The CARES Act allows a 401(k) plan to provide a coronavirus-related distribution option (CVR Distribution) to plan participants affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, a plan participant who is a Qualified Individual can elect one or more CVR Distributions totaling no more than $100,000 during the period beginning January 1, 2020 and ending December 30, 2020.
A Qualified Individual is defined as—
- an individual diagnosed with the SARS-CoV-2 virus or the disease caused by this virus, COVID-19, with a test approved by the Centers for Disease Control or whose spouse or dependent is so diagnosed;
- an individual who experiences adverse financial consequences as a result of being quarantined, furloughed, laid off, having his or her work hours reduced, or being unable to work due to lack of child care as a result of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19, or as a result of closing a business or reducing hours of a business he or she owns due to this virus or disease; or
- other factors yet-to-be determined by the Treasury Secretary.
A CVR Distribution has significant tax advantages that are unavailable for other 401(k) plan benefit distributions —
- the 10% penalty tax for distributions before age 59½ does not apply;
- unless 0% withholding is elected, 10% federal income tax withholding applies instead of the 20% mandatory income tax withholding that ordinarily applies;
- the distribution may be included in federal gross income ratably over 3 calendar years beginning with the year when the CVR Distribution is made; and
- the CVR Distribution may be repaid without interest to the Plan, or an IRA, over the 3 years beginning on the day after it is paid.
The new CVR Distribution option raises lots of questions for our clients. Here are some of these questions and their answers.
Q: Is a 401(k) plan required to offer a CVR Distribution option?
A: No.
Q: If a 401(k) plan offers this option, may the amount of the CVR Distribution be less than $100,000?
A: Yes. For example, a 401(k) plan might provide that a participant can elect CVR Distributions totaling $50,000 instead of the $100,000 limit provided by the CARES Act for CVR Distributions.
Q: Is a participant who experiences adverse financial consequences from a pay cut as a result of SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 a Qualified Individual?
A: No. A pay-cut alone, without a reduction in hours, for example, does not result in Qualified Individual status.
Tags: COVID-19 Rapid Response Team, Labor and Employment- Partner
Jan is attuned to the complex business and legal benefits challenges public and private sector clients regularly face today.
Jan Steinhour practices in the area of employee benefits planning, administration, and compliance. Her employee benefit plan experience includes ...
About This Blog
Lewis Roca is immersed in your industry and invested in your success. We share insights and trends that can affect your business.
Search
Topics
Archives
- September 2024
- August 2024
- May 2024
- March 2024
- February 2024
- September 2023
- April 2023
- March 2023
- February 2023
- December 2022
- November 2022
- October 2022
- September 2022
- July 2022
- June 2022
- May 2022
- April 2022
- March 2022
- February 2022
- January 2022
- December 2021
- November 2021
- October 2021
- September 2021
- August 2021
- July 2021
- June 2021
- May 2021
- February 2021
- January 2021
- December 2020
- October 2020
- September 2020
- August 2020
- July 2020
- June 2020
- May 2020
- April 2020
- March 2020
- February 2020
- January 2020
- December 2019
- November 2019
- October 2019
- September 2019
- August 2019
- July 2019
- June 2019
- May 2019
- April 2019
- March 2019
- November 2018
- April 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- April 2016
- January 2016
Authors
- Alfredo T. Alonso
- Amy E. Altshuler
- Edwin A. Barkel
- Trevor G. Bartel
- Nick Bauman
- G. Warren Bleeker
- Brooks Brennan
- Ogonna M. Brown
- Chad S. Caby
- John Carson
- Rob Charles
- Joshua T. Chu
- Howard E. Cole
- Katherine Costella
- Thomas J. Daly
- Pat Derdenger
- Thomas J. Dougherty
- Susan M. Freeman
- Yalda Godusi Arellano
- John C. Gray, CIPP/US
- Art Hasan
- Frances J. Haynes
- Dietrich C. Hoefner
- Jennifer K. Hostetler
- David A. Jackson
- Andrew Jacobsohn
- Kyle W. Kellar
- Kris J. Kostolansky
- Gregory S. Lampert
- Shaun P. Lee
- Glenn J. Light
- Laura A. Lo Bianco
- Karen Jurichko Lowell
- James M. Lyons
- H. William Mahaffey
- Constantine Marantidis
- A.J. Martinez
- Patrick Emerson McCormick, CIPP/US
- Michael J. McCue
- Lindsay L. McKae
- Linda M. Mitchell
- Gary J. Nelson
- Rachel A. Nicholas
- Laura Pasqualone
- Michael D. Plachy
- David A. Plumley
- Kurt S. Prange
- Katie M. (Derrig) Rios
- Robert F. Roos
- Karl F. Rutledge
- Daniel A. Salgado
- Mary Ellen Simonson
- Susan Strebel Sperber
- Jan A. Steinhour
- Ryan M. Swank
- Dustin R. Szakalski
- Chris A. Underwood
- Jennifer A. Van Kirk
- Hilary D. Wells
- Drew Wilson, CIPP/US
- Karen L. Witt
- Meng Zhong
Recent Posts
- The Importance of Retaining a Grandfathered Gaming Location in Nevada
- Welcome our 2024 Michael D. Nosler Scholarship Intern
- Going Viral: Navigating Promotional Sweepstakes Legality in the Social Media Era
- Arizona Voters Modify Creditors' Remedies with Passage of Proposition 209
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Issues Gaming Technology Approval Guidelines
- Amendments to Nevada Gaming Regulation 5
- Nevada Gaming Control Board Workshop on Public Regulation
- New Wave of Arizona Privacy Litigation Regarding Tracking Pixels
- Legal Issues, Problems, and Unanswered Questions Regarding a State’s Ability and Potential Departure from the Depository Institution Deregulation and Monetary Control Act of 1980 (“DIDMCA”)
- New Trademark Scam