster subsequently determined by the President of the United States to warrant assistance by the Federal Government under the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and Emergency Assistance Act.’’ But the words “federally declared disaster” are not used in the Stafford Act. Instead, the Stafford Act uses the terms ‘‘emergency,’’ ‘‘major disaster,’’ and ‘‘disaster (used to refer to both emergencies and major disasters).”

This language difference between IRC Sec. 165(i)(5) and the Stafford Act has led to some misunderstanding. For this reason, the IRS has also amended the regulations under IRC Sec. 165 to clarify that the term “federally declared disaster” includes references to both “major disaster” and “emergency,” as defined in the Stafford Act.

The Takeaway

The IRS is accepting comments on all aspects of the proposed regulations before they are adopted as final. Written or electronic comments and requests for a public hearing must be received by March 15, 2021.These regulations—when made final—may clarify the interplay between the new mandatory 60-day postponement rule and existing disaster relief. But practically, not much is likely to change. The IRS will continue to exercise its considerable authority to postpone tax-related deadlines. Postponements will generally continue to exceed 60 days. And individuals will still rely on the IRS to identify which disasters and tax-related items will qualify for deadline postponement.

Visit ascensus.com for further developments on this and other guidance.

 

Click here for a printable version of this issue of the Retirement Spotlight.


2021 Could See More Retirement and Health Legislation

Despite political partisanship that has marked much of the 116th Congress in 2019 and 2020, there have been some notable exceptions with bipartisan outcomes. The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act of 2019 proved that cooperation is a possibility. That legislation, enacted in December 2019, made significant enhancements to tax-advantaged savings arrangements.

Enactment of the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act in March 2020 was a unified response to the pandemic that has disrupted many Americans’ lives in both economic and health terms. And, in December 2020, Congress was able to put aside differences in crafting legislation combining additional pandemic relief with needed last-minute federal agency appropriations.

What 2021 will bring is yet to be determined. The Democratic majority in the House of Representatives narrowed in the 2020 general election, and control of the U.S. Senate shifted to Democratic control by the narrowest of margins. A Democrat also now resides in the White House. His legislative agenda has yet to be revealed in detail, but—based on campaign messaging—may include the broadly-defined goal of “equalizing benefits across the income scale.”  This ambition aside, it can be difficult for any president to accomplish legislative objectives with such a narrowly divided Congress.

Unless, that is, these objectives align with those of a majority of lawmakers. Fortunately, tax-advantaged savings legislation has a history of being able to gather bipartisan support. It has win-win dimensions that tend to unify, rather than divide.  For this reason, there is optimism that one or more savings-focused bills could be enacted in 2021. Several introduced during the past two years will likely be re-introduced in the 117th Congress.

Securing a Strong Retirement Act

This legislation—called SECURE 2.0 by some, in reference to 2019’s SECURE legislation—is a further example of bipartisanship. It is jointly sponsored by House Ways and Means Committee Chairman, Representative (Rep.) Richard Neal (D-MA)— and GOP Ranking Member Kevin Brady (R-TX). Due to the prominence of these sponsors, the legislation is considered to have favorable prospects. It includes the following provisions.

  • Require employers—with exceptions for certain new and small businesses—to establish an automatic enrollment deferral-type retirement plan, such as a savings incentive match plan for employees of small employers (SIMPLE) IRA plan.

  • Provide an enhanced small employer plan start-up tax credit for such new plans.

  • Enhance the “saver’s credit” for IRA contributions and for deferral-type employer plan contributions, such as those made to a SIMPLE IRA plan.

  • Exempt up to $100,000 of accumulated IRA and employer-sponsored retirement plan assets from required minimum distribution (RMD) calculations.

  • Increase the RMD onset age from 72 to 75.

  • Reduce penalties for RMD failures.

  • Provide a second (age 60), higher IRA catch-up contribution limit.

  • Index IRA catch-up contributions for inflation.

  • Increase the limit for IRA and retirement plan assets that are exempt from RMD calculations under qualifying longevity annuity contract (QLAC) rules.

  • Reduce certain IRA error penalties and permit more self-correction.

  • Permit matching contributions, e.g., to SIMPLE IRAs—based on student loan payments.

