Category: Qualified Plans

IRS Announces More Changes to its Determination Letter Program

On June 29, 2016, the IRS updated its determination letter program for individually designed tax qualified retirement plans, making a number of significant changes, mostly having to do with (1) when individually designed plans must be amended to comply with changes in the law and other guidance, and (2) when those plans may request a favorable determination letter.

The bottom line for sponsors of individually designed plans is that they will need to amend their plans as frequently as annually to incorporate changes in the law, starting with required changes the IRS identifies in 2016, which will need to be made before December 31, 2018.

Background

Rev. Proc. 2007-44 provided a 5-year remedial amendment cycle (RAC) system for individually designed plans to request a determination letter generally every 5 years. Under that system, plans had to adopt interim amendments by the end of the year in which the amendments became effective. Plans would then have to make final conforming amendments at the end of their 5-year RAC cycle.

In Announcement 2015-19 the IRS stated that the RAC system would end, and a replacement system for the IRC Section 401(b) period would be created. Revenue Procedure 2016-37 ends the RAC system and replaces it with a new approach to the remedial amendment period.

When must individually designed plans be amended?

Interim amendments will no longer be required for individually designed plans. Instead, an individually designed plan’s Code Section 401(b) remedial amendment period for required amendments will be tied to a Required Amendment List (RA List) issued by the IRS, unless legislation or other guidance states otherwise. The RA List is the annual list of all the amendments for which an individually designed plan must be amended to retain its qualified plan status.

IRS will publish the RA List after October 1 of each year. Generally, plan sponsors must adopt any item placed on RA List by the end of the second calendar year following the year the RA List is published. For example, plan amendments for items on the 2016 RA List generally must be adopted by December 31, 2018.

Discretionary amendments will still be required by the end of the plan year in which the plan amendment is operationally put into effect.

What About Operational Compliance?

Revenue Procedure 2016-37 doesn’t change a plan’s operational compliance standards. Employers need to operate their plans in compliance with any change in qualification requirements from the effective date of the change, regardless of the plan’s 401(b) period for adopting amendments. To assist employers, IRS intends to provide annually an Operational Compliance List to identify changes in qualification requirements that are effective during a calendar year.

When may a plan apply for a Determination Letter?
Under Revenue Procedure 2016-37, a plan sponsor can request a determination letter only if any of these apply:

  • The plan has never received a letter before
  • The plan is terminating
  • The IRS makes a special exception

Other Implications

The new determination letter program makes the consequences of failing to timely amend a Plan potentially more dangerous, because the failure could continue for many years before being identified. Therefore, sponsors of individually designed plans that still have the option of converting to a volume submitter or prototype document should revisit that question now.

In addition, if your plan remains individually designed, you ought to incorporate into your annual compliance schedule a check of the RA List in the fall of each year.

Finally, all tax qualified retirement plan sponsors (whether their plan is individually designed or volume submitter or prototype) should incorporate into their annual compliance schedule a check of the IRS Operational Compliance List, to ensure they are operating their plan in compliance with law changes.

Plan Administrator Bears Burden to Produce Key Information Regarding Claimant’s Service and Benefits Eligibility

The 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled on April 21, 2016 that where a claimant has made a prima facie case that he is entitled to a pension benefit, but lacks access to the key information about corporate structure, or hours worked, needed to substantiate his claim, and the defendant controls this information, the burden shifts to the defendant to produce this information. Estate of Bruce H. Barton v. ADT Security Services Pension Plan (9th Cir., 2016).

The Plan Administrator could not place the burden of producing records establishing which entities participated in the pension plan between 1967 and 1986, and the claimant’s service record, on the claimant where the Plan Administrator had no records of its own.

The Plan Administrator originally denied the claim on the basis of an absence of records establishing eligibility for plan participation, actual participation, or accrual of plan benefits. This was wrong where the Committee rather than the claimant would likely be in possession of such records.

The lesson for Plan Administrators: keep plan documents,service records and contemporary records establishing benefit accruals forever -there is no practical document retention period for these documents.

The lesson for claimants: don’t be deterred from asserting a claim if you have enough evidence to state a prima facie case and the definitive documents or information ought to be in the Plan Administrator’s possession.

