Business of Benefits : Employee Benefits Lawyer & Attorney : Law Office of Robert J. Toth, Jr. : 403(b) Plans, Annuity & Insurance Law : Business of Benefits Blog

Our blog of May 26 on "Distributed Custodial Accounts" generated a number of comments, which require a bit of a "follow-on."  Ellie Lowder, one of the grand dames  of the 403(b) world, agreed with my assessment.  She mentioned  that she had discussions with the IRS on this point. Staff  just couldn't see how distributions of custodial accounts from a terminated 403(b) plan could work under Section 72 (dealing with the taxability of distributions from plans and annuities). The IRS mentioned that Section 72 is clear on the distribution of annuities, but there is nothing about the distribution of custodial accounts.

Though I can empathize with the IRS's concerns, it actually points out the difficulty with the path it has chosen to foster greater 403(b) compliance: for over 50 years, these arrangements have been treated as individual pensions. Trying  to force them into an employer plan scheme gives rise to these kinds of  difficulties.

For the past 20 years,  custodial accounts have existed outside of a plan, with Section 72 being applied well-and being administered properly under the Code, to boot. There are a few examples  which are telling:

• Example 1:  A tax-exempt employer goes out of business in 1998, after having  sponsored an ERISA 403(b) plan funded with individual custodial accounts from a single mutual fund complex.  The plan would have terminated (for ERISA purposes) upon the employer going out of business and ceasing contributions. A former employee, age 71,  begins withdrawing his RMDs.  There is no employer to approve the distributions, or to certify to the participants age, and the investment company relies upon the employee representations.  The employee has to take distributions, or suffer penalties. What happens? The mutual fund begins the payments, and continues even today, should he still be living. The custodial account exists without a plan, and is effectively distributed. Though the plan termination was not a distributable event, the severance from employment was. But the tax effect is the same.
• Example 2:  A similarly situated employer employer goes out of business in 2010. Now what? Will the investment company ever approve payments out, bcause there is no employer? Does the IRS now view the custodial accounts of the plan participants as being immediately taxable because it is no longer associated with an employer? And why should the tax treatment be any different between the 1998 bankrupt employer and the 2010 bankrupt employer? Will the participant be penalized by a 50% tax on the failure to take an RMD when he was required to, but there was no way to do it?
• Example 3:  The plan of the employer in Example 2 was funded solely by annuity contracts of a single vendor. Two months prior to going out of business, the employer terminates its plan and distributes the annuity contracts.  We know the IRS permits this, so the contract maintains its 403(b) status. But we don't know what rules apply to the contract when an employer no longer exists. Will the annuity company permit the RMDs without employer approval? When the IRS eventually promulgates rules on how such contracts such be administered, is there any legal reason those rules should not apply to the custodial account in Example 2?

This really all points out to the unworkability of the IRS's position. The impact of forcing individual pensions into an employer mode is tough enough without having to make it more difficult on vendors, employers and employees than need be. 

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This

What Happened

One of the biggest disappointments arising from the issuance of the 403(b) regs has been the inability of employers to effectively terminate their plans.  At first, the IRS caused quite a favorable stir when it announced that the regs would specifically classify the termination of a 403(b) plan as a distributable event, and would  further permit the distribution of a "fully paid individual insurance annuity contract" as a terminating distribution. This seemed almost too good to be true as employers (who were willing to pay the cost of termination, including the full vesting of employer contributions) and consultants now had another tool with which to manage the complicated changes coming out of the new 403(b) scheme. Those of us familiar with the intricacies of individual 403(b) contracts were also well familiar with the administrative methods under which an employer could actually distribute an individually owned 403(b) contract without violating the individual's contractual rights.  Life, for a moment, seemed wonkishly swell.

Reality then hit. IRS officials soon started making public statements that individually owned custodial accounts would not be honored as annuity contracts for purposes of terminating plan distributions. Some unusual comments were even made that distributing certificates under group annuity contracts (a standard method of dstribtuing annuities under terminated defined benefit plans) also would not be honored as valid terminating distributions.