Automatic IRA Act

It is widely accepted that up to 40 percent of American workers do not have access to a workplace retirement plan. A concept that dates back more than a decade proposes universal, automatic saving to an IRA through a worker’s place of employment, if no other retirement plan is available. This is the concept embodied in the Automatic IRA Act, legislation that has been introduced in several previous sessions of Congress.

In the absence of action at the federal level, many states have acted on their own to establish automatic IRA-based saving programs, which—while beneficial for those who are covered—has left geographic gaps, and a patchwork with differing program rules. A uniform national automatic IRA program could close these gaps and address differences.

  • Employers in business less than 2 years or employing fewer than 10 employees would be exempt.

  • Employees would be automatically enrolled and contributions withheld from pay, but they would be able to opt out.

  • Accounts would be Roth IRAs unless a Traditional IRA was elected.

  • Contributions would likely begin at 3 percent of pay, but with latitude to range between 2 percent and 6 percent.

  • Investments would include balanced, principal preservation, and target-date funds, as well as guaranteed insurance contracts.

 Past sponsors of automatic IRA legislation have included Rep. Richard Neal (D-MA) and U.S. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI).

HSA Enhancements

Affordable health insurance for Americans continues to be an extremely challenging goal. One increasingly common option—an alternative to the comprehensive “major medical” health insurance model—is a high deductible health insurance plan linked to a savings and spending account known as a health savings account, or HSA.

This approach is intended to offer a path to lower health insurance premiums, and to allow individuals to save in a tax-advantaged manner for expenses that are below their health plan deductible, and for co-pay amounts they owe. What initially began as a temporary test program under medical savings account (MSA) nomenclature later evolved into the HSA we know today.

With many U.S. employers offering employees an HSA-based program as one—or perhaps the only—health insurance option, much focus has been on how the HSA might be tweaked to improve its usefulness. Following are some of the proposed HSA modifications, a composite of provisions from several bills introduced in the 116th Congress. Some, or all, could be proposed again in the 117th Congress that has just been sworn in.

  • Increase maximum annual HSA contributions; some have proposed doubling the limits.

  • Expand the treatments for which a plan’s high deductible need not be met before benefits commence, such as chronic care services and more medications, including nonprescription drugs.

  • Permit care at onsite employer or retail clinics without forfeiting HSA contribution eligibility.

  • Treat costs of participating in a fixed-fee primary care arrangement as HSA-eligible expenses.

  • Allow coverage of offspring under a parent’s HSA-compatible health plan to age 26; would mirror the Affordable Care Act (ACA).

  • Define ACA bronze-level and certain catastrophic health insurance plans as HSA-compatible.

  • Treat a defined portion of HSA accumulations spent for “fitness and health” as HSA-eligible expenses.

  • Allow a fixed amount from health flexible spending accounts (health FSAs) and health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs) remaining at year’s end to be rolled over to an HSA.

  • Allow Medicare-eligible individuals enrolled only in Part A (Medicare-provided hospital care) to remain HSA contribution-eligible.

Other Legislative Ambitions

Beyond the possibilities noted above, other initiatives that may be in play in the 117th Congress could include getting closer to universal availability of 401(k)-type workplace retirement plans and addressing the solvency of under-funded defined benefit pension plans. These could be more contentious, carrying as they might the stigmas of “mandate,” and “bailout,” both of which draw resistance from a substantial number of lawmakers.

Stay tuned for more details on proposed legislation and regulatory updates that stand to impact the savings plan landscape. In the meantime, check out our latest analysis on industry and regulatory news here on ascensus.com.


Legislation Introduced to Expand HSA Access

Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) has introduced the Health Savings Accounts for All Act of 2020 (S.4367). The legislation is intended to expand access and reduce restrictions on health savings accounts (HSAs).

According to details of Senator Paul’s press release, the bill proposes to eliminate the annual limit on tax-deductible contributions to HSAs by individuals and their employers. The requirement to be enrolled in a high deductible health plan in order to contribute to an HSA would also be eliminated. Additionally, HSA balances could be used for the payment of health insurance premiums, direct care service arrangements, and expenses incurred during the prior or current tax year before the establishment of the HSA. Another provision would allow for the tax-free transfer of HSAs upon death to certain family members.


Washington Pulse: The DOL’s New Proposal to Regulate Investment Advice

Few aspects of retirement plan governance have been as controversial as regulating investment advice. Exactly what obligation—if any—does an investment professional have to provide impartial, conflict-free advice to savers and retirees?  When do financial professionals step over the boundary that can make them a fiduciary, with the ethical and legal obligations that come with this duty?