Estate of Bruce H. Barton v. ADT Security Services Pension Plan (9th Cir., 2016)

Fiduciaries Ultimately Prevail in Tibble v. Edison

On remand from the United States Supreme Court, which held in May 2015 that ERISA imposes on retirement plan fiduciaries an ongoing duty to monitor investments, even absent a change in circumstances, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals recently affirmed the district court’s original judgment in favor of the employer and its benefits plan administrator on claims of breach of fiduciary duty in the selection and retention of certain mutual funds for a benefit plan governed by ERISA.

The court of appeals had previously affirmed the district court’s holding that the plan beneficiaries’ claims regarding the selection of mutual funds in 1999 were time-barred. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals’ decision, observing that federal law imposes on fiduciaries an ongoing duty to monitor investments even absent a change in circumstances.

On remand, the panel held that the beneficiaries forfeited such ongoing-duty-to-monitor argument by failing to raise it either before the district court or in their initial appeal. While the fiduciaries ultimately prevailed in this case, the lesson for fiduciaries remains clear: You have an ongoing duty to monitor the investment options in your retirement plans.

Tibble v. Edison International (9th Cir., 2016)

Full Text of the Supreme Court Decision in Tibble v. Edison International (2015)

DOL Finalizes Regulations and Related Exemptions on ERISA Fiduciary Definition and Conflicts of Interest in Investment Advice

The Department of Labor (DOL) has adopted its long-awaited final rule defining who is a fiduciary investment adviser, and has issued accompanying prohibited transaction class exemptions that allow certain broker-dealers, insurance agents and others that act as investment advice fiduciaries to continue to receive a variety of common forms of compensation, as long as they adhere to standards aimed at ensuring that their advice is impartial and in the best interest of their customers.

Going forward, individuals and firms that provide investment advice to plans, plan sponsors, fiduciaries, plan participants, beneficiaries and IRAs and IRA owners must either avoid payments that create conflicts of interest or comply with the protective terms of an exemption issued by the DOL.

Under new exemptions adopted with the rule, firms will be obligated to acknowledge their status and the status of their individual advisers as “fiduciaries.” Firms and advisers will be required to:

  • make prudent investment recommendations without regard to their own interests, or the interests of those other than the customer;
  • charge only reasonable compensation; and
  • make no misrepresentations to their customers regarding recommended investments.

I. What Is Covered Investment Advice Under the Rule?

Covered investment advice is generally defined as a recommendation to a plan, plan fiduciary, plan participant and beneficiary and IRA owner for a fee or other compensation, direct or indirect, as to the advisability of buying, holding, selling or exchanging securities or other investment property, including recommendations as to the investment of securities or other property after the securities or other property are rolled over or distributed from a plan or IRA.

A “recommendation” is a communication that, based on its content, context, and presentation, would reasonably be viewed as a suggestion that the advice recipient engage in or refrain from taking a particular course of action.

II. What Is Not Covered Investment Advice Under the Rule?

The final rule includes some specific examples of communications that would not rise to the level of a recommendation and therefore would not constitute a fiduciary investment advice communication, including:

  • Education about retirement savings and general financial and investment information. For example, education can include specific investment alternatives as examples in presenting hypothetical asset allocation models or in interactive investment materials intended to educate participants and beneficiaries as to what investment options are available under the plan, as long as they are designated investment alternatives selected or monitored by an independent plan fiduciary and other conditions are met. In contrast, because there is no similar independent fiduciary in the IRA context, the investment education provision in the rule does not treat asset allocation models and interactive investment materials with references to specific investment alternatives as merely “education.”
  • General communications that a reasonable person would not view as an investment recommendation
  • Simply making available a platform of investment alternatives without regard to the individualized needs of the plan, its participants, or beneficiaries if the plan fiduciary is independent of such service provider
  • Transactions with Independent Plan Fiduciaries with Financial Expertise. ERISA fiduciary obligations are not imposed on advisers when communicating with independent plan fiduciaries if the adviser knows or reasonably believes that the independent fiduciary is a licensed and regulated provider of financial services (banks, insurance companies, registered investment advisers, broker-dealers) or those that have responsibility for the management of $50 million in assets, and other conditions are met.
  • Employees working in a company’s payroll, accounting, human resources, and financial departments who routinely develop reports and recommendations for the company and other named fiduciaries of the sponsors’ plans are not investment advice fiduciaries if the employees receive no fee or other compensation in connection with any such recommendations beyond their normal compensation for work performed for their employer

