The
funded status of the typical U.S. corporate pension plan increased 0.4
percentage points to 89.9% in November as assets increased faster than
liabilities, according to the BNY Mellon Investment Strategy and Solutions
Group (ISSG).
For
the typical corporate plan in November, assets increased 1.5%, outpacing the
1.1% increase in liabilities, according to the BNY Mellon Institutional
Scorecard. The funded status for the typical corporate plan is now down 5.3%
from the December 2013 high of 95.2%.
In
addition, public defined benefit plans, endowments and foundations beat their
targets in November on the strength of rising asset values.
ISSG
attributed the higher assets for U.S. corporate and public plans in November to
the improvement in U.S. large cap and international developed market equities,
while endowments and foundations benefited from the performance of private
equity and real estate investment trusts.
The
higher liabilities for corporate plans in November resulted from the Aa
corporate discount rate falling six basis points to 4.14% over the month. Plan
liabilities are calculated using the yields of long-term investment grade bonds;
lower yields on these bonds result in higher liabilities.
“The
rebound in funded status in November reversed the damage done in October,” says
Andrew D. Wozniak, head of fiduciary solutions, ISSG. “However, plan sponsors
are bracing for changes in the way regulators view mortality assumptions used
to value liabilities. These changes are likely to drive down the funded status
for sponsors who will report earnings as of December 31, 2014.”
Public
defined benefit plans in November beat their targets by 0.7% as assets rose 1.3%,
according to the monthly report. Year over year, public plans have
underperformed their return target by 0.7%.
For endowments and
foundations, the real return in November was 0.6%, as assets returned 1.0%.
Year over year, endowments and foundations are behind their inflation plus
spending target by 0.5%.
Internal
Revenue Code section 4980I, as enacted by the Patient Protection and Affordable
Care Act (ACA), imposes a 40%, nondeductible excise tax on employers, health
insurance issuers, and/or other entities administering health plan benefits if
the aggregate value of applicable employer-sponsored coverage exceeds a
specified annual dollar limit.
The
tax is referred to by some as the “Cadillac Tax.” We previously answered questions we received regarding the Excise Tax. Below are responses to additional
questions we have received regarding the Excise Tax.
The
“annual limitation” is a dollar threshold based on numerous factors and
adjusted for inflation. For 2018, the
general dollar threshold is $10,200 for self-only coverage, and $27,500 for
coverage other than self-only coverage, but the dollar thresholds are
multiplied by a “health cost adjustment percentage” under which the thresholds
could be increased if health care inflation (measured based on the cost of the
Blue Cross/Blue Shield standard benefit option under the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Plan) from 2010 to 2018 exceeds 55%.
The
dollar threshold is also increased for:
An
age and gender adjustment;
“Qualified
retirees,” defined as an individual who is receiving coverage by reason of
being a retiree, has attained age 55, and is not entitled to benefits or
eligible for enrollment under the Medicare program under title XVIII of the
Social Security Act;
Individuals
who participate in “a plan sponsored by an employer the majority of whose
employees covered by the plan are engaged in a high-risk profession or employed
to repair or install electrical or telecommunications lines.” The term
high-risk profession means certain law enforcement officers and employees in
fire protection activities, individuals who provide out-of-hospital emergency
medical care, certain individuals whose primary work is longshore work, and
individuals engaged in the construction, mining, agriculture (not including
food processing), forestry, and fishing industries. The term also includes an
employee who is retired from a high-risk profession if such employee satisfied
the requirements for a period of not less than 20 years during the employee’s
employment;
Participants
in a multiemployer plan (as defined in Code section 414(f)), who are treated as
always having coverage other than self-only coverage (i.e., having the $27,500
dollar threshold).
In 2019, the
thresholds are indexed for inflation based on increases in the Consumer Price
Index for all-urban consumers (CPI-U) plus one percentage point (rounded to the
nearest $50) and starting in 2020, the threshold amounts are indexed to the
CPI-U (rounded to the nearest $50).
How is the age and
gender adjustment determined?
The
age and gender adjustment is equal to the excess (if any) of (1) the premium
cost of
the Blue Cross/Blue Shield standard benefit option under the Federal Employees
Health Benefits Plan (FEHBP) for the type of coverage provided to an individual
in a taxable period if priced for the age and gender characteristics of all
employees of the individual’s employer, over (2) the premium cost for the
provision of such coverage under such option in such taxable period if priced
for the age and gender characteristics of the national workforce.
The
Joint Committee on Taxation’s Technical Explanation of the Revenue Provisions
in the ACA provides the following example as to how the age and gender
adjustment would be applied.
The new threshold
amounts (as indexed) are then increased for any employee by the age and gender
adjusted excess premium amount, if any. For an employee with individual
coverage in 2019, if standard FEHBP coverage priced for the age and gender
characteristics of the workforce of the employee’s employer is $11,400 and the
Secretary estimates that the premium cost for individual standard FEHBP
coverage priced for the age and gender characteristics of the national
workforce is $10,500, the threshold for that employee is increased by $900
($11,400 less $10,500) to $11,304 ($10,404 plus $900).
Who is responsible
for paying the Excise tax?
The
party responsible for paying the Excise Tax depends on the type of coverage
being offered and each coverage provider’s “applicable share of the excess
benefit.” The health insurance issuer is responsible for paying the share of
the Excise Tax attributable to health insurance coverage that it underwrites. The
employer is responsible for paying the share of the Excise Tax attributable to health
savings account (HAS) and medical savings account (MSA) contributions that are
applicable employer-sponsored coverage. And the “person that administers the
plan benefits” is responsible for paying the share of the Excise Tax
attributable to “any other applicable employer-sponsored coverage.”
Who is responsible
for calculating the Excise Tax?
The
employer sponsoring the plan (or, in the case of a multiemployer plan, the plan
sponsor) is required to (1) determine the total amount of the Excise Tax and
the applicable share of the excess benefit attributable to each coverage
provider responsible for paying the tax, and (2) notify each coverage provider
of the amount that it owes. If the employer (or multiemployer plan sponsor)
inaccurately calculates the total excess benefit or applicable portion of the
excess benefit owed by each responsible party, the employer (or plan sponsor)
could be subject to a penalty equal to 100% of the underpaid portion of the
Excise Tax (in addition to the portion of the Excise Tax to which it is already
subject) plus interest at the IRS underpayment rate.
You can find a handy
list of Key Provisions of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act and
their effective dates at http://www.groom.com/HCR-Chart.html
Contributors:
Christy Tinnes is a
principal in the Health & Welfare Group of Groom Law Group in Washington,
D.C. She is involved in all aspects of health and welfare plans, including
ERISA, HIPAA portability, HIPAA privacy, COBRA, and Medicare. She represents
employers designing health plans as well as insurers designing new products.
Most recently, she has been extensively involved in the insurance market reform
and employer mandate provisions of the health-care reform legislation.
Brigen Winters is a
principal at Groom Law Group, Chartered, where he co-chairs the firm's Policy
and Legislation group. He counsels plan sponsors, insurers, and other financial
institutions regarding health and welfare, executive compensation, and
tax-qualified arrangements, and advises clients on legislative and regulatory
matters, with a particular focus on the recently enacted health-reform
legislation.
PLEASE NOTE:
This feature is intended to provide general information only, does not
constitute legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.