As § 403(b) plan administrators and plan auditors prepare to file the 2009 Form 5500 - which, for most plans, will be the initial annual report - the Department of Labor issued new guidance to clarify when certain annuity contracts and custodial accounts can be excluded.
Change in Reporting Obligation for § 403(b) Plans
IRC § 403(b) provides a tax-sheltered annuity program for public school employees, employees of certain tax exempt organizations, and certain ministers. Historically, these arrangements were treated as a collection of individual contracts or accounts controlled by the employee without the involvement of the plan administrator. However, this changed for tax years beginning in 2009, when § 403(b) plans - other than those qualifying as "governmental plans" or non-electing "church plans" - became subject to ERISA's general reporting requirements. As a result, plan administrators became obligated to report financial information regarding pre-2009 individual contracts and custodial accounts over which, in many cases, they had little knowledge. The new reporting also obligated § 403(b) plans with 100 or more participants to file audited financial statements, and obligated all § 403(b) plans to report the plan's aggregate financial information.
2009 FAB Relief
Recognizing the difficulties administrators would face in complying with the new reporting requirements the Department of Labor issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2009-02. For purposes of satisfying the reporting requirements, this FAB allows administrators to exclude annuity contracts and custodial accounts as part of the plan or as plan assets if:
The contract or account was issued to a current or former employee before 2009,
The employer ceased to have any obligation to make, and ceased making contributions to the contract or account before 2009: The rights and benefits under the contract or account are all legally enforceable by the individual owner against the insurer or custodian without involvement by the employer, and the individual owner is fully vested in the contract or account.
2010 Further Relief
In response to questions it received regarding the scope of this relief, the Department issued Field Assistance Bulletin 2010-01. Among the main clarifications are:
Involvement by the Employer - Discretion or Approval not Permitted. The new FAB makes clear that, although the relief under FAB 2009-02 would be available where the employer performs the limited function of making information available to the § 403(b) provider (e.g., reports employment status), the relief would not be available if the employer must consent to, or make discretionary decisions regarding enforcement of, the employee's rights under the contract. Prohibited approval would include, for example, where the employer must certify that the employee is eligible for distribution under the IRC, or must approve a hardship distribution or loan. Q&A-1.
Making Contributions - Loan Repayments Count. If an employer forwards employee loan repayments to the provider, the contract or account would not be eligible for the relief. Where the employee forwards the loan repayments directly to the provider, however, the contract or account would be eligible for the relief if the other requirements are satisfied. Q&A-2.
Large & Small Plans - Relief Applies to Both. The relief applies to large and small plans - both for determining what accounts are plan assets for purposes of the audit and for determining the plan assets to be reported on the financial statement. Moreover, it applies in determining the number of plan participants and whether the plan is a "large plan" subject to the audit requirements. Q&A-5.
Qualified Opinions - Department Will Not Reject Filing. The Department will not reject a Form 5500 filing where the plan's independent accountant issues a "qualified," "adverse" or "disclaimed" opinion if the opinion states that the sole reason for the designation is because pre-2009 contracts were not covered by the audit or included in the financial statements. Q&A-6.
Election to Exclude - Auditor's Role. While the administrator is responsible for determining whether the requirements for relief are met, the FAB makes clear that if the independent accountant discovers contracts were incorrectly excluded from the financial statements, the accountant is expected to alert the plan administrator. If the parties cannot agree, the independent accountant is expected to note the issue in the audit report. Q&A-7.
Post 2009 - Relief Applies. The relief under FAB 2009-02 applies to 2009 and later reporting years. Q&A-11.
Pre-2009 Contributions - Includes 2009 Contributions Attributable to 2008. Contributions attributable to 2008, but not deposited until 2009, would not make the account or contract ineligible for the relief. Q&A-13.