The answers have been inconsistent, stretching over many years. Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary investment advice regulations date back to the 1970s. Those regulations needed revision in order to better align with today’s investment products and participant-directed retirement plans. Changes were proposed in 2010, withdrawn in response to public comments, revised again in 2015, and made final in 2016.

The DOL delayed implementing the 2016 final investment fiduciary regulations and accompanying guidance. These regulations were ultimately struck down in 2018 as “regulatory overreach” by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The DOL later issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2018-02, which states that the DOL will not pursue prohibited transaction claims against fiduciaries who make good-faith efforts to comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards (discussed later). FAB 2018-02 remains in effect.

The DOL has again issued investment advice guidance, this time to replace the guidance struck down by the appellate court. This latest guidance package includes a proposed prohibited transaction class exemption entitled Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees, and a technical amendment to DOL Regulations (Regs.) 2509 and 2510 that implements the appellate court’s order by

  • reinstating the original version of DOL. Reg. 2510.3-21 (including the five-part test);
  • removing prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs) 2016-01 (the Best Interest Contract Exemption) and 2016-02 (the Class Exemption for Principal Transactions);
  • returning PTEs 75-1, 77-4, 80-83, 83-1, 84-24, and 86-128 to their original form; and
  • reinstating Interpretive Bulletin (IB) 96-1, which is intended to help investment providers, financial institutions, and retirement investors determine the difference between investment education and investment advice. Investment providers and financial institutions may rely on the safe harbors in IB-96-1 in order to avoid providing information that could be construed as investment advice.

The technical amendment became effective on July 7, 2020.

 

What is the five-part test?

The original version of DOL Reg. 2510.3-21 (which the technical amendment reinstates) contains a five-part test that is used to determine fiduciary status for investment advice purposes. Under the test, an investment provider or a financial institution that receives a fee or other compensation is considered a fiduciary if it meets all of the following standards (i.e., prongs) of the test.

  • The provider or institution gives advice on investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or other property.
  • The provider or institution gives investment advice to the retirement investor on a regular basis.
  • Investment advice is given pursuant to a mutual agreement or understanding with a retirement plan or its fiduciaries.
  • The retirement investor uses the advice as a primary basis for investment decisions.
  • The provider or institution provides individualized advice, taking into account the plan’s demographics, needs, goals, etc.

 

Has the DOL’s opinion changed on rollover recommendations?

In the preamble of the proposed PTE, the DOL clarified that it no longer agrees with the guidance originally provided in Advisory Opinion 2005-23A (better known as the Deseret Letter). In the Deseret Letter, the DOL indicated that a recommendation to distribute and roll over retirement plan assets would not generally constitute investment advice because it would not meet the first prong of the five-part test. But because it is common for the investments, fees, and services to change when the decision to roll over assets is made, the DOL now believes that a recommendation to distribute assets from an IRA or an ERISA-covered plan would be considered investment advice with respect to the first prong of the five-part test.

The DOL acknowledges that advice encouraging an individual to roll over retirement plan assets may be an isolated and independent transaction that would fail to meet the second “regular basis” prong. But determining whether advice to roll over assets meets the “regular basis” prong depends on the facts and circumstances.  So the DOL could view a rollover recommendation that begins an ongoing advisory relationship as meeting the “regular basis” prong.

As discussed above, the proposed PTE would allow investment professionals to receive compensation for advising a retirement investor to take a distribution from a retirement plan or to roll over the assets to an IRA. The investment professional could also receive compensation for providing advice on other similar transactions, such as conducting rollovers between different retirement plans, between different IRAs, or between different types of accounts (e.g., from a commission-based account to a fee-based account).

Under the proposed PTE, financial institutions would need to document why the rollover advice was in the retirement investor’s best interest. Documentation would need to

  • explain whether there were other alternatives available (e.g., to leave the assets in the plan or IRA and select different investment options);
  • describe any applicable fees and expenses;
  • indicate whether the employer paid for some or all of the plan’s administrative expenses; and
  • show the different levels of services and investments available.

In addition, investment providers or financial institutions that recommend rolling over assets from another IRA or changing account types should consider and document the services that would be provided under the new arrangement.

 

Who is covered under the proposed PTE?

