Erwin Kratz Discusses Fiduciary Compliance for Plan Sponsors

ERISA Benefits Law attorney Erwin Kratz was a panelist on “ERISA Principles That Every Plan Fiduciary Needs to Know”, presented by Wellspring Financial Partners on February 19, 2020. Erwin joined Eric Dyson of Wellspring, who discussed the four main fiduciary duties – the duties of Loyalty, of Prudence, to Diversify Plan Assets and to Follow the Plan Documents.

Erwin then provided practical tips for fiduciary compliance by discussing four points of impact when the “fiduciary rubber” most frequently hits the road:

  • When Restating your Plan
  • Top Three Mistakes a Committee Can Make
  • How to be a Good Committee Member; and
  • Working with your Non-Fiduciary Administrative Staff

View the YouTube video here:

And download a copy of the PowerPoint Presentation here:

Secure Act Makes Significant Changes to the Law Affecting Qualified Retirement Plans

The SECURE Act, signed into law on Dec. 20, 2019, includes a lot of tweaks to retirement law, including many that directly impact qualified retirement plans, as well as others that indirectly impact qualified plan participants. This post addresses the most significant such provisions.

The Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act (known as the “SECURE Act”) was signed into law on Dec. 20, 2019, and went into effect on Jan. 1, 2020. The law includes a lot of tweaks to retirement law, including many that directly impact qualified retirement plans, as well as others that indirectly impact qualified plan participants.  This post addresses the most significant such provisions.

Primary Changes Directly Impacting Qualified Retirement Plans

Long-Term, Part-Time Employees Can Make Deferrals

The SECURE Act requires that plans permit employees who are at least age 21, have worked for at least three consecutive 12-month periods, and have completed at least 500 hours of service in those three years to make salary deferrals to the plan. As long as these individuals stay below 1,000 hours, they may be excluded from employer contributions (including top-heavy and gateway contributions), ADP testing, coverage testing, and other nondiscrimination testing. Because the law permits plans to ignore years of service prior to 1/1/2021 for the three-year period purposes, no employees will need to be permitted to defer under this provision before 2024.

Participant Statements Must Include Annuitization Information

The SECURE Act requires employers offering 401(k) and other qualified defined contribution plans to show employees not just the total balance in their account but also a projected monthly income in retirement based on that balance. The Department of Labor is expected to issue guidance for how plan sponsors should calculate projected monthly income, taking into account factors such as long-term contribution rates, investment performance and overall market growth. The DOL’s guidance will be complicated by the fact many plans have been doing this for years already. Hopefully, the DOL will not make such disclosures less useful.  These disclosures aren’t required until 12 months after the DOL does everything it is required to do: i.e., issue guidance, issue model disclosure, and outline the required assumptions.

Required Minimum Distribution (RMD) Rules

The SECURE Act requires changes to the RMD rules to extend the required beginning date for living participants from the April 1 following the year in which the participant attains 70½ to such date following attainment of age 72. This change is generally effective for employees who reach age 70½ after 12/31/2019.

Form 5500 Late Filing Penalties Increasing ten-Fold

IRS penalties for late filed Forms 5500 will be increasing from $25 per day to $250 per day, and the maximum penalty per form (per plan year) increases from $15,000 to $150,000. This makes DOL’s Delinquent Filers Voluntary Correction Program (DFVC) (and, the IRS procedure for Forms 5500-EZ under Rev. Proc. 2015-32) far more valuable for late filers. The Form 8955-SSA penalties are also increasing ten-fold: from $1 per day per unreported participant to $10; and from a $5,000 maximum to $50,000. Finally, the obscure requirement that plan administrators file Form 8822-B to register a change in plan name or plan administrator name/address is also seeing enhanced penalties. The penalty for not filing that form will increase from $1 per day to $10, up to a maximum of $10,000 (up from $1,000). All of these changes are effective for returns due after 12/31/2019.

Distribution Related to Birth or Adoption

The SECURE Act permits Plans to allow participants who have or adopt a child after 2019 to take a distribution of up to $5,000 from the plan without having to pay the 10% premature distribution tax, if the distribution is made within one year of the birth or adoption. Further, the distributed funds may be repaid and treated like a rollover to a plan or IRA. There appears to be no deadline on repayment.

