Understand Your Rights. Solve Your Legal Problems
Hundreds of thousands of people will need to review their wills to potentially benefit from the new £1 million inheritance tax (IHT) allowance for the family home, effective in the UK from April this year.
From April 6th people might be able to benefit from an additional tax free allowance when a residence is passed on death to a direct descendant (residence nil-rate band). The additional allowance will start at £100,000 in April 2017 and increase by £25,000 annually thereafter until 2020 when it will be up to £175,000 per person.
Moore Blatch warns, however, that hundreds of thousands of wills may need reviewing as they will include historic IHT management measures including the use of Nil Rate Band Discretionary trusts in their wills. These were very common for people who exceeded the original Nil Rate Band limit in 2007.
In addition, couples who have left their estates to a Discretionary Trust on the second death ought to review their wills. This provision is often included to protect assets for the children against divorce, bankruptcy, spend-thriftiness or some sort of disability, but now if the money goes to a Discretionary Trust then the new residence Nil Rate Band can’t be used.
The new IHT benefit tapers off for those with estates valued at over £2m. There are also complex rules for anyone who has sold their main residence after 8 July 2015, downsized or even moved to a nursing home. Therefore, anyone who is caught by any of these scenarios should also review their will.
Carla Brown, Partner, Moore Blatch solicitors says; “We hold the wills of over thirty five thousand individuals and estimate at least half should to be reviewed. As a similar situation will apply to most law firms, literally hundreds of thousands of wills could be affected. While on the face of it the new allowances are very good news, the devil is in the detail and the detail involves complex calculations as to how best to protect your assets. The new IHT allowances mean that previously prudent IHT planning measures such as establishing a Discretionary Trust will need to be carefully considered and may now need changing.”
(Source: Moore Blatch)
Business efficiency, whether for your local store or for a worldwide law firm, is often at the core of consequential revenue stream, and for things to be efficient, they need to happen fast. Sending a contract in the post is arguably fairly old-school nowadays, and digital transactions, e-Signatures, and paperless agreements are increasingly the future. This week Lawyer monthly hears from Liaquat Khan, Technical Director at SigningHub by Ascertia, who provides an expert outlook on how to adapt and what to look for in this new and exciting digital sphere.
A law firm is brimming with paper. For every case there are countless documents, folders and case files – all vital evidence and all taking up storage space.
Many of these documents require a signature from all parties involved to be considered legally binding. This process is long and arduous. Documents are shared between parties, with no guarantee that they’ll arrive on time or at all.
Once documents have arrived they might sit in a pile of papers and not be signed for days, delaying sign-off. When large contracts are being negotiated or property completion dates have been agreed this delay can lead to additional costs for clients.
Once cases have been settled, all paperwork needs to be filed and archived correctly for future use – another lengthy task and one prone to human error. Files could go missing or be filed in the wrong folder with no way of tracking them.
Moving on
Digital transformation is happening across all industries, with organisations utilising technologies to improve business processes. Approving documents is a daily, if not hourly, occurrence for multiple departments and a task that can be improved with the help of technology.
Businesses are also seeking more sustainable, environmentally friendly practices and the reduction of paper use could significantly improve a company’s environmental impact. According to a recent survey from AIIM, 46% of respondents cited a demand for paperless communication in their business but 65% were still signing on paper.
The reluctance to move to digital processes is often due to an aversion to change, even if solutions will improve efficiency. Paper and ink signing might be the traditional way but this does not make it the best way to sign.
Adopting electronic signatures has many benefits over traditional paper and ink processes, especially for law firms. Transferring archiving to the cloud frees up office space and makes searching for files faster and easier. This reduces the cost of printing and archiving documents as well as the time involved in filing papers.
There are similar advantages for the approval process. The costs and delays of couriering documents for signatures decreases as many document approval solutions send a secure email notification to alert the next party of their need to sign.
This accelerates the signing process and automates many of the more time consuming aspects of sign-off such as chasing signers and organising document delivery.
Security
One of the main concerns for switching to e-signatures is the security and long-term legality of signatures. With any signature, but especially electronic signatures, there needs to be a means of proving who has signed and that the document has not been changed.
There are many different types of electronic and digital signatures. Businesses, especially law firms, should research which is best for their requirements as many are not suitable for certain processes.
Basic e-signatures, such as tick boxes, scanned images or typed names, are easy to copy and do not provide enough evidence as to who signed the document.
Despite providing more unique information on a user than a basic e-signature, such as the speed and pressure of a signature, biometric e-signatures are also susceptible to forgery.