The FAB also addresses the regulatory "safe harbor" by which § 403(b) arrangements funded solely through salary reduction contributions are not considered employee pension plans - and, therefore, not subject to the reporting requirement. The safe harbor is set out in Labor Regulation § 2510.3-02(f). It requires (a) employee participation to be voluntary, (b) all rights under the contract to be enforceable only by the employee, (c) the employer to have only limited involvement, and (d) the employer to receive no compensation other than for expenses in handling salary reduction contributions. The FAB clarifies that the employer cannot, consistent with the safe harbor, appoint a third-party administrator to make discretionary decisions, and cannot itself retain discretionary authority to exchange or move funds from the § 403(b) provider. It can, however, select contracts where the provider is responsible for discretionary decisions. The arrangement generally must offer a choice of more than one § 403(b) contractor and more than one investment product.
Showing posts with label 403(b). Show all posts
Showing posts with label 403(b). Show all posts
Friday, March 19, 2010
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Adminstrative Rundown: EBSA, EEOC, and CMS
The Department of Labor's Employee Benefits Security Administration has posted a dedicated web page for 403(b) plan officials, including a new Field Assistance Bulletin, 2010-01. The new 403(b) web page is available at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/403b.html, and the Field Assistance Bulletin at http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab2010-1.html.
Also, the EEOC now has a press release up with a link to the published NPRM about RFOA under the ADEA as well as background about the proposed rule.
Based on the Supreme Court ADEA decisions in Smith v. Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 128 S.Ct. 2395 (2008), the EEOC released a proposed rule defining the “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) defense available to employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
The EEOC proposes to amend its existing regulations to meet the new standards in Smith and Meacham. Smith provided for a limited ADEA disparate impact claim. Meacham found that employers have the burden of proving the RFOA defense (that a challenged employment practice causing adverse impact was based on a “reasonable factor other than age”).
In response to the two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released for public comment a proposed rule construing the “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) defense under the ADEA.
In an effort to provide a more objective standard for determining whether an RFOA exists and clarify the scope of the defense, the EEOC seeks to revise paragraph 1625.7(b) of the existing regulations addressing the RFOA defense. Although the standard remains lower than Title VII’s business necessity defense, 1625.7(b)(1) makes it clear that the RFOA is not to be viewed under a “rational-basis” standard. Employers will be required to show that the challenged practice was reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose and was reasonably administered to achieve that purpose.
The EEOC proposes a “prudent employer” standard to determine whether or not an employer relied upon reasonable factors in making the challenged employment decision and included a list of non-exhaustive factors to consider, including:
1.The commonality of the business practice used by the employer;
2.The manner in which the practice was administered;
3.The employer’s awareness of a possible age-adverse impact before making their decision;
4.Steps taken by the employer to “accurately and fairly” assess the impact of their decision upon older persons as well as steps taken to mitigate unnecessary harm to older workers;
5.The existence of a lesser discriminatory alternative;
6.The extent to which the employer or supervisors engaged in age-based stereotyping; and
7.The extent to which employers gave supervisors guidance or training about how to avoid discrimination.
While no single factor would be dispositive of reasonableness under the EEOC’s proposed rule, the EEOC suggests that an employer is more likely to succeed on the RFOA defense if the bulk of these factors weigh in the employer’s favor.
For the RFOA defense to apply, the EEOC makes clear in its proposed rule that the challenged practice in fact must be based on a non-age factor. Recognizing that the courts have held that objectively measurable factors such as salary and seniority are non-age factors, even though they sometimes correlate with age, the EEOC’s rule instead focuses on the unchecked use of subjective criteria that can often be age-based stereotypes about older workers’ flexibility, willingness to learn, or technological skills.
The proposed regulations, therefore, set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to help employers determine whether an employment practice is based on a non-age factor, including:
1.The extent to which the employer gave supervisors unchecked discretion to assess employees subjectively;
2.The extent to which supervisors were asked to evaluate employees based on factors known to be subject to age-based stereotypes; and
3.The extent to which supervisors were given guidance or training about how to apply the factors and avoid discrimination.
The EEOC is accepting public comment until April 19, 2010. A proposed final rule covering this and the March 2008 proposed rules will then be coordinated with other federal agencies and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget before becoming effective.
Finally, CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) reported that it will delay implementation of Medicare Secondary Payer mandatory reporting, which was to begin April 1, to Jan. 1, 2011. Medicare Secondary Payer reporting requirements are intended to ensure that Medicare remains the secondary payer when a Medicare beneficiary has medical expenses that should be paid primarily by a liability, no-fault, or workers compensation plan. The reporting requirement originated in the Medicare, Medicaid, and the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 and insurers and self-insured employers sought a delay in the reporting deadline, citing a lack of guidance on reporting requirements among other issues. The delay applies only to non-group health plan reporting. It does not apply to group health plan reporting.
