Skip to content

Fraser Blog

Fraser Trebilcock Blog

Recent Posts

  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – July 18, 2025
  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – July 11, 2025
  • Coverage Position vs. Reservation of Rights Letters: What They Are and Why Timeliness Matters
  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – June 27, 2025
  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – June 20, 2025

Recent Comments

  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – July 28, 2023 - FraserTrebilcock Blog on Client Alert: PCORI Fees Due by July 31, 2023!
  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – July 21, 2023 - FraserTrebilcock Blog on Client Alert: PCORI Fees Due by July 31, 2023!
  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – July 14, 2023 - FraserTrebilcock Blog on NLRB’s Atlanta Opera Ruling Imposes Stricter Independent Contractor Test on Employers
  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – July 7, 2023 - FraserTrebilcock Blog on Michigan’s New Distracted Driving Law Takes Effect June 30
  • Five Stories That Matter in Michigan This Week – July 7, 2023 - FraserTrebilcock Blog on NLRB’s Atlanta Opera Ruling Imposes Stricter Independent Contractor Test on Employers

Archives

  • July 2025
  • June 2025
  • May 2025
  • April 2025
  • March 2025
  • February 2025
  • January 2025
  • December 2024
  • November 2024
  • October 2024
  • September 2024
  • August 2024
  • July 2024
  • June 2024
  • May 2024
  • April 2024
  • March 2024
  • February 2024
  • January 2024
  • December 2023
  • November 2023
  • October 2023
  • September 2023
  • August 2023
  • July 2023
  • June 2023
  • May 2023
  • April 2023
  • March 2023
  • February 2023
  • January 2023
  • December 2022
  • November 2022
  • October 2022
  • September 2022
  • August 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
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 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
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • January 2013
  • November 2012
  • October 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011

Categories

  • Administrative & Regulatory
  • Banking & Financial Institutions
  • Business & Tax
  • Cannabis Law
  • Cottage Law
  • Criminal Law
  • eDiscovery
  • Election Law
  • Employee Benefits
  • Energy, Utilities & Telecommunications
  • Environmental
  • Family Law
  • Health Care
  • Health Care Reform
  • Higher Education
  • In the News
  • Insurance
  • Intellectual Property
  • Labor, Employment & Civil Rights
  • Legislative Affairs
  • Litigation
  • Real Estate
  • Sports Law
  • Trusts & Estates
  • Uncategorized
  • Utility Law

Meta

  • Log in
  • Entries feed
  • Comments feed
  • WordPress.org

Tag: health flexible spending account

Congress Provides Welcome Relief for FSAs Amidst Continuing Pandemic

Congress Provides Welcome Relief for FSAs Amidst Continuing Pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to wreak havoc, affecting lives not only on a personal level, but on a professional one. Employers at a minimum must be well versed in various new employment and labor issues as well as employee benefit matters which greatly affect their workforce.

Due to closure of schools and day cares throughout 2020, many dependent care flexible spending accounts (FSAs) remain overfunded, leaving numerous employees with the threat of forfeited account balances. Similarly, due to delay and cancellation of certain medical procedures, health FSA amounts were also unused.  While the IRS relaxed Code section 125 change in election rules in May of 2020, many employees simply did not have enough claims to use up the funds in their FSA accounts, resulting in forfeiture risks.

However, Congress passed the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021 (“Act”) late December 2020, which further relaxes the otherwise strict election changes rules of Code section 125, allows carryovers of account balances, extends grace periods, and increases the dependent age for dependent care FSA qualifying expenses.

Background

Once an election is made under a Section 125 cafeteria plan, that election is irrevocable for the entire plan year, unless (1) one of the mid-year qualifying change in election events occurs as set forth in Treas. Reg. 1.125-4; and (2) the employer’s cafeteria plan incorporates the mid-year change rule.

However, in May 2020, the IRS released IRS Notice 2020-29 which relaxed the Code section 125 rule requiring qualifying change in status events in order to make a mid-year change in election. With respect to FSAs, employers wanting to implement such changes could amend their plan documents in order to allow employees to revoke an election, make a new election, or decrease or increase an existing election applicable to a health or dependent care FSA on a prospective basis. These changes apply regardless of whether the basis for the election change meets the Treas. Reg. 1.125-4 requirements. Please note the term prospective. Employees could not retroactively change their elections.

This was a voluntary change and was only for the 2020 plan year.

Additionally, Notice 2020-29 provided flexibility and allowed employees to “spend down” their FSAs through December 31, 2020. As calendar year plans already allowed expenses to be incurred through December 31, 2020, this Notice did not provide relief in those circumstances.  It instead applied to plans with grace periods that ended in 2020 or whose plan year ended in 2020.  Upon amendment, participants in those plans could continue to incur eligible expenses through December 31, 2020 and submit requests for reimbursement consistent with plan terms.

This relief ended on December 31, 2020, and, aside from any already applicable grace periods, no relief was provided for employees who had unused FSA amounts after that date, which are subject to forfeiture.

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021

Relief is found in the newly passed Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021.