III. Best Interest Contract Exemption

The Best Interest Contract Exemption permits firms to continue to rely on many current compensation and fee practices, as long as they meet specific conditions intended to ensure that financial institutions mitigate conflicts of interest and that they, and their individual advisers, provide investment advice that is in the best interests of their customers. Specifically, in order to align the adviser’s interests with those of the plan or IRA customer, the exemption requires the financial institution to:

  • acknowledge fiduciary status for itself and its advisers
  • adhere to basic standards of impartial conduct, including giving prudent advice that is in the customer’s best interest, avoiding making misleading statements, and receiving no more than reasonable compensation.
  • have policies and procedures designed to mitigate harmful impacts of conflicts of interest and
  • disclose basic information about their conflicts of interest, including descriptions of material conflicts of interest, fees or charges paid by the retirement investor, and a statement of the types of compensation the firm expects to receive from third parties in connection with recommended investments.
  • Investors also have the right to obtain specific disclosure of costs, fees, and other compensation upon request.
  • In addition, a website must be maintained and updated regularly that includes information about the financial institution’s business model and associated material conflicts of interest, a written description of the financial institution’s policies and procedures that mitigate conflicts of interest, and disclosure of compensation and incentive arrangements with advisers, among other information.

IV. Additional Exemptive Relief

In addition to the Best Interest Contract Exemption, the DOL issued a Principal Transactions Exemption, which permits investment advice fiduciaries to sell or purchase certain recommended debt securities and other investments out of their own inventories to or from plans and IRAs. As with the Best Interest Contract Exemption, this requires, among other things, that investment advice fiduciaries adhere to certain impartial conduct standards, including obligations to act in the customer’s best interest, avoid misleading statements, and seek to obtain the best execution reasonably available under the circumstances for the transaction.

V. Effective Date

Compliance with the new rule is required as of April 2017. The exemptions will generally become available upon the applicability date of the rule. However, the DOL has adopted a “phased” implementation approach for the Best Interest Contract Exemption and the Principal Transactions Exemption. Both exemptions provide for a transition period, from the April 2017 applicability date to January 1, 2018, under which fewer conditions apply. This period is intended to give financial institutions and advisers time to prepare for compliance with all the conditions of the exemptions while safeguarding the interests of retirement investors.

During this transition period, firms and advisers must adhere to the impartial conduct standards, provide a notice to retirement investors that, among other things, acknowledges their fiduciary status and describes their material conflicts of interest, and designate a person responsible for addressing material conflicts of interest and monitoring advisers’ adherence to the impartial conduct standards. Full compliance with the exemption will be required as of January 1, 2018.

VI. More…

Regulations and Related Exemptions

DOL Fact Sheet

DOL FAQs

7th Circuit Holds Only a Church Can Establish an ERISA-Exempt Church Plan

On March 17, 2016 the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals joined the 3rd Circuit in holding that a network of hospitals and health care locations that is affiliated with a church cannot establish an ERISA-exempt church plan. Stapleton v. Advocate Health Care Network (7th Cir. 2016).

In Stapleton, several current and former employees of the church-affiliated hospital claimed that the organization failed to comply with ERISA’s vesting, reporting and disclosure, funding, trust, and fiduciary rules. The 7th Circuit Curt of Appeals agreed.

This issue is bubbling up all over the country. District Court cases have decided the question both ways. There is a case pending before the Ninth Circuit that held at the District Curt level that an affiliate cannot establish a church plan. Rollins v. Dignity Health, 19 F. Supp. 3d 909, 917 (N.D. Cal. 2013), appeal filed, No. 15-15351 (9th Cir. Feb. 26, 2016). The employer in Rollins faces up to $1.2 billion in funding obligations if it loses the case.

District court cases in several other states have help the other way – that affiliated organizations can establish a church plan. The only two Court of Appeals cases to decide the question have ruled that the affiliated organization cannot establish a church plan. See Stapleton and Kaplan v. St. Peter’s Healthcare Sys., 810 F.3d 175 (3d Cir. 2015).

If you an organization affiliated with a church that is relying on the church plan exemption from ERISA’s vesting, reporting, disclosure, funding, trust, and fiduciary rules, you ought to review that decision with ERISA counsel.

