faces
                     ...from the HR Perspective
New MFYCO
Human Resource UpdateJune 2013

 

How Do You Like Your Pork?

  

Last week the Chinese meat producer Shuanghui International Holdings Ltd. struck an agreement to acquire Smithfield Foods Inc. Smithfield is the world's largest hog farmer and pork processor. You may better know Smithfield by its brands which include Armour, Farmland, Healthy Ones and John Morrell. If approved, this will be the largest Chinese purchase of a US firm.

There has been a lot of discussion of this possible takeover in the media. The surprising thing that is absent in these discussions is the fact that China needs to do something with the buildup of cash it has from the trade imbalance. I believe Smithfield is only the first of new similarly sized actions. On a smaller scale, but of equal interest as it involves our aviation sector, Teledyne Continental Motors was purchased by Technify Motors, a subsidiary of AVIC International, a Chinese government-owned holding company with diverse business interests in the aerospace sector.

US companies have been the target of foreign firms for some years now. English, Dutch, German and Japanese companies, among others, have all purchased large US companies. Smaller US firms with special attributes, such as the previously mentioned Teledyne-Continental, have also been targets.

What potential changes does this bring to US companies from a Human Resource viewpoint? Immediately, probably not. Longer term - a definite yes. The concerns are compensation, benefits and freedom of action.

Let's look at compensation and benefits as a package. In general terms, foreign companies tend to pay lower compensation and, at least at the executive level, might have better benefits and perquisites. US executive compensation has been estimated at as much as 17 times that of Chinese companies according to a study done by Martin J. Conyon of the Wharton School and Lerong He of SUNY Brockport. Will this posture affect the compensation of US executives after a takeover? Or, could the level of US executive compensation affect that of their Chinese counterparts? Sometimes the executives of US firms try to enjoy the best of both worlds. In an executive compensation and benefits study I did for a Dutch firm, we found that the Dutch parent had increased executive benefits and perquisites of the US subsidiary to the level of the parent company. The US executives were lobbying for a compensation increase as well. The study found that on a total compensation basis (the value of compensation, benefits and perquisites), the US firm was ahead of not only its Dutch parent but its US peers.

Freedom of action also plays a part in the total compensation equation. Some foreign parents exercise great control over their US subsidiaries, others less so. A few are only interested in the results and leave the operations up to the US executives. In most circumstances, the level of control is inversely related to the level of executive compensation. While this directly affects executives employed by the subsidiaries of foreign firms, it may indirectly affect the compensation of those employed by US stand alone companies. Many companies base their compensation levels on the marketplace, and a review of the marketplace can be skewed by the inclusion of US subsidiaries of foreign parents.

In designing executive compensation plans, one of cautions to clients is: be careful of what you ask for as you might get it! If executive compensate plans are predominately tied to the value of stock, the executives might pursue a takeover as the means of obtaining an immediate windfall. Depending on the circumstances, that time and effort might have been better spent improving long-term profitability, market penetration and increased sales.

Finally, remember that the traffic works both ways. If you have a foreign subsidiary, be careful how compensation and benefit plans are designed. While it works in the US, it may not in another country.

We would be pleased to work with you to meet your compensation and benefit program needs. We have experience in international compensation and benefits, and along with our international affiliates can provide local assistance as well.

Sincerely,

 

Michael F. Yates,

President

 

If you find value in this newsletter please let us know. Feel free to call me with a comment and/or ask a question at any time (908-689-4200) or send me an email (myates@mfyco.com). We offer this timely information as another benefit of your relationship with our company. If you feel a friend or colleague would benefit from receiving our newsletter, please feel free to forward a copy. 


You can view all of our newsletters by clicking the 'newsletter archives' link at our company website www.mfyco.com.

 

In This Issue
Work in a Warm Office? Tips to Stay Cool
MFYCO Facebook
Self-Correction of Retirement Plan Errors
Wellness Incentive Guidance Final Rule
Today in History
eLaws Quick Link
Retirement Plan Limits
Track Government Spending
Terms of Use

 Work in a Warm Office?

Tips to Stay Cool

    

·         Wear loose fitting, light colored clothing made out of light weight fabric. Remember to keep the office summer dress code in consideration.