Extended Adoption Deadline for New Plans

The SECURE Act permits the adoption of new plans up to the tax return due date of the employer, including extensions. This rule is effective for plan years beginning after 12/31/2019. However, this applies only to employer contributions. Deferral provisions must be in place before the plan accepts elective deferrals. This will be a boon to the establishment of new plans, particularly for small employers whose owners may be looking for a way to reduce their tax burden in the immediately prior year.

Simplifying Safe Harbor 401(k) Plan Administration

The SECURE Act includes several provisions that will reduce the administrative burden for safe harbor 401(k) plans, including:

  • No safe harbor notice is required for a safe harbor plan that has only nonelective contributions.  However, a nonelective contribution safe harbor plan that has matching contributions intended to fall within the ACP safe harbor must still give a safe harbor notice.
  • A safe harbor nonelective plan design (both regular and QACAs) may be adopted up to 30 days before the end of the plan year. This late adoption is not available for plans that have an ADP or QACA matching contribution at any time during the plan year.
  • A safe harbor nonelective plan design may also be adopted after the 30-day deadline and as late as the deadline for ADP refunds (generally the end of the plan year following the year for which the refunds are made), if the nonelective safe harbor contribution is increased from the normal 3% of compensation to 4%.

QACA Auto Escalation

The SECURE permits an increase in auto escalation in a QACA. The Act raises the 10% cap on the automatic escalation feature of QACAs after the first-year period, and replaces it with a 15% cap. This recognizes that 10% may not be a high enough rate of deferral for many participants. This is an optional provision (i.e. Plan Sponsors are not required to auto escalate to 15%, but may do so).

Pooled Employer Plans (Open MEPs) Encouraged

The SECURE Act gives a big boost to Open MEPs (now to be called “Pooled Employer Plans” or “PEPs”), effective for plan years beginning in 2021. The Act permits a “pooled plan provider” or “PPP” to sponsor a multiple employer plan for its clients.

The PPP is required to take responsibility as a named fiduciary, plan administrator, and the person who ensures that ERISA and Code requirements are met for the plan. The PPP is also required to make sure that all plan fiduciaries are properly bonded (and the new law makes it clear that bonding applies regardless of whether the fiduciary handles plan assets).

The SECURE Act provides that the PEP will not be disqualified because of a failure of an adopting employer to comply with the legal requirements. The adopting employer at issue, however, will be liable for qualification issues that affect its employees. The IRS will likely finalize its proposed rules, which permit the plan sponsor (the PPP under the Act) to eject the noncompliant part of the plan.

The law also reinforces that the adopting employer acts as a fiduciary in deciding to join a given PEP and for monitoring the PPP and other plan fiduciaries. In addition, unless the PEP has delegated investment management to someone else, the adopting employer is the investment fiduciary for its portion of the PEP. The law further provides that the PEP cannot apply “unreasonable” restrictions, fees, or penalties to employers or employees for ceasing participation, taking distributions, or otherwise transferring assets.

The SECURE Act leaves it to the Departments of the Treasury and Labor to issue regulations to flesh out the details of the new structure, and permits a good faith, reasonable interpretation of these rules until such guidance is issued.

Expect the big players in the retirement industry to roll out PEPs in the years to come.  These arrangements will likely be attractive for start-up and small plans.

Other Changes Indirectly Affecting Qualified Plan Participants

Elimination of ‘Stretch’ IRAs, with some exceptions

“Stretch IRAs” have for years been a way of reducing the tax bill non-spouse beneficiaries pay when they inherit IRAs. These beneficiaries could “stretch out” their required minimum distributions (RMDs) over their lifetimes. This provided a lot of flexibility to plan the distributions in the most tax advantageous way. The SECURE Act eliminated “stretch” IRAs for those not deemed “eligible designated beneficiaries.” Anyone who is not an “eligible designated beneficiary” now must take full distribution of an inherited IRA within 10 years after the date of death.