Witness digital signatures provide a long-term digital signature from the service provider alongside a basic e-signature. A digital signature cryptographically binds the e-signature to the document, protecting it from any changes. Further security can be provided with a trusted timestamp.
The only issue with witness digital signatures is that they can often only be verified through the service provider’s logs. If the service provider goes out of business then this risks the validity of the signed document.
So, what option remains?
Compliance with Regulations
eIDAS, a new EU e-signature regulation was introduced last year to provide a clear set of guidelines and legal acceptance of eIDs and e-signatures. It also includes eSeals, a corporate signature that can be used to automate bulk signing of documents.
The eIDAS standard enables e-signatures to be used securely for business across all EU member states. Two of the types of accepted e-signatures included under the regulation are advanced and qualified e-signatures, both of which are useful to organisations requiring long-term and verified proof of signing.
An Advanced Electronic Signature (AES) is defined by eIDAS as being uniquely linked to the signer, capable of identifying the signer, created using e-signature data under the signer’s sole control and linked to the signed data in a way that would detect any subsequent change.
These specifications can be met using unique signing keys for each person signing, proving their identity and that nobody else could have signed the document.
The most secure form of signature is the Qualified Electronic Signature (QES), providing the highest level of trust, assurance and non-repudiation. QEDs are advanced electronic signatures with the addition of a qualified digital certificate created by a qualified signature creation device.
Both QES and AES provide security and assurance that documents have not been tampered with and that they will remain legal long into the future. These types of electronic signature are beneficial for high-trust industries such as banking, government and legal – especially those working internationally.
When adopting electronic signatures for business-use it is important to consider the long-term. Documents need to remain valid in all future document formats and uniquely linked to a user rather than a service provider.
If documents are being used to provide evidence, such as for mortgages or corporate contracts, signers need to be assured that documents cannot be altered and that they are legally binding.
E-signatures provide many business advantages to organisations, such as efficiency and cost benefits, but when dealing with a client’s financial and legal concerns, the most important thing to consider is security, validity and longevity.
Following on from last week’s news that the Lord Chancellor announced a reduction to the discount rate for personal injury claims from 2.5% to minus 0.75% - a decision that will have profound consequences in the compensation industry, where discount rates are required – Lawyer Monthly received expert commentary from Amanda Fyffe, Director at RGL Forensics.
The discount rate has remained unchanged at 2.5% for the last 16 years and was set according to the average return on Index Linked Gilt Securities (which are linked to the RPI). However, since 2012 the discount rate has been under review and two consultations have taken place. The consultations were initiated to review (a) whether ILGS should continue to be the benchmark for setting the discount rate and (b) whether the assumption that claimants adopt a risk adverse stance as investors is still appropriate. The consultations followed the Helmot v Simon case in Guernsey where it was decided on appeal in 2012 that a discount rate of minus 1.5% earnings-related losses was appropriate. While the Courts of England and Wales were not bound by this decision, it started much debate that the 2.5% discount rate did not appropriately reflect today’s economic conditions and that claimants were being undercompensated as a result.
Claimants should be compensated fairly and the Lord Chancellor has said that “The law is absolutely clear - as Lord Chancellor, I must make sure the right rate is set to compensate claimants….this is the only legally acceptable rate I can set.” [1] Neil Sugarman, president of the Association of Personal Injury Lawyers (APIL), has stated in an interview that “…we welcome this announcement” [2] and claimants with serious life changing injuries will benefit from the increased compensation payments. However, while the new discount rate may be appropriate now, following the Brexit decision and the uncertain economic outlook for the UK, the question is how long will this rate continue to be appropriate to avoid further under, or over, compensation of claimants? The Association of British Insurers (ABI) were concerned about this issue and launched a legal challenge, in December 2016, for the Lord Chancellor to change the methodology of setting the discount rate before making any final decision on a revised rate. This was rejected by the High Court last month but it is anticipated that the insurance industry will challenge the Lord Chancellor’s decision again. It has not yet been announced whether the Lord Advocate in Scotland will also adopt the revised discount rate as he has historically done.
Considering the wider picture, it is not only compensation payments that will increase: there will no doubt be increases in insurance premiums and increased pressure on insurers and the NHS to accommodate larger claim payments. Huw Evans, Director General of the ABI, has said that “Claims costs will soar, making it inevitable that there will be an increase in motor and liability premiums for millions of drivers and businesses across the UK. We estimate that up to 36 million individual and business motor insurance policies could be affected…” [3] It has been reported that a number of insurers had projected their payouts assuming a much lesser reduction in the discount rate. There will therefore be an immediate negative impact on insurers’ financial performance as they increase their reserves to allow for the Lord Chancellor’s decision.
It was inevitable that the change in the discount rate would be both positive and negative, but the decision has been made and comes into effect from 20 March 2017, which means that many active cases will need to apply the new discount rate resulting in, potentially, significant increases in compensation payments due. The degree of increase will be largely dependent on the claimant’s age – the younger the claimant, the bigger the impact – but, looking to the future, increasing life expectancy will also play a part.
Putting the issue of gender life expectancy differences aside and just considering the discount rate, to illustrate the potential impact to compensation payments, take a 45 year-old claimant with a future loss of £10,000pa until retirement at age 65 - this would result in a total future loss of £216,700 adopting the new minus 0.75% discount rate. This compares to a total future loss of £155,900 adopting the old discount rate of 2.5% - an increase of 39.0%. If the claimant were ten years younger, the calculation would increase by 61.4%. Such increases may result in fewer PPOs (Periodical Payment Orders) and an increase in claimants opting for lump sum payments.
Until now, the current seventh edition Ogden Tables has been used for the calculation of future loss multipliers, but it does not include multipliers for a minus 0.75% discount rate and, therefore, the long overdue eighth edition Ogden Tables will no doubt soon be on the horizon. Indeed, earlier this month there was an announcement that Andrew Smith QC had been invited to join the Ogden Working Party to work on the eighth edition tables once funding is in place.
Although the full scope of the consequences are not yet known, what we do know is that there will undoubtedly be an increase for the majority of Personal Injury and Fatal Accident claims where future losses are claimed.
[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/news/new-discount-rate-for-personal-injury-claims-announced
[2] Sky News
[3] Association of British Insurers
The Supreme Court of Canada has dismissed two appeals from Alberta defendants seeking a right to trial by jury for Securities Act offences. This decision upholds the December 2015 ruling by the Alberta Court of Appeal in the same matters.
The appellants, Ronald Aitkens and Jeremy (Jay) Peers, are each facing charges under the Securities Act in two unrelated cases. They claimed that the maximum penalty under Alberta securities laws of five years less a day in prison, or a $5 million fine, or both, triggers the right to a jury trial under section 11(f) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That section provides a right to a trial by jury for any person charged with an offence where the maximum punishment is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment.
The appeal was heard before all nine Justices of the Supreme Court of Canada on February 14, 2017. In their unanimous ruling, the Court dismissed the appeal "substantially for reasons of the majority of the Court of Appeal, 2015 ABCA 407, 609 A.R. 352."
"This decision reinforces that securities offences will be tried in Provincial Court through the summary conviction process, as they always have been," said Stan Magidson, Chair and Chief Executive Officer of the ASC. "The Alberta Securities Commission will continue to prosecute serious breaches of the Securities Act (Alberta) in Provincial Court in trials before a judge alone."
Copies of the decisions are available on the Supreme Court of Canada website.
Aitkens' trial has been scheduled for April 2018. Jeremy Peers pled guilty in February 2016; a sentencing date has not yet been set and a court appearance is scheduled for later today.
The ASC is the regulatory agency responsible for administering the province's securities laws. It is entrusted with fostering a fair and efficient capital market in Alberta and with protecting investors. As a member of the Canadian Securities Administrators, the ASC works to improve, coordinate and harmonize the regulation of Canada's capital markets.
(Source: Alberta Securities Commission)
On the 6th April 2017, the new Equality Act 2010 (Gender Pay Gap Information) Regulations 2017 come into force and could affect up to 8000 employers across the UK, but how? Below are some comments from industry experts at MHA MacIntyre Hudson on the impact to UK employers.
Chris Blundell, Employment Tax Director, MHA MacIntyre Hudson:
The intentions behind the new regulations are clearly good; however, measurement doesn’t guarantee full gender equality. Corporate complacency must be dealt with, but because the Government hasn’t introduced sanctions for failing to comply, bad employers can escape the regulation by simply ignoring it.
The only real leverage will be purely reputational: the embarrassment and potential naming and shaming of the companies with 250+ staff that don’t publish the statistics, or whose reports show large inequalities. Although it’s initially a ‘light touch’ regulation, employers can expect additional requirements in the future.
For some companies it will be difficult to provide accurate figures, as they have to include self-employed contractors, where they may not have full details. Although the first pay reference date is 5 April 2017, employers will need to provide data for bonuses paid since April 2016; however, records may be patchy as the regulatory requirements to provide this information were not introduced until October 2016, and companies may not have been recording this information.
Gender pay gap reporting will cause dissatisfaction in the workforce and increase the disconnect among staff. Employees will be able to see not only if men are better rewarded than women, but also the average bonus gap and the proportion of women who receive bonuses compared to men. It could also show that disparity is most apparent in the highest paying jobs, with the inference that this is the senior management. Companies will therefore need to prepare accompanying explanations to try to limit staff dissatisfaction.
Gender pay gap reporting is another regulatory burden for businesses, on top of a host of other changes such as Pay as You Earn (PAYE), auto-enrolment and immigration. It’s also another cost for employers, particularly at a time of major economic and political uncertainty.
Andreja Ivančič, HR Consultant and member of MHA MacIntyre Hudson’s HR Solutions team:
Employers are concerned that the results of the calculations will reveal sizeable gender pay gaps in their organisations, and that this will be interpreted as unequal pay; however, gender pay gap and equal pay are not the same and the reality is that some sectors and jobs, such as construction, are simply more attractive to men than women. While this doesn’t mean that companies are breaking the equal pay legislation, employers could be unfairly stigmatised.
A lot of employers don’t realise that, despite their size, they might not be covered by the regulations, as the 250 + employees threshold applies only to single entities. Groups are currently not required to aggregate their employees when assessing if they have passed the threshold. Regardless of size, however, all companies should be encouraged to consider reporting and its advantages.
Faced with unprecedented public scrutiny on this issue, brands which fare badly in the reporting will be hedging their bets about the timing of their data release. Employers have one year to release the data, but we expect those with low gender pay gaps to publish early. In contrast, those firms with a higher gender pay gap are likely to be more hesitant, watching the media reactions anxiously and then choosing their moment to release their own data.
A High Court appeal has cast doubt on the government’s plans to introduce fixed legal fees, just a day after the Ministry of Justice unveiled its intention to cap whiplash payouts.
The Court of Appeal case of Merrix v Heart of England NHS Trust saw the claimant successfully argue that the current system of cost budgeting would be sufficient to gather fair fees. The appellant judge agreed with the claimant’s assertion that a budget fixed the amount of recoverable costs, which should only be reduced if there is good reason.
The result calls into question the government’s proposed changes to introduce a number of fixed cost measures, with the aim of stopping the so-called ‘compensation culture’ in the UK.
Last week, the Ministry of Justice revealed plans to raise the small claims track from £1,000 to £5,000 for all road traffic accident related injuries as part of the Prisons and Court Bill, as well as introducing a ban on claims without medical evidence. The announcement was a result of the government’s consultation on personal injury reform, which closed last month.
This has been a key focus for the government in recent months, and also follows a recent Department of Health consultation into fixed costs in medical negligence claims up to £25,000, as well as a review by Lord Justice Jackson of caps for all civil litigation with a value up to £250,000.
The claimant was represented by John Foy QC of 9, Gough Square and Daniel Frieze of St John’s Buildings, while solicitors for the claimant were Irwin Mitchell.
Daniel Frieze, barrister and head of the personal injury group at St John’s Buildings, said: “This ruling clearly shows the government that continued wholesale changes to solicitors’ costs may be an unwelcome distraction. In particular, the time, effort, judicial and lawyer training should not be thrown out to pursue an agenda which many consider riddled with self-interest and short-term political gains.
“Cases like this also emphasise that the present cost regime is working, and will hopefully force those in positions of power to rethink their approach. The current system is underpinned by the notion of fairness, and the focus should be placed firmly on tweaking the current system to prevent misuse, rather than attempting wholesale change.”
(Source: St John’s Buildings)
With the implementation of GDPR on our doorstep, companies risk serious vulnerability in the face of data protection. This week Lawyer Monthly has heard from Rafi Azim-Khan and Steven Farmer of Pillsbury Law, who gave us a rundown on how you need to prepare for the regulatory changes.
From the debate about the UK’s ‘Snooper’s Charter’, to a number of high-profile cyber-attacks and the wrangling, both legal and political, over the abolition of the EU-US data sharing treaty, Safe Harbour, data privacy has remained firmly in the media spotlight in recent months.
Following the most significant overhaul of the EU data protection regulations in recent years set to come into effect with the introduction of the EU General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) in May 2018, this trend looks set to continue.
