Photo of Robert Toth

Bob Toth has more than 30 years of experience in employee benefits law. His practice focuses on the design, administration and distribution of financial products and services for retirement plans.

It has now been a dozen years since the IRS issued Revenue Procedure 2007-71, which was written in response to the logistical difficulties which arose from the mammoth changes imposed by the 2007 changes to the 403(b) regulation. The value of this  Rev Proc endures; and is particularly helpful when plans restate their 403(b) plan docs and need to do things like name their vendors;  have Information Sharing Agreements; and try to make plan redesign decisions.
Continue Reading

DOL’s new Field assistance Bulletin, 2019-01 is designed to correct common MEP Form 5500 filing issues. The most telling stories about this FAB is that (1) it establishes the data  groundwork that both the DOL and the IRS need to determine what requirements will need to be imposed when RESA and SECURE (or their successors) eventually pass; and (2) for those who argued that this data is somehow an unwarranted imposition of an administrative burden on MEP operations need to be prepared, I think, for a substantial new set of regulations over time designed so that the agencies have sufficient information to fulfill their mandate.
Continue Reading

It is worth now considering of the impact of 2008 MOU between the SEC and the DOL on fiduciary enforcement, with the publication of the SEC’s new Reg IB on fiduciary duties and the suggestions from EBSA that a a new fiduciary rule will be closely related to that of the SEC. What will happen where you have two broadly empowered federal agencies working from what may be the same playbook (or at least very similar ones), where you already have a well established, coordinated cross-enforcement structure in place?

Continue Reading

The proposed reg is welcome as a purely technical and structural matter. But the relief may be mostly illusory. The “bad apple” problem has always sounded worse than it is and may have been able to be  fixed by a simple adjustment to the Maximum penalty Amount rules under EPCRS, and to the rules as to who should be responsible for that penalty.

But the IRS proposal only really addresses small part of what actually happens when a plan is forcibly spun off, which may take a significant regulatory effort-especially if RESA/SECURE become law.
Continue Reading

It is a very common practice in the 403(b) market for an employer to specifically identify the percentage of compensation it will deposit as an employer contribution to their 403(b) plan: percentages as high as 8, 10 or 12% are not uncommon, especially in higher education. There had been a raging debate in the past as to whether or not this practice of identifying a specific percentage of compensation as the employer formula made the plan a “money purchase plan.” It has been typical for 401(a) plan sponsors to treat plans with set percentage of compensation as “Money Purchase Plans”, where the employer has not reserved the right to, instead, make it a discretionary profit-sharing contribution. But does this rule apply to 403(b) plans?

Continue Reading

The Portman-Cardin Bill, the “Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2019,” introduces sweeping changes to 403(b) plans by expanding their investment universe. These changes, however, also required modification to the Securities Laws otherwise applicable to 403(b) plans in order for them to work. A few, critical, issues have gone unanswered in the legislation, and there are a number of transition issues which we will have to be addressed.
Continue Reading

For all the noisy support being generated for the changes to Multiple Employer Plan arrangements in RESA and SECURE, little notice is being given to the provisions which are likely to have a much more meaningful impact on the ability for smaller plans to obtain the advantages of scale: the rules permitting the “Combined Annual Report for Groups of Plans.”
Continue Reading

One of the more curious results of the failure of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018 to amend 403(b)(11) to provide for the same hardship relief that was granted to 401(k) plans is that the “hardship” distribution of QNECs and QMACs aren’t really hardship distributions.

This has a very real practical and operational effect.
Continue Reading

The comment letter addresses the DOL’s main concern in initially prohibiting non-PEO commercial enterprises from becoming MEP sponsors. The Department is concerned that allowing any commercial enterprise to sponsor a MEP  would turn ERISA into a purely “commercial” statute. Any company- whether or not it is a large financial service company or a smaller service provider-who can meet all of the MEP sponsor compliance rules should be entitled to sponsor a MEP, and the marketplace would be better for it. And ERISA would maintain its validity as a strong, employment based set of laws.
Continue Reading

There is a difficulty, which is inherent to bulk IRA programs: IRAs are individually owned investment contracts, which are under the control of the former participant-even though they are set up by the former employer. Using negative consent triggers fiduciary status. This also demonstrates that there is a whole range of other laws which come into play when dealing with IRAs. 
Continue Reading