Eligible designated beneficiaries, who can still stretch their RMDs, include:

  • Surviving spouses
  • Minor children, up to majority – but not grandchildren
  • Disabled people- under IRS rules
  • Chronically ill people
  • Individuals not more than 10 years younger than the IRA owner

Extension of IRA Eligibility

People over age 70½ can make deductible IRA contributions starting in 2020.

Effective Date and Deadline to Make Required Amendments

The SECURE Act was generally effective January 1, 2020. However, qualified plans will not be required to make amendments to comply with the SECURE Act until the last day of the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2022. The law also permits the IRS to extend the amendment date further if required.

IRS Announces COLA Adjusted Retirement Plan Limitations for 2020

The Internal Revenue Service today released Notice 2019-59 announcing cost of living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for pension plans and other retirement-related items for tax year 2020.

Highlights Affecting Plan Sponsors of Qualified Plans for 2020

  • The contribution limit for employees who participate in 401(k), 403(b), most 457 plans, and the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan is increased from  $19,000 to $19,500.
  • The catch-up contribution limit for employees aged 50 and over who participate in 401(k), 403(b), most 457 plans and the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan is increased from $6,000 to $6,500.
  • The limitation under Section 408(p)(2)(E) regarding SIMPLE retirement accounts is increased from $13,000 to $13,500.
  • The limit on annual contributions to an IRA remains unchanged at $6,000. The additional catch-up contribution limit for individuals aged 50 and over is not subject to an annual cost-of-living adjustment and remains $1,000.
  • The limitation on the annual benefit under a defined benefit plan under Section 415(b)(1)(A) is increased from $225,000 to $230,000.
  • The limitation for defined contribution plans under Section 415(c)(1)(A) is increased in 2019 from $56,000 to $57,000.
  • The annual compensation limit under Sections 401(a)(17), 404(l), 408(k)(3)(C), and 408(k)(6)(D)(ii) is increased from $280,000 to $285,000.
  • The dollar limitation under Section 416(i)(1)(A)(i) concerning the definition of key employee in a top-heavy plan is increased from $180,000 to $185,000.
  • The dollar amount under Section 409(o)(1)(C)(ii) for determining the maximum account balance in an employee stock ownership plan subject to a five year distribution period is increased from $1,130,000 to $1,150,000, while the dollar amount used to determine the lengthening of the five year distribution period is increased from $225,000 to $230,000.
  • The limitation used in the definition of highly compensated employee under Section 414(q)(1)(B) is increased from $125,000 to $130,000.

The IRS previously Updated Health Savings Account limits for 2019. See our post here.

The following chart summarizes various significant benefit Plan limits for 2018 through 2020:

Type of Limitation202020192018
415 Defined Benefit Plans$230,000$225,000$220,000
415 Defined Contribution Plans$57,000$56,000$55,000
Defined Contribution Elective Deferrals$19,500$19,000$18,500
Defined Contribution Catch-Up Deferrals$6,500$6,000$6,000
SIMPLE Employee Deferrals$13,500$13,000$12,500
SIMPLE Catch-Up Deferrals$3,000$3,000$3,000
Annual Compensation Limit$285,000$280,000$275,000
SEP Minimum Compensation$600$600$600
SEP Annual Compensation Limit$280,000$280,000$275,000
Highly Compensated$130,000$125,000$120,000
Key Employee (Officer)$185,000$180,000$175,000
Income Subject To Social Security Tax  (FICA)$137,700$132,900$128,400
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-Employed12.40%12.40%12.40%
SECA (Med. HI Portion) For Self-Employed2.9%2.9%2.9%
IRA Contribution$6,000$6,000$5,500
IRA Catch-Up Contribution$1,000$1,000$1,000
HSA Max. Contributions Single/Family Coverage$3,550/ $7,100$3,500/ $7,00$3,450/ $6,900
HSA Catchup Contributions$1,000$1,000$1,000
HSA Min. Annual Deductible Single/Family$1,400/ $2,800$1,350/ $2,700$1,350/ $2,700
HSA Max. Out Of Pocket Single/Family$6,900/ $13,800$6,750/ $13,500$6,650/ $13,300

ERISA Benefits Law Attorney Erwin Kratz Named to the Best Lawyers in America© 2020

ERISA Benefits Law attorney Erwin Kratz was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2020 in the practice area of Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law. Mr. Kratz has been continuously listed on The Best Lawyers in Americalist 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.”

ERISA Benefits Law Receives Recognition as a Top Tier Law firm in 2018 U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” Rankings

We are happy to announce that ERISA Benefits Law has again been recognized as a top tier law firm in the 2018 U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” rankings. The firm received a Tier 1 metropolitan ranking in Tucson, Arizona in Employee Benefits (ERISA) Law. We are grateful for the recognition of our peers, and the trust of our clients, as a niche ERISA and employee benefits law firm focused on providing the highest quality legal services at the most affordable rates anywhere.

The U.S. News – Best Lawyers “Best Law Firms” rankings are based on a rigorous evaluation process that includes the collection of client and lawyer evaluations, peer review from leading attorneys in their field, and review of additional information provided by law firms as part of the formal submission process.

Attorney Erwin Kratz Named to the Best Lawyers in America© 2019

ERISA Benefits Law attorney Erwin Kratz was recently selected by his peers for inclusion in The Best Lawyers in America© 2019 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.”

Treasury and IRS Issue Final Regulations Amending the Definition of Qualified Matching Contributions and Qualified Nonelective Contributions

The Treasury and IRS have issued final regulations amending the definitions of qualified matching contributions (QMACs) and qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs) under regulations regarding certain qualified retirement plans that contain cash or deferred arrangements under section 401(k) or that provide for matching contributions or employee contributions under section 401(m).

Under these new regulations, an employer contribution to a plan may be a QMAC or QNEC if it satisfies applicable nonforfeitability requirements and distribution limitations at the time it is allocated to a participant’s account, but need not meet these requirements or limitations when it is contributed to the plan.

History

On January 18, 2017, the Treasury Department and the IRS issued a notice of proposed rulemaking. Several comments on the proposed rules were submitted, and, after consideration of all the comments, the final rules adopt the proposed rules without substantive modification. However, the Treasury Department and the IRS determined that the distribution requirements referred to in the existing definitions of QMACs and QNECs in §§ 1.401(k)-6 and 1.401(m)-5 are more appropriately characterized as distribution limitations (consistent with the heading of § 1.401(k)-1(d)), and, accordingly, these definitions have been amended to refer to distribution limitations.

Implications of the New Rules

The new rule raises some questions relating to the application of Code section 411(d)(6) (protected benefits) in cases in which a plan sponsor seeks to amend its plan to apply the new rules. The application of section 411(d)(6) is generally outside the scope of these regulations. However, the IRS indicates in the discussion of the new rules that if a plan sponsor adopts a plan amendment to define QMACs and QNECs in a manner consistent with the final regulations and applies that amendment prospectively to future plan years, section 411(d)(6) would not be implicated.

In addition, in the common case of a plan that provides that forfeitures will be used to pay plan expenses incurred during a plan year and that any remaining forfeitures in the plan at the end of the plan year will be allocated pursuant to a specified formula among active participants who have completed a specified number of hours of service during the plan year, section 411(d)(6) would not prohibit a plan amendment adopted before the end of the plan year that permits the use of forfeitures to fund QMACs and QNECs (even if, at the time of the amendment, one or more participants had already completed the specified number of hours of service). This is because all conditions for receiving an allocation will not have been satisfied at the time of the amendment, since one of the conditions for receiving an allocation is that plan expenses at the end of the plan year are less than the amount of forfeitures. See § 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-1(d)(8) (features that are not section 411(d)(6) protected benefits include “[t]he allocation dates for contributions, forfeitures, and earnings, the time for making contributions (but not the conditions for receiving an allocation of contributions or forfeitures for a plan year after such conditions have been satisfied), and the valuation dates for account balances”).

Statutory Background

Section 401(k)(1) provides that a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, a pre-ERISA money purchase plan, or a rural cooperative plan will not be considered as failing to satisfy the requirements of section 401(a) merely because the plan includes a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (CODA). To be considered a qualified CODA, a plan must satisfy several requirements, including: (i) Under section 401(k)(2)(B), amounts held by the plan’s trust that are attributable to employer contributions made pursuant to an employee’s election must satisfy certain distribution limitations; (ii) under section 401(k)(2)(C), an employee’s right to such employer contributions must be nonforfeitable; and (iii) under section 401(k)(3), such employer contributions must satisfy certain nondiscrimination requirements.