The proposed PTE would apply to registered investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies (financial institutions), and their employees, agents, and representatives (investment professionals) that provide fiduciary investment advice to retirement investors. The proposed PTE would also apply to any affiliates or related entities.

“Retirement investors” include

  • IRA and plan fiduciaries (regardless of plan size),
  • IRA owners or beneficiaries, and
  • plan participants or beneficiaries with authority to direct their accounts or take distributions.

The proposed PTE defines a “plan” as including 401(a) plans (e.g., 401(k) plans), 403(a) plans, 403(b) plans, defined benefit plans, owner-only plans, simplified employee pension (SEP) plans, and savings incentive match plan for employees of small employers (SIMPLE) plans. The proposed PTE would also apply to employee welfare benefit plans that have established a trust (e.g., VEBAs).

The proposed PTE, defines an “IRA” as an individual retirement account, an individual retirement annuity, a health savings account (HSA), an Archer medical savings account (MSA), and a Coverdell education savings account (ESA).

 

What protection does the proposed PTE offer?

The Internal Revenue Code and ERISA generally prohibit fiduciaries from receiving compensation from third parties and compensation that varies based on investment advice provided to retirement plans and IRAs. Fiduciaries are also prohibited from selling or purchasing their own products to retirement plans and IRAs (known as principal transactions).

Under the proposed PTE, financial institutions and investment professionals providing fiduciary investment advice could receive payments (e.g., commissions, 12b-1 fees, and revenue sharing payments) that would otherwise violate the prohibited transaction rules mentioned above. For example, the exemption would provide relief from prohibited transactions that could occur if a financial institution or investment professional

  • advises a client to take a distribution or roll over assets to an IRA or retirement plan;
  • provides recommendations to acquire, hold, dispose of, or exchange securities or other investments; or
  • recommends using a particular investment manager or investment advice provider.

In addition, the proposed PTE would cover riskless principal transactions  (e.g., when a broker-dealer purchases a security for their own account knowing that it will be sold to a retirement investor at a certain price) as well as principal transactions involving certain specific types of investments (e.g., municipal bonds).

The following transactions would not be covered by the PTE.

  • Transactions where advice is provided solely through a computer model without any personal interaction (i.e., robo-advice arrangements).
  • Transactions in which the investment professional is acting in a fiduciary capacity other than as an investment advice fiduciary under the five-part test, as described below (e.g., a 3(38) investment manager with authority to make discretionary investment decisions).
  • Transactions involving investment providers, financial institutions, and their affiliates if they are the employer of employees covered by the plan; or are a named fiduciary, plan administrator, or affiliate who was chosen to provide advice by a fiduciary who is not independent of the investment professional, financial institution, or their affiliates.

Certain individuals and institutions (and all members within the institution’s controlled group) would be ineligible to rely on the exemption—including those who have been convicted of a crime associated with providing investment advice to a retirement investor, or those who have a history of failing to comply with the exemption. The period of ineligibility would generally be 10 years, but a financial institution with a conviction may petition the DOL for continued reliance on the exemption.

 

What does the proposed PTE require?

To take advantage of the relief provided under the proposed PTE, investment professionals and financial institutions must provide advice in accordance with the Impartial Conduct Standards. The Impartial Conduct Standards contain three components—a reasonable compensation standard, a best interest standard, and a requirement that prohibits investment providers or financial institutions from giving misleading statements about investment transactions or other related matters.  The Impartial Conduct Standards also requires financial professionals and financial institutions to provide the best execution possible when completing security transactions (e.g., completing the transaction timely).

Under the best interest standard, investment professionals and financial institutions are not required to identify the best investment for the retirement investor, but any investment advice given must put the retirement investor’s interests ahead of the interests of the investment professional, financial institution, or their affiliates. This is consistent with the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest.

Investment providers and financial institutions cannot waive or disclaim compliance with any of the proposed PTE’s conditions. Likewise, retirement investors cannot agree to waive any of the conditions. In addition, the proposed PTE would require a financial institution to

  • provide the retirement investor—before the transaction takes place—with an acknowledgment of the institution’s fiduciary status in writing, and a written description of the service to be provided and any material conflicts of interest;
  • adopt and enforce policies and procedures designed to discourage incentives that are not in the retirement investor’s best interests and to ensure compliance with the Impartial Conduct Standards;
  • maintain records that prove compliance with the PTE for six years; and
  • conduct a review at least annually to determine whether the institution complied with the Impartial Conduct Standards and the policies and procedures created to ensure compliance with the exemption. Although an independent party does not need to conduct the review, the financial institution’s chief executive officer (or the most senior executive) must certify the review.