·         Ask permission to bring in a desk fan. If you are allowed to do so, mark your initials on it. That way, if someone moves it, you can identify it.

·         Keep a container of baby powder at your desk and during bathroom breaks you can sprinkle a little bit on yourself to help feel more comfortable.

·         Always drink plenty of water!

·         Any device that runs on energy in the form of electricity or gas also releases much of that energy as waste heat. The fewer things you have turned on, the less heat you have to deal with.

·         Instead of a hot lunch, try lighter summer fare including frequent small meals or snacks containing cold fruit or dairy products.

·         Are your office lights on dimmer switches? Turn them down a little during the hours where the sun is shining brightest on your office. Light bulbs produce a lot of heat. Making them dimmer will reduce unnecessary heat.

·         Fill a spray bottle with water and keep it in the refrigerator for a quick refreshing spray to your face.

·         If you don't like summer and are more of a winter person, sit back, close your eyes and picture snow. Research has shown that the body reacts to these daydreams, reducing its overall temperature.

 

 
Invitation to MFYCO Facebook
facebook 

Self-Correction of Retirement Plan Errors

Part 1 of 3 Part Series

You can self-correct many retirement plan errors without contacting the IRS or paying a fee. There are no application or reporting requirements.

Self-correction, also known as the Self-Correction Program or "SCP," is authorized under Revenue Procedure 2013-12, the revenue procedure that governs the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution Program (EPCRS).

You can self-correct an insignificant operational error at any time to preserve the tax-favored status of your plan. An operational error occurs when you don't follow the written terms of the plan. Even where the operational error is significant, you may still be able to self-correct if action is taken in a timely manner.

Availability and Timing of Retirement Plan Self Correction

 

Type of failure

Type of plan

Self-correction available?

When must self-correction be completed?

Insignificant operational

Any

Yes

At any time

Significant operational

  • 401(k), profit-sharing or other qualified plan
  • 403(b) plan

Yes

  • before the end of the second plan year after the failure occurred, or
  • substantially corrected within a reasonable time
  • SIMPLE IRA plan
  • SEP plan

No

N/A - Use VCP

Related to plans acquired in corporate mergers

Special rule

Yes

  • substantially corrected before the end of the plan year beginning after the business transaction
  • allowed even if failure occurred more than two plan years earlier

ADP or ACP test violations

Special rule

Yes

  • substantially corrected before the end of the second plan year following the plan year that includes the last day of the additional period for correction permitted under IRC Sections 401(k)(8) or 401(m)(6)

Egregious

Any

No

 N/A - Use VCP

 

Retirement Plan Errors Eligible for Self-Correction

Many mistakes in operating your retirement plan can be self-corrected without filing a form with the IRS or paying a fee. Eligible operational failures include:

  • failure to follow the terms of the plan
  • excluding eligible participants
  • not making contributions promised under the plan terms
  • loan failures

Document failures aren't eligible for self-correction. A document failure occurs when you don't have your plan document up-to-date or if your plan document doesn't fully comply with the tax law.

Significant and insignificant failures

An insignificant operational failure can be self-corrected at any time. You must self-correct a significant failure within a certain timeframe. See the summary chart above.

 

Significance is determined based on the facts and circumstances. Factors to consider include:
  • other failures in the same period (not how many people are affected)
  • percentage of plan assets and contributions involved
  • number of years it occurred
  • participants affected relative to the total number in the plan
  • participants affected relative to how many could have been affected
  • whether correction was made soon after discovery
  • reason for the failure

No single factor is determinative. Failures are not significant just because they occur in more than one year. The IRS will not interpret these factors to exclude small businesses.

 

Example: The benefits of 50 of the 250 participants in Plan A are limited by the IRC Section 415(c) compensation limits, but the plan's contributions for three of these employees nonetheless exceeded the maximum contribution limitations. The sponsor contributed $3,500,000 for the plan year, and the excess contributions totaled $4,550. This failure is insignificant because of the small ratio of the number of participants affected by the failure relative to the total number of participants who could have been affected and the amount of the failure relative to the total employer contribution to the plan for the plan year. The failure is still insignificant if the same failure occurred for three separate plan years, or if the three different participants were affected in each of the three years.

Other eligibility requirements for self-correction

  • The plan sponsor must have routinely followed established procedures to operate the plan in compliance with the law. A plan document alone isn't evidence of established procedures.
    The failure occurred because:

o    an oversight or mistake occurred in applying the plan's procedures, or

o    the procedures that were in place, while reasonable, weren't sufficient to prevent the occurrence of the failure.

Plan document failures aren't eligible

Plan document failures, including late plan amendments, aren't eligible for self-correction. Please use the Voluntary Correction Program to resolve these failures.

Part 2, on the timing of retirement plan self-correction and special rules for self-correction of retirement plan errors, will appear in next month's newsletter.

 
Information Last Reviewed or Updated by IRS: 22-Mar-2013

  

 


We invite you to share our newsletter. 
(It's a lot to think about!) 
 
 

 
Wellness Incentive Guidance Final Rule

On May 29, 2013 the Departments of Health and Human Resources (HHS), Labor (DOL) and the Treasury (collectively, the Departments) issued final regulations to provide comprehensive guidance with respect to the general requirements for wellness programs.

These final regulations are effective August 2, 2013 and generally apply (1) to group health plans and group health insurance issuers for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014 and (2) to individual health insurance issuers for policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.

Overview of the Final Regulations

These final regulations generally implement standards for group health plans and health insurance issuers offering group health insurance coverage with respectto the wellness program exception from the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions in PHS Act section 2705, ERISA section 702, and Code section 9802, as amended by the Affordable Care Act. These final regulations replace the wellness program provisions of paragraph (f) of the 2006 regulations and are applicable to both grandfathered and non-grandfathered group health plans and group health insurance coverage for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2014.  These regulations also implement the nondiscrimination provisions of PHS Act section 2705 applicable to non-grandfathered individual health insurance coverage for policy years beginning on or after January 1, 2014. This rulemaking does not modify provisions of the 2006 regulations other than paragraph (f).

These final regulations do not establish requirements for all types of programs or information technology platforms offered by an employer, health plan, or health insurance issuer that could be labeled a wellness program, disease management program, case management program, or similar term. Instead, these final regulations set forth criteria for a program of health promotion or disease prevention offered or provided by a group health plan or group health insurance issuer that must be satisfied in order for the plan or issuer to qualify for an exception to the prohibition on discrimination based on health status under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of the 2006 regulations (which provide exceptions to the general prohibition against discrimination based on a health factor in benefits and premiums or contributions, respectively).  That is, these rules set forth criteria for an affirmative defense that can be used by plans and issuers in response to a claim that the plan or issuer discriminated under the HIPAA nondiscrimination provisions.

These final regulations are restructured, as compared to the proposed regulations, to help clarify this relationship and how the five statutory requirements apply to different types of programs, including different types of health-contingent wellness programs (described below as activity-only wellness programs and outcome-based wellness programs). The final regulations also reorganize the presentation of the steps a plan or issuer must take to ensure a wellness program: is reasonably designed to promote health or prevent disease; has a reasonable chance of improving the health of, or preventing disease in, participating individuals; is not overly burdensome; is not a subterfuge for discriminating based on a health factor; and is not highly suspect in the method chosen to promote health or prevent disease.

To meet these standards, health-contingent wellness programs that are outcome-based wellness programs must offer a "reasonable alternative standard" (or waiver of the otherwise applicable standard) to a broader group of individuals than is required for activity-only wellness programs. Specifically, for activity-only wellness programs, a reasonable alternative standard for obtaining the reward must be provided for any individual for whom, for that period, it is either unreasonably difficult due to a medical condition to meet the otherwise applicable standard, or for whom it is medically inadvisable to attempt to satisfy the otherwise applicable standard. For outcome-based wellness programs, which generally provide rewards based on whether an individual has attained a certain health outcome (such as a particular body mass index (BMI), cholesterol level, or non-smoking status, determined through a biometric screening or health risk assessment), a reasonable alternative standard must be provided to all individuals who do not meet the initial standard, to ensure that the program is reasonably designed to improve health and is not a subterfuge for underwriting or reducing benefits based on health status.  