Under section 401(k)(3)(D)(ii), the employer contributions taken into account for purposes of applying the nondiscrimination requirements may, under such rules as the Secretary may provide and at the election of the employer, include matching contributions within the meaning of section 401(m)(4)(A) that meet the distribution limitations and nonforfeitability requirements of section 401(k)(2)(B) and (C) (also referred to as qualified matching contributions or QMACs) and qualified nonelective contributions within the meaning of section 401(m)(4)(C) (QNECs). Under section 401(m)(4)(C), a QNEC is an employer contribution, other than a matching contribution, with respect to which the distribution limitations and nonforfeitability requirements of section 401(k)(2)(B) and (C) are met.

Under § 1.401(k)-1(b)(1)(ii), a CODA satisfies the applicable nondiscrimination requirements if it satisfies the actual deferral percentage (ADP) test of section 401(k)(3), described in § 1.401(k)-2. The ADP test limits the disparity permitted between the percentage of compensation made as employer contributions to the plan for a plan year on behalf of eligible highly compensated employees and the percentage of compensation made as employer contributions on behalf of eligible nonhighly compensated employees. If the ADP test limits are exceeded, the employer must take corrective action to ensure that the limits are met. In determining the amount of employer contributions made on behalf of an eligible employee, employers are allowed to take into account certain QMACs and QNECs made on behalf of the employee by the employer.

In lieu of applying the ADP test, an employer may choose to design its plan to satisfy an ADP safe harbor, including the ADP safe harbor provisions of section 401(k)(12), described in § 1.401(k)-3. Under § 1.401(k)-3, a plan satisfies the ADP safe harbor provisions of section 401(k)(12) if, among other things, it satisfies certain contribution requirements. With respect to the safe harbor under section 401(k)(12), an employer may choose to satisfy the contribution requirement by providing a certain level of QMACs or QNECs to eligible nonhighly compensated employees under the plan.

A defined contribution plan that provides for matching or employee after-tax contributions must satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements under section 401(m) with respect to those contributions for each plan year. Under § 1.401(m)-1(b)(1), the matching contributions and employee contributions under a plan satisfy the nondiscrimination requirements for a plan year if the plan satisfies the actual contribution percentage (ACP) test of section 401(m)(2) described in § 1.401(m)-2.

The ACP test limits the disparity permitted between the percentage of compensation made as matching contributions and after-tax employee contributions for or by eligible highly compensated employees under the plan and the percentage of compensation made as matching contributions and after-tax employee contributions for or by eligible nonhighly compensated employees under the plan. If the ACP test limits are exceeded, the employer must take corrective action to ensure that the limits are met. In determining the amount of employer contributions made on behalf of an eligible employee, employers are allowed to take into account certain QNECs made on behalf of the employee by the employer. Employers must also take into account QMACs made on behalf of the employee by the employer unless an exclusion applies (including an exclusion for Start Printed Page 34470QMACs that are taken into account under the ADP test).

If an employer designs its plan to satisfy the ADP safe harbor of section 401(k)(12), it may avoid performing the ACP test with respect to matching contributions under the plan, as long as the additional requirements of the ACP safe harbor of section 401(m)(11) are met.

As previously defined in § 1.401(k)-6, QMACs and QNECs must satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) and the distribution limitations of § 1.401(k)-1(d) “when they are contributed to the plan.” Similarly, under the independent definitions in § 1.401(m)-5, QMACs and QNECs must satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) and the distribution limitations of § 1.401(k)-1(d) “at the time the contribution is made.” In general, contributions satisfy the nonforfeitability requirements of § 1.401(k)-1(c) if they are immediately nonforfeitable within the meaning of section 411, and contributions satisfy the distribution limitations of § 1.401(k)-1(d) if they may not be distributed before the employee’s death, disability, severance from employment, attainment of age 59.5, or hardship, or upon the termination of the plan.