This Act, in part, loosens certain rules associated with both health and dependent care FSAs. Specifically, upon amendment to appropriate plan documents, the Act allows for the following:

  • Carryover to the 2021 Plan Year:  This provision allows any unused benefits or contributions in FSAs from plan years ending in 2020 to be carried over to the plan year ending in 2021;
    • The Act states the carryover must follow rules similar to the health FSA rules… however, while health FSA carryovers are subject to a $550 cap, the Act specifically states that any unused benefits or contributions may be carried over.
    • Significantly, dependent care FSAs were not previously allowed to have a carryover provision.
  • Carryover to the 2022 Plan Year: This provision allows any unused benefits or contributions in FSAs from plan years ending in 2021 to be carried over to the plan year ending in 2022;
    • Again, the Act states the carryover must follow rules similar to the health FSA rules…
    • This provision is important especially in situations involving the dependent care FSAs. These FSAs have a maximum reimbursement of $5,000 per calendar year.  If an employee is allowed to carry over unused contributions into 2021 from 2020, but had also elected a full $5,000 for plan year 2021, s/he would have an overfunded account.  This can be handled in one of two ways: (1) this additional carryover provision from 2021 to 2022, and/or (2) prospective election changes for FSAs for plan years ending in 2021 without regard to the strict status change rules (see last bullet below). With regard to the latter, employees can change their dependent care election for 2021 to prevent future contributions from being made.
  • Grace Periods: For health or dependent care FSAs that have a grace period for plan years ending in 2020 or 2021, the grace period may be extended from the traditional two months and 15 days to a full 12 months after the end of such plan year in order for unused benefits or contributions to be utilized.
  • Post-Termination Health FSA Reimbursements: Health FSAs are now allowed to continue to reimburse former participants for claims incurred post-termination similar to dependent care FSAs, namely:
    • Employees who ceased participation in the plan during calendar years 2020 or 2021 may continue to receive reimbursements from unused benefits or contributions through the end of the plan year in which participation ceased.
  • Dependent Care FSA Age Out Rule:  In order for eligible employees to receive reimbursement for dependent care assistance, their dependent must be under the age of 13 when the expenses were incurred. However, for employees who were enrolled in the dependent care FSA (as long as the regular enrollment period was on or before January 31, 2020), age 14 is substituted for age 13 for the last plan year, and, if the employee had an unused balance in the FSA for such plan year, age 14 is also substituted for the subsequent plan year with respect to those unused amounts.
  • Change in Election: Similar to the IRS Notice 2020-29,  but for plan years ending in 2021, health and dependent care FSAs may allow employees to make mid-year election changes prospectively without regard to change in status rules.

To allow any of the above provisions, the cafeteria plan or arrangement including the FSAs must be amended to allow for such provisions no later than the last day of the first calendar year beginning after the end of the plan year in which the amendment is effective (so generally by December 31, 2022). The amendment may be retroactive as long as the plan is operated consistently with the terms of the amendment beginning its effective date.

Employer Action

Plan sponsors must determine whether they wish to proceed with any of the above provisions, largely in part depending on whether plan year 2020 would otherwise result in unprecedented forfeitures due to the pandemic. If so, they must communicate such provisions with their workforce and must administer the cafeteria plan or arrangement accordingly as of the amendment’s effective date, even if the amendment is adopted at a later date.

This alert serves as a general summary, and does not constitute legal guidance. Please contact us with any specific questions.


We have created a response team to the rapidly changing COVID-19 situation and the law and guidance that follows, so we will continue to post any new developments. You can view our COVID-19 Response Page and additional resources by following the link here. In the meantime, if you have any questions, please contact your Fraser Trebilcock attorney.


Elizabeth H. Latchana specializes in employee health and welfare benefits. Recognized for her outstanding legal work, in both 2019 and 2015, Beth was selected as “Lawyer of the Year” in Lansing for Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law by Best Lawyers, and in 2017 as one of the Top 30 “Women in the Law” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Contact her for more information on this reminder or other matters at 517.377.0826 or elatchana@fraserlawfirm.com.


Brian T. Gallagher is an attorney at Fraser Trebilcock specializing in ERISA, Employee Benefits, and Deferred and Executive Compensation. He can be reached at (517) 377-0886 or bgallagher@fraserlawfirm.com.

Posted on January 11, 2021November 9, 2023Author Eriks DumpisCategories Employee BenefitsTags cafeteria plan, Code Section 125, Congress, health flexible savings accounts, health flexible spending account, health flexible spending accounts, Health FSA, health FSAs
Client Alert: IRS Announces Increases for Health FSAs

Client Alert: IRS Announces Increases for Health FSAs

IRS Announces Increases for Health FSAs  

The IRS has just released its 2019 annual inflation adjustments, in which it announced that the dollar limitation under Code section 125 on voluntary employee salary reductions for contribution to health flexible spending arrangements (health FSAs) is increasing to $2,700 for 2019. The limitation for 2018 is $2,650. The authority for this increase can be found in Rev. Proc. 2018-57: https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rp-18-57.pdf. This link takes you to the IRS annual inflation adjustments for more than 60 tax provisions.

Although open enrollment season is about to be in full swing for most, employers should ensure that their salary reduction agreements and related enrollment materials are updated to reflect this increase. Additionally, employers will want to review their Code section 125 cafeteria plan documents to ensure these also allow for such an increase.


Elizabeth H. Latchana, Attorney Fraser TrebilcockElizabeth H. Latchana specializes in employee health and welfare benefits. Recognized for her outstanding legal work, in both 2018 and 2015, Beth was selected as “Lawyer of the Year” in Lansing for Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law by Best Lawyers, and in 2017 as one of the Top 30 “Women in the Law” by Michigan Lawyers Weekly. Contact her for more information on this reminder or other matters at 517.377.0826 or elatchana@fraserlawfirm.com.

Posted on November 16, 2018December 11, 2018Author Eriks DumpisCategories Employee BenefitsTags Code Section 125, health flexible spending account, Health FSA, Internal Revenue Code, Internal Revenue Service, IRS, open enrollmentLeave a comment on Client Alert: IRS Announces Increases for Health FSAs
Proudly powered by WordPress