The 403(b) limitation year is determined on a person by person basis, it is not a plan wide rule. Only the individual can change the limitation year, and only for its contracts. To change the year, the individual must attach a statement to his or her income tax return filed for the taxable year in which the change is made. To change a plan’s limitation year, the administrator would need each employee to make that 1040 filing.
Continue Reading

The IRS decided to handle this “best guess” period by announcing that any 403(b) document could be corrected under a new, special 403(b) Remedial Amendment Program, by that new RAP’s end date. It announced that the beginning of the RAP was the required adoption date for 403(b) plan documents (generally, January 1, 2010). The end of the RAP would be announced once the IRS approves its first set of pre-approved 403(b) documents. Once those first pre-approved documents are released, the IRS promised to announce the “end date.” It has now done that, with Rev Proc 2017-18 announcement of March 31, 2020 as the end of the RAP-which also suggest that the pre-approved documents will be released by that date.

Continue Reading

We may know what is a “Qualified Church Controlled Organization” (which we refer to as QCCOs), and even what a “Non-Qualified Church Controlled Organization (or Non-QCCO), but nothing ever defines just what qualifies as a “church.” In the 403(b) world we often refer to them as “steeple churches,” but that seems just to beg the question as well.
Continue Reading

There is a potential impact of the 403(b) University Lawsuits on the ability of 401(k) plans to maintain self-directed brokerage accounts. These 403(b) plans, with their wide variety of investments which are subject only to the control of the participants, are essentially structured in the same manner as SBDAs (without many of the security law protections that are given 403(b) participants). Should the plaintiffs succeed in their calms that it was imprudent to permit employees the ability to invest in a wide range of securities without fiduciary oversight, this may well be the death knell of SBDAs.
Continue Reading

How do you audit a 403(b) in-kind distribution? There is no financial transaction, no cash changes hands, there is no change in investments. It really is only a nominal change in the records of the insurer. Yet, somehow, GAAP requires that the “transaction” be verified. There is no answer, yet, to this question, which means the industries (that is, auditors, insurers, and lawyers) will be pressed for finding a standardized approach for bringing audit certainty to this process. It even becomes a bigger issue than 403(b)s: QLACs and other distributed annuity contracts are all able to be distributed as “in-kind” distributions from 401(a) plans as well, and there is no acceptable “recordkeeping” method to audit.
Continue Reading

As in all things 403(b), it seems, retirement rules of generally applicability take unusual twists when applied to 403(b)plans. The DOL’s fiduciary rule is not saved from that same problem. A close look reveals interesting twists in the manner in which the rule affects (or doesn’t at all!) 403(b) plans, which simply do not apply to other participant directed defined contribution plans.
Continue Reading

Much has happened since we’ve last posted a blog-upon some of which we could hopefully lend some helpful comments. The press of year end business (a problem which we are delighted to have!) and spending precious family time around the holidays made it difficult to get to those things thoughtfully. We look forward to working

Two issues need to be addressed with a 403(b) plan’s purchase of the collective trust interests of the sort that are typically sold to 401(k) plans: Code Section 403(b) only permits investments in mutual funds and annuity contracts. The CIT interests purchased by 401(a) plans, however, are typically “unitized” non-mutual fund interests. Even if one could overcome the legal and logistical challenges to making them work for the IRS 403(b) rules, there is a serious securities law problem.
Continue Reading

In what appears to be one of the first reported appeals court cases involving school district liability under state law related to a wrongfully administered 403(b) plan a Wisconsin court found was that an action alleging a failure to exercise ordinary care in the administration of a 403(b) plan, if proven, could be a fiduciary breach under state law. This breach then may entitle the participants relief in state court.
Continue Reading