Background to the Rule Change

Before 2017, the Treasury Department and the IRS received comments with respect to the definitions of QMACs and QNECs in §§ 1.401(k)-6 and 1.401(m)-5. In particular, commenters asserted that employer contributions should qualify as QMACs and QNECs as long as they satisfy applicable nonforfeitability requirements at the time they are allocated to participants’ accounts, rather than when they are first contributed to the plan. Commenters pointed out that interpreting sections 401(k)(3)(D)(ii) and 401(m)(4)(C) to require satisfaction of applicable nonforfeitability requirements at the time amounts are first contributed to the plan would preclude plan sponsors with plans that permit the use of amounts in plan forfeiture accounts to offset future employer contributions under the plan from applying such amounts to fund QMACs and QNECs. This is because the amounts would have been allocated to the forfeiture accounts only after a participant incurred a forfeiture of benefits and, thus, generally would have been subject to a vesting schedule when they were first contributed to the plan. Commenters requested that QMAC and QNEC requirements not be interpreted to prevent the use of plan forfeitures to fund QMACs and QNECs. The commenters urged that the nonforfeitability requirements under § 1.401(k)-6 should apply when QMACs and QNECs are allocated to participants’ accounts and not when the contributions are first made to the plan.

In considering the comments, the Treasury Department and the IRS took into account that the nonforfeitability requirements applicable to QMACs and QNECs are intended to ensure that QMACs and QNECS provide nonforfeitable benefits for the participants who receive them. In accordance with that purpose, the Treasury Department and the IRS concluded that it is sufficient to require that amounts allocated to participants’ accounts as QMACs and QNECs be nonforfeitable at the time they are allocated to participants’ accounts, rather than when such contributions are made to the plan.

The Final Rules

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.

9th Circuit Clarifies Service Provider’s Fiduciary Duties When Negotiating Fees and When Withdrawing Fees from Plan Assets

The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has issued an opinion in Santomenno v. Transamerica LLC, clarifying the circumstances under which a retirement plan investment service provider  breaches (and does not breach) its fiduciary duties when negotiating its fees and when collecting the agreed fees from plan accounts.

The Case

The trial court in this case held that the plan investment service provider breached its fiduciary duties to plan beneficiaries first when negotiating with the employer about providing services to the plan and later when withdrawing predetermined fees from plan funds.

The 9th Circuit held that a plan administrator is not an ERISA fiduciary when negotiating its compensation with a prospective customer. The employer/plan sponsor doing the hiring is acting under a fiduciary duty when it negotiates these fees. Therefore, the prospective service provider did not breach its duties in negotiating for the fees it wanted to receive.

The Court also held that the service provider was not a fiduciary with respect to its receipt of revenue sharing payments from investment managers after it became a service provider to the Plan because the payments were fully disclosed before the provider agreements were signed and did not come from plan assets.

Finally, and most significantly, the Court held that the service provider also did not breach its fiduciary duty with respect to its withdrawal of the preset fees from plan funds. The Court concluded that when a service provider’s definitively calculable and nondiscretionary compensation is clearly set forth in a contract with the fiduciary-employer, collection of those fees out of plan funds in strict adherence to that contractual term is not a breach of the provider’s fiduciary duty. The withdrawal of its fees in such circumstances is a ministerial act that does not give rise to fiduciary liability.

The Take-Aways

This case highlights the importance of the fiduciary role played by the plan sponsor and administrator when hiring service providers to the Plan. Hiring and retention decisions are fiduciary acts on the part of the employer/plan sponsor, but are not fiduciary acts on the part of the service provider being hired.

In addition, while this case illustrates that it is not always a fiduciary act for a service provider to withdraw its fees directly from plan assets, that is not true in every case. For example, if the Plan sponsor or administrator disputed a charge before the service provider withdrew its fees, or if the fees withdrawn by the service provider were based on hours worked or some other non-ministerial measure of the service provided, the withdrawal may not be ministerial. This case therefore does not give service providers free reign to withdraw fees from plan assets without consideration of their fiduciary duties.

Santomenno v. Transamerica LLC