These positions had the practical effect of making most 403(b) plan terminations impractical. Because all of the assets of a terminated 403(b) plan need to be distributed within 12 months of the date of termination, and because employers cannot typically force the distributions out of an individual custodial account (and often not from the certificate of a group annuity contract), any attempt at termination would have a high likelihood of failure. If an employer could not convince all of the plan's custodial account owners to take a cash distribution from their accounts, the termination would fail.  If the termination fails, then the funds of all of those who had rolled funds into an IRA from the supposedly terminating 403(b) plan or had taken a "fully paid insurance annuity contract" all becomes taxable.

 This is an absurd result. It completely eviscerates  the IRS's own termination provision and takes away a valuable planning tool from the marketplace.  

Solutions

The draconian position taken by the IRS in drawing a distinction between an individually owned annuity and a custodial account is hard to understand. From a strictly statutory view, it seems to have little support. The language of 403(b)(7) is unambiguous:

"for purposes of this tilte, amounts paid by an employer described in paragrph (1)(A) to a custodial account which satisfies the provisions of 401(f) shall be treated as amounts contributed by him for an annuity contract for his employee...."

The only 403(b) distinctions between a custodial account and an annuity contract (related to the ability to withdraw employer contributions without a "distributable event") are in 403(b)(7) itself. There seems to be little statutory authority for allowing terminating annuity distributions and not allowing custodial account distributions. For 403(b) purposes, a custodial account IS an annuity contract.  What is really interesting about the 403(b) regualtions, is that a fair reading of it doesn't seem to prevent the distribution of a custodial account as an annuity contract.

As a practical matter, the IRS's public position makes even less sense.  If you start with the proposition that 403(b) contracts have been administered for years as individual pensions and that- to many custodial account administration systems- it mattered little whether or not the account was associated with an employer. Many non-ERISA, individually owned 403(b) custodial accounts have actually been administered by mutual fund companies on the same systems that administers their IRA accounts.

It is truly hard to understand the basis for the IRS's odd position in this matter. There is no longer any potential for employer abuse, as any relationship with the employer has been terminated, and the terms of the contracts continue to regulate participant's activity.

So, now what? The Investment Company Institute has recently suggested a complex solution to the IRS to solve the IRS's "problem".  It involves waiting periods, switching the taxability of the account, issuuing deemed distribution notices and the like. All of this seems terribly complex and unnecessary, creating even more tax horror for paritcipants and administrative nightmares for vendors.

Isn't the answer really much simpler than all that?Is there any reason why a "distributed custodial account" couldn't be administered in the way non-ERISA contracts had been administered in the past, or in the manner IRAs are currently administered?  

Perhaps if there is a distaste for that past, allow the distribution of a custodial account from a terminated 403(b) plan, and treat it under the same tax rules as distributed annuity contracts. After all, those distributed annuity contracts often hold mutual funds in their variable accounts. Outline a simple set of rules for both of those types of contracts, based upon the former 403(b) rules but infused with a dose of any anti-abuse the IRS see as a risk. Require simple annual reporting as a line on the existing IRA reporting form, Form  5498.  Perhaps even allow it to be treated in the same manner as plan distributed annuities.

Does the IRS fear so much that relying upon the representations of terminated 403(b) plan participants without employer oversight will so undermine the system as to be destructive, in a system where those funds could also be transferred to a relatively unregulated IRA,  where such a vast amounts of assets are held?

I just don't get it.

Any discussion on any tax issue addressed in this blog (including any attachments or links) is not intended to be used, and cannot be used, for purposes of avoiding penalties imposed under the United States Internal Revenue Code or promoting, marketing or recommending to another person any transaction or tax-related position addressed therein. Further, nothing contained herein is intended to provide legal advice, nor to create an attorney client relationship with any party.  

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This

The Green Book, published May 11 by the Treasury Department, contains further details on Obama's workplace pensions first described in his budget proposals (on which we blogged  in March). See pages 7-9 of the Treasury report for details.