Also, the EEOC now has a press release up with a link to the published NPRM about RFOA under the ADEA as well as background about the proposed rule.
Based on the Supreme Court ADEA decisions in Smith v. Jackson, 544 U.S. 228 (2005), and Meacham v. Knolls Atomic Power Lab., 128 S.Ct. 2395 (2008), the EEOC released a proposed rule defining the “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) defense available to employers under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA).
The EEOC proposes to amend its existing regulations to meet the new standards in Smith and Meacham. Smith provided for a limited ADEA disparate impact claim. Meacham found that employers have the burden of proving the RFOA defense (that a challenged employment practice causing adverse impact was based on a “reasonable factor other than age”).
In response to the two U.S. Supreme Court decisions, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has released for public comment a proposed rule construing the “reasonable factor other than age” (RFOA) defense under the ADEA.
In an effort to provide a more objective standard for determining whether an RFOA exists and clarify the scope of the defense, the EEOC seeks to revise paragraph 1625.7(b) of the existing regulations addressing the RFOA defense. Although the standard remains lower than Title VII’s business necessity defense, 1625.7(b)(1) makes it clear that the RFOA is not to be viewed under a “rational-basis” standard. Employers will be required to show that the challenged practice was reasonably designed to further or achieve a legitimate business purpose and was reasonably administered to achieve that purpose.
The EEOC proposes a “prudent employer” standard to determine whether or not an employer relied upon reasonable factors in making the challenged employment decision and included a list of non-exhaustive factors to consider, including:
1.The commonality of the business practice used by the employer;
2.The manner in which the practice was administered;
3.The employer’s awareness of a possible age-adverse impact before making their decision;
4.Steps taken by the employer to “accurately and fairly” assess the impact of their decision upon older persons as well as steps taken to mitigate unnecessary harm to older workers;
5.The existence of a lesser discriminatory alternative;
6.The extent to which the employer or supervisors engaged in age-based stereotyping; and
7.The extent to which employers gave supervisors guidance or training about how to avoid discrimination.
While no single factor would be dispositive of reasonableness under the EEOC’s proposed rule, the EEOC suggests that an employer is more likely to succeed on the RFOA defense if the bulk of these factors weigh in the employer’s favor.
For the RFOA defense to apply, the EEOC makes clear in its proposed rule that the challenged practice in fact must be based on a non-age factor. Recognizing that the courts have held that objectively measurable factors such as salary and seniority are non-age factors, even though they sometimes correlate with age, the EEOC’s rule instead focuses on the unchecked use of subjective criteria that can often be age-based stereotypes about older workers’ flexibility, willingness to learn, or technological skills.
The proposed regulations, therefore, set forth a non-exhaustive list of factors to help employers determine whether an employment practice is based on a non-age factor, including:
1.The extent to which the employer gave supervisors unchecked discretion to assess employees subjectively;
2.The extent to which supervisors were asked to evaluate employees based on factors known to be subject to age-based stereotypes; and
3.The extent to which supervisors were given guidance or training about how to apply the factors and avoid discrimination.
The EEOC is accepting public comment until April 19, 2010. A proposed final rule covering this and the March 2008 proposed rules will then be coordinated with other federal agencies and reviewed by the Office of Management and Budget before becoming effective.
Finally, CMS (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services) reported that it will delay implementation of Medicare Secondary Payer mandatory reporting, which was to begin April 1, to Jan. 1, 2011. Medicare Secondary Payer reporting requirements are intended to ensure that Medicare remains the secondary payer when a Medicare beneficiary has medical expenses that should be paid primarily by a liability, no-fault, or workers compensation plan. The reporting requirement originated in the Medicare, Medicaid, and the SCHIP Extension Act of 2007 and insurers and self-insured employers sought a delay in the reporting deadline, citing a lack of guidance on reporting requirements among other issues. The delay applies only to non-group health plan reporting. It does not apply to group health plan reporting.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)