IRS Gives Individually Designed Plans an Additional Year to Convert to Pre-Approved Plan Documents

IRS has announced in Notice 2016-03 that it will extend the deadline for an employer to restate an individually designed plan onto a current pre-approved defined contribution plan document (which is based on the 2010 Cumulative List), and to apply for a determination letter, if otherwise permissible, from April 30, 2016, to April 30, 2017. The extended deadline will also apply with respect to any defined contribution pre-approved plan that is first adopted on or after January 1, 2016. This extension will facilitate a plan sponsor’s ability to convert an existing individually designed plan into a current defined contribution pre-approved plan.

The extension does not apply for a plan that is adopted as a modification and restatement of a defined contribution pre-approved plan that was maintained by the employer prior to January 1, 2016. An employer that adopted a defined contribution pre-approved plan prior to January 1, 2016, continues to have until April 30, 2016 to adopt a modification and restatement of the defined contribution pre-approved plan within the current 6-year remedial amendment cycle for defined contribution plans and to apply for a determination letter, if permissible.

icon Notice 2016-03

icon 2010 Cumulative List of Changes in Plan Qualification Requirements

DOL and IRS Releases Updated Form 5500 Series for 2015

DOL and IRS recently posted the new 2015 Form 5500, Form 5500-SF, and a draft of the 2015 Form 5500-EZ. Of significance is the “IRS Compliance Questions” added to the various forms and schedules:

  • Schedules H and I add two new compliance questions about unrelated business taxable income and in-service distributions.
  • Schedule R adds ten new compliance questions in five areas: (1) ADP and ACP testing; (2) coverage testing and plan aggregation; (3) recently adopted plan amendments; (4) the type of plan (whether individually designed or preapproved); and (5) plans maintained in U.S. territories.
  • Form 5500-SF adds the above compliance questions and one additional question about whether required minimum distributions were properly made to 5% owners who are still employed and are were 70-1/2 or older.
  • Form 5500-EZ adds most of the above questions, except the testing and coverage questions, which do not apply to single person plans.

2015 Form 5500 series and Instructions

Draft 5500-EZ and Instructions

IRS Updated Plan Limits for 2016

IRS has announced the retirement plan and employee benefits limits for 2016. Most of the limits are unchanged. The exception is the HSA Maximum Contribution for Family increased $100 to $6,750. Here is a chart showing the limits for 2014 through 2016:

Type of Limitation 2016 2015 2014
415 Defined Benefit Plans $210,000 $210,000 $210,000
415 Defined Contribution Plans $53,000 $53,000 $52,000
401(k) Elective Deferrals, 457(b) and 457(c)(1) $18,000 $18,000 $17,500
401(k) Catch-Up Deferrals $6,000 $6,000 $5,500
SIMPLE Employee Deferrals $12,500 $12,500 $12,000
SIMPLE Catch-Up Deferrals $3,000 $3,000 $2,500
Annual Compensation Limit $265,000 $265,000 $260,000
SEP Minimum Compensation $600 $600 $550
SEP Annual Compensation Limit $265,000 $265,000 $260,000
Highly Compensated $120,000 $120,000 $115,000
Key Employee (Officer) $170,000 $170,000 $170,000
Income Subject To Social Security Tax (FICA) $118,500 $118,500 $117,000
Social Security (FICA) Tax For ER & EE (each pays) 6.20% 6.20% 6.20%
Social Security (Med. HI) Tax For ERs & EEs (each pays) 1.45% 1.45% 1.45%
SECA (FICA Portion) for Self-Employed 12.40% 12.40% 12.40%
SECA (Med. HI Portion) For Self-Employed 2.9% 2.90% 2.90%
IRA Contribution $5,500 $5,500 $5,500
IRA catch-up Contribution $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
HSA Max Single/Family $3,350/6,750 $3,350/6,650 $3,300/6,550
HSA Catchup $1,000 $1,000 $1,000
HSA Min. Annual Deductible Single/Family $1,300/2,600 $1,300/2,600 $1,250/2,500

IRS Announces Significant Reduction in Determination Letter Program

On July 21, 2015, the IRS announced changes to the favorable determination letter program for qualified retirement plans. Employers that sponsor individually designed plans should take a close look at whether they can state their plans on a pre-approved plan document, particularly a volume submitter document, for the reasons explained in this post.

Most significantly, the IRS will eliminate the staggered 5-year determination letter remedial amendment cycles for individually designed plans as of January 2017. This means that, effective as of January 1, 2017, sponsors of individually designed plans will only be permitted to submit a determination letter application for qualification in two circumstances:

  • upon initial plan adoption; and
  • upon plan termination.

