Skip to content

Menu

Published By Toth Law & Toth Consulting
HomeBioOur ServicesContact
Search
Close

The Business of Benefits

Making Sense of Retirement Plan Layers and Complexities

ERISA Accounts, Part 2

By Robert Toth on November 22, 2011
Posted in Fiduciary Issues

 I’ve had a number of responses to my “Timing and the ERISA Account” blog of last week: this topic seems to be front and center with a number of folks right now. Given the sorts of comments I received, I thought I’d expand a bit from that initial, almost cryptic, blog.

“ERISA Accounts,” or “Fee Recapture Accounts,” or “ERISA Budgets” are growing in popularity, and are becoming a frequent feature in the 401(k) and 403(b) space. They take two forms: a “credit” with the plan vendor, where the vendor pays up to a certain, agreed-upon amount for plan administrative services as part of the vendor ”package;’ or the “funded” sort where the vendor actually makes a cash payment to the plan, usually based on some sort of revenue sharing schedule. These typically include 12b-1 fees generated from mutual funds, but may also include such things as surrender charge reimbursements or other negotiated items.

In 2007, the ERISA Advisory Council’s Working Group on Fiduciary Responsibilities and Revenue Sharing Practices issued a report which did a nice job on lying out a number of key issues related to this practice. It also recommended that the DOL issue guidance regarding the treatment of revenue sharing received by a plan, specifically regarding the allocation of revenue sharing received by a plan. The DOL has had its hands full in the past few years, so it is little wonder that it has yet to act on providing this guidance.

There all sorts of issues which come up related to these accounts, but the most pressing of them appears to be associated with the funded accounts: the structure of these accounts within the plan (are they like forfeiture accounts?); the method of the allocation of those funds to participant accounts once expenses have been paid; and the timing of those allocations. My previous blog just addressed the timing issue.

The structure of these funded accounts is actually interesting: recordkeepers aren’t generally accustomed to establishing an employer level account, and many recordkeeping systems are not well suited for this function.  The employer level accounts that do exist are typically forfeiture accounts, and the rules governing them can differ from the ERISA Account-which also means that there are a number of different reasons you want to somehow account for ERISA Account deposits differently than forfeitures. These Accounts probably need to be adopted by some formal action of the plan’s fiduciary, in accordance with the authority it is (hopefully) granted in the plan document, which also discuss how they will be used and eventually allocated. Absent that, the general fiduciary authority within the document will need to be relied upon.

With regard to how these funds may be allocated to participant accounts (particularly where there is an “excess” left after certain plan expenses have been paid. Remember, at least in the funded accounts, they cannot be used for settlor expenses. There are interesting prohibited transaction issues as well if the unfunded credits are used for settlor functions), there seems to be a growing sense that ERISA requires that there be some sort of “matching up” of these allocations with the assets which generated them. There is little doubt that this could be an acceptable method of allocation, and there is at least one vendor which I know of which, very nicely,  closely tracks this.

What seems to be getting lost in the discussion related to these allocations is the fundamental rule that participants only have a beneficial interest in the plan. They have no right to any asset, and they only have the right to direct the investment of their accounts because the employer has decided to let them do so instead of the fiduciary. Any funds generated by those investments are due to the plan, not necessarily to any particular participant. Whatever allocation method is chosen by the fiduciary need only be prudently made. It is telling that in Field Assistance Bulletin 2006-01, the DOL stated that (in addressing the allocation of class action settlement proceeds):

“…. a fiduciary’s decision must satisfy the “solely in the interest of participants” standard of section 404(a)(1) of ERISA. In this regard, a method of allocation would not fail to be “solely in the interest of participants” merely because the selected method may be seen as disadvantaging some affected participants or groups of participants. In deciding on an allocation method, the plan fiduciary may properly weigh the competing interests of various participants or classes of plan participants (e.g., affected versus current participants) and the effects of the allocation method on those participants provided a rational basis exists for the selected method and such method is reasonable, fair and objective.”

In short, though “tying back” the ERISA Account payment to the participant account which generates them will generally be considered prudent (though I can see circumstances where it would not be, such as if it were expensive to do so), and can be a good "market differentiator" for a vendor, I think it is a mistake to claim that this is the result demanded by ERISA.

For all these Accounts, there are also a number of interesting 408(b)(2), Schedule C and Schedule A issues with which plan sponsors and vendors must cope-and which I will not address here.

 

__________________

 

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.   


Tags: ERISA Account, ERISA Budget, ERISA Fee Recapture
Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Robert Toth Robert Toth

Bob Toth has practicing employee benefits law since 1983. His practice focuses on the design, administration and distribution of financial products and services for retirement plans.

Read more about Robert TothRobert's Linkedin Profile
Related Posts
Resetting the Mindset: DC Lifetime Income "Decumulation Accumulation" and their Risk-Related Restrictions
November 29, 2022
Master Custodial Accounts and the 403b Self Directed Brokerage Account
June 29, 2021
The DOL's Final ESG Investment Rules May Force Reassessment of "Church Plan Status" for Some Organizations
November 9, 2020
More Resources

Firm Focus

Toth Law and Applied Pension Professionals support service providers who develop, distribute and maintain retirement plan products and services, as well as fiduciaries, boards, plan sponsors and individuals using these products. We provide unbiased advice related to complex product issues, ongoing administration and process improvement, and plan corrections.

Stay Connected

Subscribe via RSS Subscribe via RSS
Bob Toth on LinkedIn Bob Toth on LinkedIn
Conni Toth on LinkedIn Conni Toth on LinkedIn
Photo of Robert TothRobert TothPrincipal

Bob Toth has practicing employee benefits law since 1983. His practice focuses on the design, administration and distribution of financial products and services for retirement…

Bob Toth has practicing employee benefits law since 1983. His practice focuses on the design, administration and distribution of financial products and services for retirement plans.

Show more Show less
Photo of Conni TothConni TothManaging Pension Consultant

Conni Toth, co-founder and managing consultant for Applied Pension Professionals, LLC, brings more than 25 years of experience in retirement planning to the financial…

Conni Toth, co-founder and managing consultant for Applied Pension Professionals, LLC, brings more than 25 years of experience in retirement planning to the financial services industry.

Show more Show less

Topics

Archives

Recent Posts

  • The 403(b) CIT and the 12 Month Put
  • Secure 2.0’s New QDRO Rules: The Mainstreaming of the QLAC?
  • Secure 2.0’s Unresolved 403(b) CIT Securities Law Issue
  • “Engineering” the Use of Individual Annuities In DC Lifetime Income Programs
  • Resetting the Mindset: DC Lifetime Income “Decumulation Accumulation” and their Risk-Related Restrictions
Law Office of Robert J. Toth, Jr., LLC
110 W. Berry, Ste 2106
Fort Wayne, IN 46802
Phone: (260) 387-6827
Fax: (260) 387-7485
Email: rjt@rtothlaw.com
Subscribe via RSS Bob Toth on LinkedIn Conni Toth on LinkedIn
Privacy PolicyDisclaimer
Copyright © 2023, Toth Law. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo