Final Comparability Regs Published

June 29, 2001 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has issued final regulations (TD 8954) that allow defined contribution and combined defined contribution/defined benefit retirement plans to satisfy nondiscrimination requirements based on plan benefits, rather than contributions.

The final regulations kept the elements of proposed regulations on cross-testing, or so-called new comparability, plans issued on October 5, 2000.

These programs are designed to provide higher profit-sharing rates to highly paid employees. New comparability plans are cross-tested on a projected-benefits basis to meet nondiscrimination rules.

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

Current rules allow employer contributions to be tested on either a present-value basis or cross-tested on a future-value basis that involves projecting benefits that would be payable at retirement. Cross-testing lets a defined contribution plan be tested like a defined benefit plan, essentially focusing not on the current rate of contribution, but on what a particular contribution for a given employee is projected to be – with interest – as an annual benefit paid when the employee reaches age 65.

The primary addition in the final regulations is a limit on the minimum allocation rate that combined plans are required to provide to nonhighly compensated employees under one cross-testing requirement.

Combined Plans Cap

According to BNA, the proposed regulations allowed combined plans to satisfy cross-testing requirements if they are:

  • primarily defined benefit in character
  • consist of broadly available separate plans, or
  • pass a minimum allocation gateway

That gateway occurs when:

  • each nonhighly compensated employee in the plan has an allocation rate that is at least one-third of the allocation rate of the highly compensated employee with the highest allocation rate (if the highest rate is less than 15%, percent)
  • the allocation rate for all nonhighly compensated employees is least 5% (if the highly compensated employee rate is between 15% – 25%) or
  • the allocation for each nonhighly compensated employee is least 5% plus 1 percentage point for each 5 percentage point increment (or portion thereof) by which the highly compensated employees rate exceeds 25%

The final regulations said the allocation rate that combined plans are required to provide for non-highly compensated employees need not exceed 7 1/2% of pay. The imposition of such a limit was recommended as necessary in order to avoid leading to the abandonment of defined contribution plans by employers.

Proposed Rules Expanded

The proposed regulations allowed defined contribution plans to satisfy cross-testing requirements if the plans provided broadly available allocation rates, age-based allocations, or an allocation rate for nonhighly compensated employees that is at least 5 percent of compensation or one-third the highest allocation rate for highly compensated employees–referred to as the minimum allocation gateway.

The proposed regulations also said a defined contribution plan that makes each allocation rate available to a group of employees that satisfies tax code Section 410(b), without regard to the average benefit percentage test, would be treated as having broadly available allocation rates and could use nondiscrimination testing.

The final regulations retain these requirements, and additionally permit two allocation rates to be aggregated such that nonhighly compensated employees with a higher allocation rate can be used to support a lower allocation rate.

The final regulations also allow uniform target benefit plans that do not comply with the safe harbor testing method under Treasury Regulations Section 1.401(a)(4)-8(b)(3) to satisfy the age-based allocations requirement.

In addition, the final regulations broaden the age-based allocations requirement to accommodate plans that achieve a smoother progression into higher rates based on the sum of age and years of service.

The Final Regulations

For MORE on comparability plans, see our PLAN DESIGN Solutions topic .

See Also The New Comparability Formula

And New Take on Comparability

Ex-Pan Am Worker Group Asks for Favorable PBGC Case Ruling

May 5, 2003 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A group of ex-Pan Am workers and retirees that has been battling the federal pension insurer over the size of its members' pension payments for seven years, has now asked a New York federal judge to decide the case in the group's favor before a trial.

>The request by plaintiff the Association of Former Pan Am Employees (AFPAE) came in the group’s 1996 lawsuit in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, according to an AFPAE news release. The suit alleges that that the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), the agency that backs private sector traditional benefit pensions for bankrupt or ailing companies, has underpaid former employees of Pan Am since taking over their five plans in July 1991.

>Among those taken over was Pan Am’s Cooperative Retirement Income Plan, which was underfunded by over $900 million. The PBGC currently pays out $900 million in benefits annually to 14,000 former Pan Am employees.

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

>Since the plan was taken over, the Oceanside, New York-based AFPAE has been waging a campaign to draw public attention to what it claims is the agency’s mismanagement. The group faults the PBGC for poor administration and six years of delays in notifying Pan Am retirees and beneficiaries of its calculation of their retirement benefits. In some cases,  the AFPAE also says the agency’s calculations were wrong.

>The objective of the lawsuit is to have a third party appointed trustee instead of the PBGC, which would then recalculate the benefits. The plaintiffs expected that would raise the benefits about 75% from the levels the PBGC is currently paying to early retirees (See  Reversal Of Fortune).

>Early retirees, such as the lead plaintiffs , are particularly unhappy with the PBGC’s decision to set their benefits at levels they feel are lower than what the Pan Am pension plan provided. The plaintiffs claim that the agency is paying only 45.2% of prior salary levels, while participants are, in fact, owed 79% under agreements Pan Am had with its workers. The PBGC contends that those early retirement benefits could only be given to those who were age 55 with 10 years of service at the time of the plan’s termination. Those who have reached 55 since 1991 are not eligible for those benefits, the agency has contended.

«