The Internal Revenue Service and the Treasury Department
have thrown a wrench into the pension de-risking plans of many corporations
with new regulations aiming to eliminate the lump-sum payout option for
retirees who already are receiving retirement benefits from their defined
benefit plans.
“The regulations, as amended, 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,” according to the IRS and
Treasury.
The amendments went into effect on July 9, 2015.
What this means is that employers who are exploring
de-risking options will have to keep these new provisions in mind when
implementing a lump-sum window opportunity for former employees or those who
are already retired, says Anne Waidmann, a director in PwC’s human resource
services practice in Washington.
The types of permitted benefit increases described in the
regulations include only those that increase the ongoing annuity payments and
do not include those that accelerate the annuity payments, Waidmann said.
“In talks with IRS personnel, we have confirmed that
there is no intention to prohibit plans from paying lump sums to participants
upon plan termination, though that circumstance was not discussed in the
notice,” she says.
Plans that already began de-risking proceedings before
July 9 or adopted an agreement with a labor union specifically authorizing a
lump-sum window prior to July 9 are exempt from the new rules as are those
plans that were the subject of a private letter ruling or determination letter
issued by the IRS before July 9. If plan participants were officially notified
about the lump sum risk-transferring program prior to July 9, those companies
are also exempt from the ruling, she stated.
The IRS notice did not provide guidance with respect to
the federal tax consequences of a lump sum risk-transferring program.
“Many in Congress and the administration have expressed
concern about de-risking arrangements in which plans are amended to offer
lump-sum distributions to terminated vested participants and to retirees,” she
says. “A recent GAO report on lump-sum windows concluded that participants need
better information when offered a lump-sum window and made recommendations to
IRS and DOL on ways to change their rules regarding these situations.”
The report, which was released in February, found that
participants “potentially face a reduction in their retirement assets when they
accept a lump-sum offer. The amount of the lump sum payment may be less than
what it would cost in the retail market to replace the plan’s benefit because
the mortality and interest rates used by retail market insurers are different
from the rates used by sponsors, particularly when calculating lump sums for
younger participants and women.”
The report added that even though participants gain
control of their assets by taking a lump sum payment, they face potential
investment challenges. Many won’t reinvest the money but will instead spend
some or all of it.
The GAO reviewed 11 packets of informational materials
provided by sponsors offering lump sums to thousands of participants and found
that they “consistently lacked key information needed to make an informed
decision or were otherwise unclear.”
Many of the packets were not clear about how the lump-sum
value compared to the value of a lifetime monthly benefit. Others didn’t state
the interest rate or mortality assumptions used, limiting participants’ ability
to figure out how their lump-sum payment was calculated, the GAO said. One
important omission was informing participants about the benefit protections
they would keep by staying in their employer-sponsored plan. The Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation insures DB pensions when a sponsor defaults.
“This omission is notable because many participants GAO
interviewed cited fear of sponsor default as an important factor in choosing
the lump sum,” the GAO said.
Source: Employee
Benefit Adviser
No comments:
Post a Comment