The GDPR rips up the existing legal framework and provides for the imposition of heavy fines. Equally seismic is the fact that the new rules have an extra-territorial reach, catching companies who traditionally did not need to prioritise data protection laws.
Significantly, however, few businesses are reported to have actually looked at what they need to do to ensure compliance under the GDPR. As the time until enforcement dwindles, it is essential that firms act, as the UK data protection regulator has said herself. So what do companies actually need to be aware of?
The letter of the law
The GDPR replaces the current EU Data Protection Directive 95/46/EC. As a Regulation, and unlike the old law, the new laws will be directly applicable in all EU member states.
Specific changes introduced include the following:
Of course, with the UK set to leave the European Union, there is much ongoing discussion about what the post-Brexit regulatory regime may look like. It is generally accepted, however, that after the UK leaves the EU, UK laws will nevertheless track the GDPR (e.g. via some form of implementing legislation or a new UK law which effectively mirrors the GDPR). In other words, even if you are purely a UK company, or you are outside the UK and targeting UK consumers only, you should not ignore these changes on the basis Brexit is some sort of get out of jail free card.
Who needs to comply?
All organisations operating in the EU will be caught by the new rules. Importantly, organisations outside the EU, like US-based companies that target consumers in the EU, monitor EU citizens or offer goods or services to EU consumers (even if for free), will also have to comply.
The GDPR also applies to “controllers” and “processors”. What this means, in summary, is that those currently subject to EU data protection laws will almost certainly be subject to the GDPR and processors (traditionally not subject) will also have significantly more legal liability under the GDPR than was the case under the prior Directive.
What can businesses do to prepare?
To ensure compliance, companies need to ensure that they have robust policies, procedures and processes in place. With the risk of heavy fines under the GDPR, not to mention the reputational damage and potential loss of consumer confidence caused by non-compliance, nothing should be left to chance. In terms of key first steps, companies might consider prioritising the following as a minimum:
As May 2018 draws inexorably closer, companies need to start thinking about compliance before it is too late to avoid being made an example of. As the old adage goes: those who fail to prepare, prepare to fail.
A ground breaking global agreement to make it easier to trade across borders will enter into force following ratification by two-thirds of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) membership.
The first multilateral agreement successfully negotiated through the WTO, and now ratified by more than 110 countries, will come into force immediately and will see WTO members benefit from greater trade by cutting burdensome red tape associated with goods exporting.
Once fully implemented, the global economy could see a benefit of £70 billion.
International Trade Secretary, Dr. Liam Fox, said:
We have fully supported this historic agreement which will remove some of the barriers to cross-border trade and could benefit the UK economy by up to £1 billion. We will now work with other WTO members to ensure economies, both developed and developing, fully realise the benefits it will bring to their citizens.
The UK has long supported initiatives that will make trade across borders easier, but despite the work that has already been done on border controls until now goods have continued to be delayed at borders slowing trade flows and adding costs to business which in turn might be passed on to consumers. We welcome this WTO success story.
Over three-quarters of the WTO’s members are either developing or transitioning into market economies. The Trade Facilitation Agreement (TFA) will have the greatest impact for the economies of the world’s poorest nations - to sub-Saharan economies this could be upwards of $10billion per year.
As a result of the TFA, those countries that have ratified will be required to:
By helping to improve transparency, predictability and consistency, the TFA should lead to reduced trade costs and create the environment for small and medium sized enterprises to play a greater role in the international supply chain.
Studies suggest the agreement – which largely concerns the cost of clearing goods for import and export – will greatly reduce costs, time and the number of documents required for goods to cross borders. They also suggest the TFA could add over £70 billion to the global economy, of which the UK is expected to benefit by up to £1 billion and could reduce worldwide trade costs by between 12.5% and 17.5%.
Negotiations on the Trade Facilitation Agreement were concluded at the WTO’s Bali Ministerial Conference in December 2013 and since then work has been under way to reach the two-thirds of WTO Members ratifications required for the TFA to come into force.
It has long been shown that trade lifts countries out of poverty and the UK will continue to work with developing countries to help them ratify and implement the agreement to ensure they benefit from reduced trade costs and waiting times.
(Source: Gov.UK)
The US Supreme Court has allowed an anti-consumer 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling to stand, requiring consumers to file lawsuits in multiple countries to preserve protections afforded by the treaty that governs all claims against airlines arising out of international flights, reported FlyersRights.org and Travelers United, Inc. The travel groups had filed an amici brief in December with the US Supreme Court in support of international consumer protections in the Montreal Convention.
