Comments Challenge IRS Interpretation of Automatic Features, Roth Matching, Other Provisions

The IRS December grab bag notice provisions on de minimis incentives and terminally ill distributions also received some pushback from the industry.

Industry stakeholders commenting to the Internal Revenue Service about its interpretative notice issued in December are seeking further clarification to guidance on certain features of the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022.

The comment period expired Tuesday.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

The “grab bag” notice, issued in FAQ format, sought to clarify various provisions including: automatic features, de minimis incentives, tax credits, Roth matching contributions, and distributions to the terminally ill.

Automatic Provisions

SECURE 2.0 requires plans created on or after December 29, 2022, to automatically enroll participants at a contribution rate of 3% to 10% starting in 2025. Plans started prior to December 29, 2022, are not subject to this requirement and are “grandfathered” in.

The IRS notice explained that a single-employer plan that is grandfathered under this provision and later joins a multi-employer plan or pooled employer plan that is not granfathered, loses its grandfathered status.

The American Benefits Council argued in its letter that this contradicts the statute and reduces the access that single-employer plans have to MEPs and PEPs. This interpretation could disincentivize single-employer plans from joining MEPs that are otherwise in the interest of their participants, especially if plan sponsors are worried about the increased cost of matching contributions that could result, the ABC wrote.

ABC recommends instead that the IRS should allow the single-employer plan to keep its pre-enactment status within the MEP or PEP. The ERISA Industry Committee made the same request in its letter to the IRS.

ERIC pointed out to the IRS that employers who will be subject to automatic features in 2025 already have participants in their plans. ERIC asked the IRS to clarify that participants already in a plan at a rate below what is described in the law need not be automatically enrolled in a plan in which they are already enrolled. In the event the IRS decides previously enrolled participants must be automatically enrolled at contribution levels of between 3% and 10%, ERIC asked for guidance on the legal status of their previous contribution level and if a participant’s enrollment a rate outside the law’s range can be considered opting out.

De Minimis

SECURE 2.0 permits the use of de minimis incentives to encourage workers to join a plan sponsored by their employer. The IRS notice states that these incentives can only be used to encourage joining a plan and continued participation, and the total incentive cannot exceed $250.

On this issue, ERIC asked the IRS to clarify the value of a speculative award, such as a raffle. Does $250 refer to the maximum award that can be granted, or does it refer to the expected value? A $500 raffle that someone only has a 1% chance of winning actually has an expected value of $5, not $500.

The IRS explained in its notice that any incentive under this section of SECURE 2.0 is considered to be taxable income. ERIC asked if a sponsor can “gross up” the award such that it is $250 in post-tax income, and therefore over $250 in total.

Terminally Ill Distributions

SECURE 2.0 permits terminally ill participants to withdraw from their retirement accounts early without being subject to a 10% penalty. The IRS explained that a participant must provide an attestation from a physician that the participant has a condition that is “reasonably expected to result in death in 84 months or less,” and “a narrative description of the evidence that was used to support the statement of illness or physical condition.”

ERIC’s letter asked the IRS to eliminate the narrative description element of the notice, saying that “such a description is not required by the statute.” ERIC also wrote that there is no real purpose to a narrative requirement since “the physician’s justification or analysis does not appear to be subject to second-guessing or appeal.”

Roth Matching

Section 604 of SECURE 2.0 permits plans to allow participants to receive employer contributions on an after-tax or Roth basis. This means that a worker would pay income taxes on the plan sponsor’s matching contribution in order to receive it post-tax.

The IRS clarified in the December notice that in order to elect this, a participant must first be fully vested in employer contributions. This was intended to avoid a situation in which a participant pays income tax on Roth matching contributions, and then ends their employment with that plan’s sponsor before being fully vested, and then having those contributions revoked on which they already paid taxes.

ERIC noted that many participants on gradual vesting schedules are partially vested and they should be able to receive contributions on a pro-rated basis that equals their vested status into a Roth account. For example, a participant that is 40% vested after 2 years of service ought to be able to receive that 40% as Roth if they chose to, though the IRS’s release would not permit that.

Lastly, ERIC asked that the IRS clarify that a participant may take part of a plan sponsor’s match as a Roth, instead of being forced to make an all-or-nothing choice. An employee with a 6% match, should be allowed to take half as a traditional, pre-tax contribution and half as a Roth if their plan permits it and they elect it. The IRS’s release does not explicitly forbid or permit this.

Comments from ABC, ERIC and the other commenters did not address the tax credits’ section of the IRS’s release.

Motivating Faculty, Staff to Save for Retirement Is Top Concern for Higher Ed Plan Sponsors

Plan sponsors at higher education institutions expressed concerns over their participants’ retirement readiness, but many do not measure the performance of their plans, according to Transamerica research.

Many higher education plan sponsors are worried about the retirement readiness of their faculty and staff and face challenges when it comes to motivating these employees to contribute to their retirement plans. 

According to Transamerica’s new report “Retirement Plan Trends in Higher Education,” which surveyed 99 institutions, 61% of all respondents said their top concern is motivating faculty and staff to save enough for retirement. 

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan benefits news.

This concern was cited as a top challenge by 64% of private institutions, 60% of not-for-profit institutions and 47% of public schools. When broken down by plan type, 68% of institutions whose largest plan is a 403(b) plan say motivating savings is a top concern, compared to 36% for 401(k) plans, 33% for 401(a) plans and 25% for 457 plans.  