These requirements are generally intended to be the same as those included in the proposed rules, but the terminology has changed (for example, the term "different, reasonable means," which was used side by side with the term "reasonable alternative standard," has been dropped to reduce confusion). These changes help to clarify that the group of individuals that must be offered a reasonable alternative standard differs when comparing the requirements for an activity-only wellness program to the requirements for an outcome-based wellness program. The requirements that the alternative be reasonable taking into account an individual's medical condition, and the option of waiving the initial standard, remain the same. The term "reasonable alternative standard" is used in these final rules as it is in the statute.

The intention of the Departments in these final regulations is that, regardless of the type of wellness program, every individual participating in the program should be able to receive the full amount of any reward or incentive, regardless of any health factor. The reorganized requirements of the final regulations explain how a plan or issuer is required to provide such an opportunity for each category of wellness program.

These Final Regulations also discuss, clarify and/or expand the following topics:

·         Requirement for Participatory Wellness Programs;

·         Requirements for Health-Contingent Wellness Programs;

·         Applicable Percentage;

·         Application to Grandfathered Plans;

·         Application of Nondiscrimination Provisions to the Individual Health Insurance Market; and

·         No Effect on Other Laws

Definitions

Participatory wellness programs: These final regulations continue to divide wellness programs into two categories: "participatory wellness programs," which are a majority of wellness programs (as noted below), and "health-contingent wellness programs." Participatory wellness programs are defined under the final regulations as programs that either do not provide a reward or do not include any conditions for obtaining a reward that are based on an individual satisfying a standard that is related to a health factor.  Several examples of participatory wellness programs are provided in these final regulations, including: (1) a program that reimburses employees for all or part of the cost of membership in a fitness center; (2) a diagnostic testing program that provides a reward for participation and does not base any part of the reward on outcomes; and (3) a program that provides a reward to employees for attending a monthly, no-cost health education seminar.

Health-contingent wellness programs: In contrast, health-contingent wellness programs require an individual to satisfy a standard related to a health factor to obtain a reward (or require an individual to undertake more than a similarly situated individual based on a health factor in order to obtain the same reward).  This standard may be performing or completing an activity relating to a health factor, or it may be attaining or maintaining a specific health outcome. In these final regulations, the category of health-contingent wellness programs is subdivided into: (1) activity-only wellness programs, and (2) outcome-based wellness programs.  Under paragraphs (b)(2)(ii) and (c)(3) of the 2006 regulations (which remain unchanged), both of these types of health-contingent wellness programs are permissible only if they comply with the criteria of these final regulations.

Activity-only wellness programs: Activity-only wellness programs are a subcategory of health-contingent wellness programs.  Under an activity-only wellness program, an individual is required to perform or complete an activity related to a health factor in order to obtain a reward. Activity-only wellness programs do not require an individual to attain or maintain a specific health outcome. The final regulations, therefore, provide safeguards to ensure these individuals are given a reasonable opportunity to qualify for the reward.

Outcome-based wellness programs: Outcome-based wellness programs are a subcategory of health-contingent wellness programs. Under an outcome-based wellness program, an individual must attain or maintain a specific health outcome (such as not smoking or attaining certain results on biometric screenings) in order to obtain a reward. Generally, these programs have two tiers: (a) a measurement, test, or screening as part of an initial standard; and (b) a larger program that then targets individuals who do not meet the initial standard with wellness activities.  For individuals who do not attain or maintain the specific health outcome, compliance with an educational program or an activity may be offered as an alternative to achieve the same reward.  However, this alternative pathway does not mean that the overall program, which has an outcome-based initial standard, is not an outcome-based wellness program. That is, if a measurement, test, or screening is used as part of an initial standard and individuals who meet the standard are granted the reward, the program is considered an outcome-based wellness program.

Call: 908-689-4200 to contact a
MFYCO professional consulting associate.
happypeople
 
Today in History
  
June 4, 1919, The U.S. Senate passes the Women's Suffrage bill. After a long discussion it was passed with 56 ayes and 25 nays (Republicans 36-8 for, Democrats 20-17 for.) 
  
Women's suffrage in the United States was achieved gradually, at state and local levels, during the late 19th century and early 20th century, culminating in 1920 with the passage of the Nineteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which provided: "The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex."


 What would you like to see in a future issue?