The Court declined to hear an appeal from a controversial 9th Circuit Court of Appeals 2-1 ruling which dismissed a passenger claim for personal injury, because her lawyers filed the case timely in South Africa but not in the US within 2 years.
Paul Hudson, President of FlyersRights.org noted: "This decision leaves passengers with the onerous burden of having to file lawsuits in multiple countries to preserve their rights to recovery for personal injury, death, baggage or delay compensation against airlines. Passengers now face another expensive and time consuming hurdle, adding to the mountain of technical legal defenses already employed by airlines to defeat any passenger claim."
"This US Supreme Court action undercuts the expressed intent of the Montreal Convention to make passenger claims uniform and simple, while limiting claim amounts. It is also a slap in the face of 200 other nations whose court filings will not be recognized by US courts, contrary the express intent and language of the Montreal Convention," according to Charlie Leocha, President of Travelers United.
Johanna von Schoenebeck was injured on an international flight to San Francisco when a seat back collapsed on her neck, causing spinal injuries. After originally filing in South Africa, where the flight originated and where von Schoenebeck lived at the time, KLM Airlines waited for the two-year statute of limitations to expire before requesting a $23,000 bond for its attorney fees and suggesting that von Schoenebeck move the case to the United States. When von Schoenebeck re-filed in California, KLM immediately moved to dismiss for untimeliness, which was granted by a US District Court in San Francisco and affirmed by a split 2-1 decision in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
FlyersRights.org is the largest airline passenger advocacy organization. It is best known for spearheading the Passenger Bill of Rights and the rule against lengthy tarmac confinements. Flyersrights.org operates a toll-free hotline 877-FLYERS6 , publishes a weekly newsletter at www.flyersrights.org, and maintains a staffed office in Washington, D. C. It is also appealing the FAA's refusal to issue minimum seat and leg room standards to address shrinking seat size and leg room by airlines. The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals (Case 16-1101, FlyersRights Education Fund v. FAA) will hear oral argument on March 10th 2017.
(Source: FlyersRights.org)
Retirement will look very different for millennials, baby boomers and others as the economy continues to change. The move towards Group Registered Retirement Savings Plans (RRSPs), coupled with the decline of employer-sponsored defined benefit pension plans, brings a new retirement reality for many employees. This changing environment was the impetus for the expansion of the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), a deal struck between the Federal and provincial governments in late 2016, to ensure a higher level of retirement security for Canadians in the future. Employers, including those that currently sponsor retirement plans, will have to ensure compliance with the governments' plan to move ahead with CPP changes.
Employers will have to take stock of their internal retirement and benefit offerings to ensure they are operationally and financially equipped to make the proper changes needed. In evaluating an organization's employee offerings, employers should equip their payroll, human resource and accounting staff with practical pension and benefit knowledge through the Canadian Payroll Association's (CPA's) Pensions & Benefits seminar.
Understanding Changes to the Canada Pension Plan
Employers will need to have the necessary changes programmed into their payroll systems well in advance to fulfil their legal responsibilities when the CPP expansion goes into effect in 2019. Employers should also anticipate that such changes may affect organizational policies, staff responsibilities and remuneration planning. The CPA offers its members payroll compliance resources, including the valuable e-Source legislative newsletter, Payroll InfoLine Q & A inquiry service (by phone and email), and a host of self-service web resources, to keep payroll, accounting and HR professionals up-to-date on regulatory and legislative changes impacting employers.
"With imminent changes to CPP, employers need to reassess their current retirement and benefit offerings for compliance, practicality, and financial preparedness," says Steven Van Alstine, Vice President of Education at the CPA. "Employers and employees alike will be impacted by such changes. Employers should make sure their staff and their organization are equipped with comprehensive retirement planning knowledge for the future."
Reviewing Your Full Offering of Benefits
Part of these preparations should also include an assessment of employer-sponsored benefits plans. Group health, disability and insurance plans should receive a thorough review to ensure that employees are receiving quality benefits without exorbitant costs to employers. Understanding the basics of such plans, how they are formed, and their tax and reporting considerations will help payroll, human resource and accounting staff to better support these functions within the organization and provide fundamental knowledge to help strike better deals at negotiation time. The CPA's seminars offer comprehensive overviews of these areas; Pensions & Benefits focuses on the key elements used to apply, administer or support pension and benefits functions within the organization, while the Best Practices of Employee Group Benefits seminar focuses on proper management and negotiation of group benefits.
(Source: Canadian Payroll Association)