While defined benefit plans are not as common as they once were among institutions, Transamerica noted that 24% of responding institutions reported an active DB plan for all faculty and staff, 4% an active DB plan for some faculty and staff and 3% a frozen DB plan.  

Another top challenge among higher education plan sponsors was measuring the success of their retirement plan. When asked if they quantify how prepared for retirement their faculty and staff will be, 62% answered “no.” 

The Transamerica report posed the question: if institutions are not measuring results, how do they truly know whether the plan is successful, and whether participants are prepared? As a result, it is possible that some plan sponsors are misunderstanding, the retirement readiness of their participants, as they have no data to back up their perceptions.  

Of those institutions that measure the success of their retirement plans, the greatest percentage of respondents (25%) said they examine whether participants are on course to replace a given percentage of their income. Other institutions (23%) look at a combination of participation rates and average contribution levels, and 15% said they gauge success with participant engagement metrics, such as usage of online retirement readiness tools, webinar participation and other online activities.  

Lack of Automatic Features 

One factor that may be contributing to plan sponsors’ concerns about motivating their participants to save for retirement is that more than half of the surveyed schools say they do not automatically enroll employees in their retirement plans.  

For plans that use automatic enrollment, Transamerica found that they generally take a conservative approach, as 57% said they automatically enroll employees at 1% to 3% of pay.  

Laura Gaynor, senior vice president at Transamerica, said in an emailed response that this conservative approach may be due to heavy use of defined benefit plans with these organizations, fixed stated employer contributions and potentially the costs associated with automatic enrollment.  

“We expect that there will be a gradual increase in the number of institutions implementing auto-enrollment in the near future,” Gaynor said. “According to the survey, 39% of institutions currently do not offer auto-enrollment, but 9% plan to offer it in the next 12 months. This finding suggests a growing interest in auto-enrollment among higher education institutions. As the benefits of auto-enrollment become more widely recognized, more institutions may choose to implement it in the future.” 

In addition, institutions rarely re-enroll employees who have opted out of the plan. According to the report, only 25% of institutions re-enroll opt-outs annually.  

Transamerica recommended that plans increase default contributions to 6% of pay, with automatic annual increases and annual re-enrollments of participants who opt out, to boost savings rates. 

Of the plans surveyed, only 20% said they have implemented automatic deferral increases, but 7% said they plan to do so in the next year.  

“Automatic enrollment and re-enrollment could bring more awareness to [participants’] retirement plan savings,” Gaynor said. “These features, combined with continued education that rich employer contributions may not be enough for their retirement and gradually seeing their retirement savings grow, will motivate participants to save more.” 

Plan participants at most institutions surveyed are immediately vested and eligible to receive their employer’s matching contribution. A smaller portion (21%) of plans apply cliff vesting, where participants are not vested until after they complete a set number of years with that employer. 

Retirement Readiness Concerns 

By and large, plan sponsors expressed at least “somewhat concern” about the retirement readiness of their participants. 

For example, 43% said they were somewhat concerned that faculty and staff may be unaware of how much money they will need in retirement, and 38% were either “very concerned” or “extremely concerned.” 

When asked whether they were concerned about participants delaying plan entry, 63% of public institutions were not at all concerned, but concerns were higher at not-for-profit institutions, where just 14% reported being not at all concerned about delayed plan entries.  

Participants expressed similar concerns to the institutions that were surveyed, as retirement preparedness nearly topped the list of the “most pressing financial wellness issues” among employees. The cost of living and inflation topped the list for 86% of participants, followed by retirement-income planning for 71% of participants and 42% said saving for health care in retirement is another area of concern.  

Suggestions for Plan Sponsors 

Transamerica researchers suggested that plan sponsors take advantage of the services offered by their plan advisers, consultant or recordkeeper to provide financial wellness tools to participants. They also advised looking for creative ways to encourage plan participation, such as regular communications using targeted emails and text messages suggesting ways to improve retirement readiness.  

The report also emphasized the value of pooled plan arrangements and that institutions can explore these solutions, which assume many of the administrative tasks and much of the fiduciary responsibility of offering a plan.  

Having an investment policy statement, for example, is an important part of maintaining compliance for any retirement plan. While 65% of institutions said they have an IPS, 18% said they were not sure if they had one and 17% said they did not have one.  

“It is concerning that 18% of plans are ‘not sure’ if they have an Investment Policy Statement,” Gaynor said. “An IPS is an important part of maintaining compliance with any retirement plan. It provides a defense against legal action when followed. The need for clarity on whether an IPS is in place could indicate a potential gap in plan governance and oversight, which may lead to increased risk and uncertainty for the plan and its participants. It would be advisable for these institutions to prioritize establishing and maintaining an IPS to ensure proper management and protection of the retirement plan.” 

Having an IPS may be an example of an administrative and fiduciary responsibility that a pooled plan arrangement could help plan sponsors implement. 

Only 13% of institutions that participated in the survey indicated that their plan with the highest number of participants is a pooled arrangement. This data point is not surprising, as the most well-known pooled plan solutions have only been available for 403(b) plans on par with 401(k) plans since the SECURE 2.0 Act was enacted in 2022.  

The majority of respondents (87%) to Transamerica’s survey offered a 403(b) plan, but the survey, conducted in Q2 2023, also included responses from those offering 457, 401(k), 401(a) and defined benefit plans. 

«