Contact our office with your suggestions.

  email: info@mfyco.com
 

 
 

 Retirement Plan Limits

All limits are based on the calendar year.  

 

 

2013

2012

2011

Maximum Annual Defined Benefit

$205,000

$200,000

$195,000

Maximum DC Annual Addition ($$)

$51,000

$50,000

$49,000

Maximum 401(k) Deferrals

$17,500

$17,000

$16,500

Older EE Catch-Up Contribution

$5,500

$5,500

$5,500

Maximum Plan Compensation

$255,000

$250,000

$245,000

Highly Compensated Threshold

$115,000

$115,000

$110,000

Key Employee in a Top-Heavy Plan

$165,000

$165,000

$160,000

SSA Social Security Wage Base

$113,700

$110,100

$106,800

PBGC Maximum Monthly Guarantee*

$4,789.77

$4,653.41

$4,500

PBGC Maximum Annual Guarantee*

$57,477.24

$55,840.92

$54,000

Maximum DC Annual Addition (%)

100%

100%

100%

Social Security Tax - Employee

Social Security Tax - Employer

6.2%

6.2%

4.2%

6.2%

4.2%

6.2%

Medicare Tax

1.45%

1.45%

1.45%

DC Plan Deduction Limit

25%

25%

25%

Definition of Compensation for DC

Plan Deduction Limit

Includes Deferrals

*Life Annuity at age 65  


 
about MFYCO ...

  • Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc. can help you with a variety of services ranging from retirement plans to providing results-oriented survey instruments, training and development programs for your employees. Our products and services are intended to help you maximize the effectiveness of your Human Resources function.
     
  • These products and services incorporate our years of experience so that you receive rapid results and exceptional value. From onsite consulting, to strategic business integration, to Web enablement, we understand how Human Resources can be applied to solve your problems and achieve your goals. As a result, we can help you get the most out of your investment and turn your most precious resource into a competitive advantage.
     
  • We offer Consulting, Retirement Planning, Pension and 401(K) both qualified and non qualified Plans, Welfare Plans, Communications, Computer Systems, Executive Plans, Compensation, Mergers, Acquisitions, Divestitures and Other Services. 
     
    We offer a true and honest, Client Partnership.
     

Take the Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc. challenge!

Call us today ... 908-689-4200 



mh group
 How to Track Government Recovery Spending

 

"The Board shall establish and maintain...a user-friendly, public-facing website to foster greater accountability and transparency in the use of covered funds. The website...shall be a portal or gateway to key information relating to the Act and provide connections to other government websites with related information." 

 
 
Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc.
_________________

 
101 Belvidere Avenue
P.O.Box 7
Washington, NJ 07882-0007 
 
908-689-4200

fax: 908-689-6300
 
email: info@mfyco.com


 

 
Our staff and firm are proud
members
of the following professional organizations:

Society of Actuaries
 
American Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries

Society for Human Resource Management
  
GAPS (Global Association Pension Services)

WorldatWork

 American Management Association

 

National Federation of Independent Business

Better Business Bureau

 

 


Terms of Use
COP

 

 

The site ("from the HR perspective" hence herein referred to as MFYCO.com) is made available by Michael F. Yates & Company Incorporated. All content, information and software provided on and through 'from the HR perspective' and MFYCO.com ("Content") may be used solely under the following terms and conditions ("Terms of Use".)
 
YOUR USE OF THIS WEBSITE CONSTITUTES YOUR AGREEMENT TO BE BOUND BY THESE TERMS AND CONDITIONS. IF YOU DO NOT AGREE TO THESE TERMS, YOU SHOULD IMMEDIATELY DISCONTINUE YOUR USE OF THIS SITE.  

 
Mike's Best Friend 
 
"Human Resources  provides the leadership, supportive services, guiding principles, policies, structures and standards needed for a quality organization to survive in today's business environment."
 
 MFYCO PRIVACY POLICY

 
Michael F. Yates & Company, Inc. 
believes strongly in protecting the privacy of its users.


Join Our Mailing List

 

Concluding Note

As always, any statements regarding federal tax law contained herein are not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purposes of avoiding penalties that may be imposed under federal tax law or to market any entity, investment plan or arrangement.