In addition, effective immediately, the IRS will no longer accept determination letter applications for individually designed plans that are submitted off-cycle, except for new plans and for terminating plans.

Implications for Plan Sponsors

These changes to the determination letter program increase the risk that document failures may get into, and remain for a long period of time in, plan sponsor’s qualified retirement plans. For example, a failure to adopt a required amendment to the plan document, which ordinarily would have been discovered and corrected in connection with the staggered 5-year determination letter remedial amendment cycle, could now persist for years or even decades before being discovered. Plan terminations will likely become more difficult, time consuming and costly if such errors are not discovered until the Plan submits for a favorable determination upon termination.

Plans that are stated on a pre-approved document (such as a volume submitter or prototype plan document) will continue to receive IRS opinion letters on the language in those plans. In addition, plan sponsors who adopt a volume submitter plan and make limited modifications to the approved specimen plan, which does not create an individually designed plan, will still be able to get a favorable determination on their plans every six years. These plans will thereby avoid the above risks.

For this reason, employers that sponsor individually designed plans should closely evaluate whether they can convert their plans to a pre-approved plan document, with a goal of completing the transition by January 1, 2017. Many individually designed plans may be able to fit onto a volume submitter plan with minor modifications, which will allow those sponsors to continue receiving a favorable determination lettre on their plan every six years.

Additional Guidance Expected from the IRS

The IRS has asked for comments, and expects to issue further guidance, regarding how it can assist plan sponsors that wish to convert individually designed plans to pre-approved plans.

We should also expect some changes to the IRS’s EPCRS correction program, to help correct errors that inevitably will increase as a result of this curtailment in the favorable determination letter program.

In addition, the IRS is considering ways to make it easier for plan sponsors that continue to sponsor individually designed plans to comply with the qualified plan document requirements, including:

  • providing model amendments,
  • not requiring certain plan provisions or amendments to be adopted if and for so long as they are not relevant to a particular plan (for example, because of the type of plan, employer, or benefits offered),
  • or expanding plan sponsors’ options to document qualification requirements through incorporation by reference.

icon IRS Announcement 2015-19

IRS Ends Lump Sum Risk Transferring Programs in Defined Benefit Plans

Treasury Department and the IRS announced today in Notice 2015-49 that they intend to amend the required minimum distribution regulations under Code Section 401(a)(9) to address the use of lump sum payments to replace annuity payments being paid by a qualified defined benefit pension plan.

The revised regulations will provide that qualified defined benefit plans generally are not permitted to replace any joint and survivor, single life, or other annuity currently being paid with a lump sum payment or other accelerated form of distribution. These amendments to the regulations will apply as of July 9, 2015.

Background

Section 401(a)(9) prescribes required minimum distribution rules for a qualified plan under Code Section 401(a). Under the regulations, a defined benefit pension plan cannot permit a current annuitant to convert their annuity payments to a lump sum or otherwise accelerate those payments, except in a narrow set of circumstances specified in the regulations, such as in the case of retirement, death, or plan termination. In addition, the regulations permit annuity payments to increase “[t]o pay increased benefits that result from a plan amendment.”

A number of defined benefit plan sponsors have amended their plans pursuant to this “plan amendment” exception to provide a limited period during which certain retirees who are currently receiving joint and survivor, single life, or other life annuity payments from those plans may elect to convert that annuity into a lump sum that is payable immediately. These arrangements are sometimes referred to as lump sum risk-transferring programs because longevity risk and investment risk are transferred from the plan to the retirees.

In 2012, the IRS issued Private Letter Rulings to General Motors and Ford specifically approving such programs for those companies. See PLR 201228045 and PLR 201228051. While Private Letter Rulings do not apply to anyone other than the person to whom they are issued, many employers found support in those PLRs for their risk transfer programs. With the change in the regulations announced today, those PLRs no longer provide any support.

Conclusion

The Treasury Department and the IRS have concluded that a broad exception for increased benefits that would permit lump sum payments to replace rights to ongoing annuity payments (of the kind approved in the two 2012 PLRs) would undermine the intent of the required minimum distribution regulations. Therefore, the exception for changes to the annuity payment period provided in the regulations (as intended to be amended) will not permit acceleration of annuity payments to which an individual receiving annuity payments was entitled before the amendment, even if the plan amendment also increases annuity payments.

icon Notice 2015-49