Category: Uncategorized

PBGC’s Expanded Missing Participant Program Final Rule Covers DC Plans and non-PBGC Insured DB Plans

As authorized by the Pension Protection Act of 2006 (PPA), the Pension and Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) has issued a final regulation that expands PBGC’s missing participants program, effective as of plan terminations that occur on or after January 1, 2018. PBGC’s missing participant program was previously limited to terminated single-employer DB plans covered by title IV’s insurance program. It is now available to other terminated retirement plans.

Summary of How the PBGC MIssing Participant Program Applies to Defined Contribution (DC) Plans and non-PBGC Defined Benefit Plans

The revised program now provides that PBGC’s missing participants program is voluntary for terminated non-PBGC-insured plans, e.g.,DC plans.

In addition, a non-PBGC-insured plan that chooses to use the program may elect to be a “transferring plan” or a “notifying plan.” A transferring plan sends the benefit amounts of missing distributees to PBGC’s missing participants program. A notifying plan informs PBGC of the disposition of the benefits of one or more of its missing distributees. Section 4050(d)(1) of ERISA permits but does not require non-PBGC-insured plans covered by the program to turn missing participants’ benefits over to PBGC.

A DC plan that chooses to participate in the missing participants program and elects to be a transferring plan must transfer the benefits of all its missing participants into the missing participants program. PBGC explains that this is to prevent the possibility of “cherry-picking”—that is, selective use of the missing participants program—by transferring plans.

PBGC will charge a one-time $35 fee per missing distributee, payable when benefit transfer amounts are paid to PBGC. There will be no charge for amounts transferred to PBGC of $250 or less. There will be no charge for plans that only send to PBGC information about where benefits are held (such as in an IRA or under an annuity contract). Fees will be set forth in the program’s forms and instructions.

The program definition of “missing” for DC plans follows Department of Labor regulations, which treat DC plan distributees who cannot be found following a diligent search similar to distributees whose whereabouts are known but who do not elect a form of distribution.

A distributee is treated as missing if, upon close-out, the distributee does not accept a lump sum distribution made in accordance with the terms of the plan and, if applicable, any election made by the distributee. For example, if a check issued pursuant to a distributee’s election of a lump sum remains uncashed after the last date prescribed on the check or an accompanying notice (e.g., by the bank or the plan) for cashing it (the “cash-by” date), the distributee is considered not to have accepted the lump sum.

A DC plan must search for each missing distributee whose location the plan does not know with reasonable certainty. The plan must search in accordance with regulations and other applicable guidance issued by the Secretary of Labor under section 404 of ERISA. See the DOL’s FAB 2014-01 for guidance on search steps. Compliance with that guidance satisfies PBGC’s “diligent search” standard for DC plans.

Some other major features of the new program include:

  • A unified unclaimed pension database of information about missing participants and their benefits from terminated DB and DC plans.
  • A centralized, reliable, easy-to-use directory through which persons who may be owed retirement benefits from DB or DC plans could find out whether benefits are being held for them.
  • Periodic active searches by PBGC for missing participants.
  • Fewer benefit categories and fewer sets of actuarial assumptions for DB plans determining the amount to transfer to PBGC and a free on-line calculator to do certain actuarial calculations.

Visit the PBGC’s Missing Participant site for more information, including an explanation of the plans covered by the program and the forms and instructions to use with the program.

Our prior post on the proposed regulations is here

Private Letter Ruling Applies Controlled Group Rules to 501(c)(3) Entities

On March 16, 2018 the IRS issued a private letter ruling (PLR 201811009) analyzing and applying the controlled group rules to two related 501(c)(3) entities. The first entity is a Medical Center, organized in part for the purpose of operating an academic medical center as part of a health system affiliated with the other entity, a University.

The PLR reiterates the general rule that one 501(c)(3) entity (the University) in this case) does not “Control” another 501(c)(3) entity (the Medical Center) for purposes of the IRS controlled group rules where:

  • The University holds the power to approve and remove without cause four of the Medical Center’s 11 directors.
  • With the exception of the University’s chancellor, no employee of the University may serve as a director of the Medical Center.
  • The University holds no right or power to require the use of the Medical Center’s funds or assets for the University’s purposes.
  • Rather, the Medical Center determines its budget, issues debt and expends funds without oversight from the University.
  • The Medical Center has sole control over collection of its receivables and sole responsibility for satisfaction of its liabilities.
  • The University does not control hiring, firing or salaries of the Medical Center’s Employees.

The PLR states that the above facts evidence the Medical Center’s operational independence from the University and support a conclusion that the University does not directly control the Medical Center.

The PLR goes on to conclude that the University does not directly control the Medical Center, even though the University has the right to prohibit the Medical Center from taking certain actions, including:

  • any major corporate transaction not within the ordinary course of business;
  • any action that would result in a change in the Medical Center’s exempt status under §§ 501(c)(3) and 509(a) of the Code;
  • any material change to the Medical Center’s purposes;
  • any change in the fundamental, nonprofit, charitable, tax-exempt mission of the Medical Center;
  • any action that would grant any third party the right to appoint directors of the Medical Center;
  • a joint operating agreement or similar arrangement under which the Medical Center’s governance is substantially subject to a board or similar body that the Medical Center does not control; and
  • the sale or transfer of all or substantially all of the Medical Center’s assets.

The IRS determined that, although the above rights certainly represent a form of control over the Medical Center, such control is qualitatively different from the operational control factors that were not present here.

The key to the ruling is that the University’s rights do not confer the power to cause the Medical Center to act. Rather they confer the power to bar the Medical Center from taking certain actions. The right merely limits the Medical Center’s capacity to deviate from the charitable mission it shares with the university and diminishes the chance that the Medical Center will stray from the quality standards and community focus that the University wants in an academic medical center.

Background on Tax Exempt Control Group Rules

In the case of an organization that is exempt from tax under Code section 501(a), the employer includes the exempt organization and any other organization that is under common control with that exempt organization under the special rules set forth in Treas. Reg. §1.414(c)-5(b).

For this purpose, common control exists between an exempt organization and another organization if at least 80 percent of the directors or trustees of one organization are either representatives of, or directly or indirectly controlled by, the other organization. Treas. Reg. §1.414(c)-5(b). A trustee or director is treated as a representative of another organization if he or she also is a trustee, director, agent, or employee of the other organization. A trustee or director is controlled by another organization if the other organization has the general power to remove such trustee or director and designate a new trustee or director. Whether a person has the power to remove or designate a trustee or director is based on all the facts and circumstances. Id.

In the case of PLR 201811009, the University controlled far less than 80% of the Medical Center’s board positions, so the analysis focuses on the “facts and circumstances” element of control. The key takeaway is that the power to prevent another entity from acting does not necessarily result in control. Keep in mind, however, that PLRs are fact specific and can only be relied on by the taxpayer to whom they are issued. We therefore cannot conclude that the power to preclude action by another 501(c)(3) entity will never result in control.

Attorney Erwin Kratz Named to the Best Lawyers in America© 2017

ERISA Benefits Law attorney Erwin Kratz was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2017 in the practice area of Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law. Mr. Kratz has been continuously listed on The Best Lawyers in America list since 2010.

Since it was first published in 1983, Best Lawyers® has become universally regarded as the definitive guide to legal excellence. Best Lawyers lists are compiled based on an exhaustive peer-review evaluation. Lawyers are not required or allowed to pay a fee to be listed; therefore inclusion in Best Lawyers is considered a singular honor. Corporate Counsel magazine has called Best Lawyers “the most respected referral list of attorneys in practice.”