It really does create a new scheme of individual pensions, much akin to the 403(b) arrangements of the past. I strongly suspect that there will be many similarities to the manner in which private industry approaches these to the way industry had approached "non-ERISA" 403(b)s.

It will cover employers who had been in business for  two or more years and who have 10 or more employees. Eligibility will be a lot like the "universal eligibility" rules under 403(b), in that those employees who are eligible (or who are excluded under a statutory exclusion) under a plan of the employer (even if not participating) can be excluded from this automatic program. If an employer excludes a class of employees for reasons other than the statutory exclusions, they must be covered by the IRA program.

The default rate of deferral is proposed to be 3%, which the employee could lower or raise (but who cannot "opt out"). 

It would be by payroll deduction, mostly with direct deposit to the IRA. There would be default IRA investments set by statute, for employers who did not wish to be involved in vendor selection. Employers would have the option of designating a private sector custodian, or permit employees to choose their private vendor.

Like the 403(b) plans of old, employers would have no responsibility for compliance with "qualified plan-like" requirements, nor have any responsibility for monitoring IRA eligibility or contribution limitations. The individuals, not the employers, would bear ultimate responsibility for compliance. A national website would be maintained with information and investment educational material.

Like 403(b) plans of old, the variable investments among these products these will be registered  which need to be sold by registered reps. They will be individual arrangements, typically with higher costs and fees, and in different asset classes than employer products. Inevitably, group arrangements will be offered by vendors to attempt to garner more assets from larger employers or groups of employers in order to offer more competitively priced products. Eventually, there will be RFPs and competition at the employer level for access to payroll slots. This all can create some ERISA tensions.

This proposal really means something for 403(b)plans down the road. But even now, given the Administration's position that it is OK to rely upon participant representations under circumstances such as these, perhaps the IRS should take a closer look at allowing such representations under its current 403(b) regulatory attempts as a way in which to resolve many of the tough transition rules which we are now facing.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This

ERISA really did create some fundamental changes that has broad personal affect. This reposting of a blog I wrote last year provides a good Mother's Day reminder of the importance of the work we do:

ERISA wonks such as ourselves tend to get lost in the press of details which seem to flow non-stop from our regulators and legislators in D.C.  It is sometimes helpful to step back and see the personal impact of the things we do.

A few years back, a good friend of mine who ran the retirement plan operations of a large insurance company asked me to speak about ERISA to a meeting of his administrative processing staff. At the time, they were still struggling with some of the more difficult administrative processes related to the QJSA and QPSA rules. Here's what I told them:

My father died at Ford's Rouge Plant in 1970, after 20 years with the company. Back then, the normal form of benefit under a defined benefit plan was a single life annuity, covering the life of only the employee.  There was no such thing yet as a qualified joint and survivor annuity or a qualified pre-retirement survivor's annuity.  This meant that my father's pension died with him. My mother was the typical stay-at-home mother of the period who was depending on that pension benefit for the future, but was left with nothing. With my father's wages topping at $13,000 annually and five kids at home, there was also little chance to accumulate savings.

The Retirement Equity Act of 1984 (a copy of which I still keep in my office) was designed to change all of that. By implementing the requirement of a spousal survivor annuity, a whole class of non-working spouses received protection which was desperately needed.  So in that speech to my friend's administrative staff, I asked them to take a broader view-if just for a moment- of the important task they were being asked to implement. It was valuable social policy with real, human effect which they were responsible for pulling off, and they should take a measure of pride in the work they were doing.

Things have evolved much over the years, and some of those same rules which provided such valuable protection have become the matter of great policy discussions centering on whether they are appropriately designed, and whether they can be modified in a way to accommodate new benefits like guaranteed lifetime income from defined contribution plans. But the point is that Congress sometimes gets it right, and there is very valuable social benefit often hidden in the day to day  "grunge" of administering what often seems to be silly rules.

Mom, by the way, is still alive and doing well.

• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Print This
• Email This