Note that the proposed PTE would not give retirement investors new legal claims (e.g., through contract or warranty provisions) but rather would affect the DOL’s enforcement approach.

 

Next Steps

Many investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies that will be affected by the proposed PTE currently operate under similar standards found in various state laws and in the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest.  The DOL’s temporary enforcement policy discussed in FAB 2018-02 also remains in effect, as do other more narrowly tailored PTEs.

Each type of investment provider and financial institution is likely affected differently, whether in steps to comply or costs involved. Financial institutions and investment providers may want to review the proposed PTE and start taking steps to comply with it. This may involve creating and maintaining any policies and procedures they don’t already have in place as a result of state law or the Regulation Best Interest.

In the meantime, a 30-day comment period for the proposed PTE starts on July 7, 2020. Comments may be submitted at www.regulations.gov. The Docket ID number is EBSA-2020-0003.

 

 

Click here for a printable version of this issue of the Washington Pulse.

 


IRS Provides Welcome Deadline Relief for Savings Arrangement Reporting, Limited Additional Extensions

On May 28, 2020, the IRS issued limited additional relief that extends deadlines for certain time-sensitive actions related to tax-advantaged savings arrangements. Most awaited was an extension for providing information returns for IRAs, health savings accounts (HSAs), Archer medical savings accounts (MSAs), and Coverdell education savings accounts (ESAs). These information returns are Form 5498, IRA Contribution Information, Form 5498-SA, HSA, Archer MSA, or Medicare Advantage MSA Information, and Form 5498- ESA, Coverdell ESA Contribution Information.

Deadlines for providing these information returns to the IRS and to account owners had previously been extended by IRS Notice 2020-23 through July 15, 2020, in response to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic. The deadline for annual contributions to these accounts was also extended to July 15, 2020. This presented custodial organizations and service providers to these accounts with the dilemma of reporting contributions that could be received as late as the deadline for their reporting.

Notice 2020-35 now provides a six-week window after the July 15, 2020, contribution deadlines in which organizations can prepare and provide these information returns to the IRS and to account owners.

Other Deadlines Not Extended

Notice 2020-23 extended many other deadlines to July 15, 2020, including completing rollovers, making retirement plan loan payments, filing Form 5500, Annual Return, Report of Employee Benefit Plan, as well as numerous others. These deadlines are not extended by the latest guidance in Notice 2020-35.

Extensions Granted by Notice 2020-35

The following are among the limited number of deadlines extended by Notice 2020-35.

  • Providing Form 5498-series information returns for IRAs, ESAs, HSAs, and MSAs. (Providing these information returns after August, 31, 2020, will be subject to IRS penalty, which will be calculated from September 1, 2020, through the date the information returns are actually provided.)
  • Close of the 403(b) plan remedial amendment period remains at June 30, 2020, this guidance making official an earlier IRS website announcement.
  • Adoption by a defined benefit pension plan of a pre-approved plan document, filing a request for a determination letter under the second six-year cycle, or certain other actions with respect to disqualifying provisions have a deadline of July 31, 2020.

Notice 2020-35 also extends to July 15, 2020 (not August 31), several items not previously granted extensions. These include the following.

  • Application for a funding waiver by a defined benefit pension plan that is not a multi-employer (union) plan.
  • Filing IRS Form 5330, Return of Excise Taxes Related to Employee Benefit Plans, and paying these excise taxes.

HSA 2021 Cost-of-Living Adjustments Released

The IRS has issued Revenue Procedure 2020-32, providing inflation-adjusted amounts for health savings accounts (HSAs) for calendar year 2021. Maximum annual HSA contributions will rise from $3,550 to $3,600 for those with self-only insurance coverage, and from $7,100 to $7,200 for those with family coverage.

Minimum deductible amounts for qualifying high deductible health plans will remain (no indexing upward for 2021) at $1,400 for self-only coverage, and $2,800 for a family plan. Maximum annual out-of-pocket amounts under self-only coverage will rise from $6,900 to $7,000, and from $13,800 to $14,000 for family coverage.