Employers who sponsor qualified defined benefit (DB) and defined contribution (DC) plans are responsible for making sure that their plans remain in compliance with IRS requirements, as failure to do so can result in excessive costs, penalties, or even plan disqualification. These requirements include the nondiscrimination rules, which are complex and can cause problems for plan sponsors that are unfamiliar with the details. Part 1 of this series outlines the framework for the testing. Parts 2 and 3 will explain the basic requirements of the testing and describe common pitfalls to be avoided. UPDATE: Part 2 is available here and Part 3 is available here.
What is nondiscrimination testing?
Certain benefit plans may be deemed qualified by the IRS and therefore eligible for favorable tax treatment, as long as they do not provide excessive benefits to upper management at the expense of the lower-paid employees. The nondiscrimination rules were established to give plan sponsors a framework for demonstrating that their plans do not provide benefits that discriminate in favor of the highly compensated employees (HCEs).
HCEs are generally those employees with total compensation in excess of a specified limit. For example, if an employee earns more than $110,000 in 2011, the employee would be considered to be an HCE in 2012. (There is an alternative “top 20%” definition that applies for some plans.) Employees who own more than 5% of the organization are also considered to be HCEs. The remainder of the employees would be non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs).
Even before the recent earthquakes in Colorado and Virginia, the past couple of weeks would have fallen into the category of “strange days.” We’ll take a look back at Retirement Town Hall’s coverage of the ups and downs in this rewind of a rather odd stretch of time called August 2011.
In a two-part series, Bart Pushaw looked at defined benefit (DB) plans and The question of portability (part 1) and (part 2). Looking at the question from the employee perspective (in part 1) and the employer perspective (in part 2), Pushaw dispels myths about defined contribution (DC) 401(k) plan portability and the portability of pensions.
The stock market’s volatility may be the precursor to a “double-dip” recession. In the previous official recession, many employers sponsoring savings plans chose to eliminate all employer contributions. There is evidence to confirm that many (but not all) employers restored the matches or other contributions that did not rely on the employee’s contributions.
Some speculate that a suspension of employer contributions, voluntary or otherwise, could occur again because the economy is struggling with anemic growth.
I recently wrote, in The question of portability (part 1), about how portable defined contribution (DC) retirement plans, such as the 401(k), aren’t always the best option for employees. Now let’s look at how the urge to create a portable benefit by converting to a 401(k) may not necessarily always be working in the best interests of employers.
The research indicated that employee mobility picked up only after 401(k) plans became widespread. Aside from the business reasons for retaining good employees, the portable 401(k) also raises questions about unintended consequences for the plan itself.
Spreading the wealth
More monies tend to be accumulated by the young and recently hired employees in 401(k) plans than in pension plans. This is balanced out in later careers as long-service employees eventually tend to receive more annually from pension plans compared to 401(k) plans.
The irony for some employers is that even if a career-average structure is adopted for portability’s sake, the benefit often could have been delivered much less expensively in a defined benefit (DB) pension plan than via a DC plan. Even if benefit levels established under the benefit policy are kept constant in order to maintain competitive and adequate income levels, a DB plan could cost the company less and increase shareholder returns.
There’s no doubt that the 401(k) plan has a place in tomorrow’s retirement landscape, as long as people understand the real intrinsic differences of DC and DB plans. It’s fair to say that portability is not actually one of those differences. Plan sponsors are in a position to reverse this misconception, and should not be swayed from pursuing an effective DB strategy only in the name of portability.
We blogged in June about how the Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) is wrestling with questions over what information investors would benefit most from when it comes to an employer’s participation in a multiemployer defined benefit (DB) plan. Following the most recent round of board meetings, the FASB has directed its staff to draft a final accounting standard to be issued by September.
While final details remain to be seen, the expected disclosure requirements for each plan deemed “individually material” for an employer will include:
Basic plan information: name and employer ID number (EIN) of plan
Most recent zone status as required by the Pension Protection Act (PPA)
Whether or not a PPA rehabilitation plan or funding improvement plan applies
Contributions made to the plan for each annual period that an income statement is presented
Whether a PPA surcharge applies
A range of collective bargaining agreement (CBA) expiration dates with significant CBAs noted
Whether or not the employer’s contribution represents more than 5% of all contributions to the plan
Any minimum funding arrangements with the plan
If zone status were unavailable, an employer would need to disclose whether or not the plan is:
Less than 65% funded
Between 65% and 80% funded
Greater than 80% funded
As noted above, these disclosures will be required for each plan deemed to be individually material to the employer’s overall financial statement. For all plans that don’t meet that distinction, disclosure requirements entail a summation of contributions to all plans in the aggregate. Additionally, an employer will be expected to disclose a general narrative describing each affected plan and a description of the nature and effect of any changes that could affect comparability of income statements for each period presented. This could include changes in contribution rates or covered populations.
The final standard is expected to require compliance for public entities for annual periods ending after December 15, 2011, with nonpublic entity compliance deferred one year later. With much of the information for 2011 likely already available, public companies should begin efforts to collect the necessary information now.
In the late 1980s defined benefit (DB) pension plans were firmly entrenched as the foundation for an employee’s retirement security planning. But 401(k) plans had just been awarded long-overdue IRS regulations and were gaining in popularity as a differentiator for companies in their quest for talent.
Among the key selling points for employers reviewing 401(k) plans was that employees were more likely to change jobs than they had been previously and because of this they were served well by benefit portability. It was a feature most pension plans were not positioned to provide as well.
You can take it with you
The portable 401(k) plan looked, to some, to be the best solution. Yet, in some cases, it may be a mistake to assume that portability in and of itself is necessarily the best option for employees or employers.