(b)lines Ask the Experts – Correcting 457 Plan “Unforeseeable Emergency” Distribution
March 18, 2014
(PLANSPONSOR (b)lines) – “We sponsor both a 403(b) plan and a 457(b) ‘top-hat’ deferred compensation
plan for select management/highly compensated employees.
“The 403(b) plan
allows for hardship distributions and the 457(b) plan permits in-service
distributions for an unforeseeable emergency. As the plan sponsor, we approve
such distributions, which is the source of my question. Unfortunately, since so
few in-service distributions are requested for the 457(b) we incorrectly
approved such a 457(b) distribution under the 403(b) hardship safe-harbor
standard rather than the unforeseeable emergency standard. How do we correct
this error?”
Michael A. Webb, vice
president, Retirement Practice, Cammack Retirement Group, answers:
First
of all, there is a small possibility that an error has not occurred! Since you
utilized an incorrect distribution procedure, you may wonder why this is the
case. The reason that an error may not exist is some types of distributions
satisfy BOTH an unforeseeable emergency standard AND a hardship provision. An
example of such overlap is a distribution to prevent eviction or foreclosure on
a participant’s primary residence, which is both an unforeseeable emergency
under 457(b) AND a hardship under 403(b). In this case, there is no plan
defect.
However,
if the reason for distribution would NOT qualify as an unforeseeable emergency
under 457(b) (e.g. a distribution for PURCHASE of a primary residence of the
participant), then indeed you have an operational defect in the 457(b) plan.
The not-so-good news is that the primary resource for correction of retirement
plan defects, known as the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS),
does not include 457(b) plans, though it is possible to submit corrections to
the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) under similar procedures. In addition, with
distribution defects, the primary method of correction, restoration of assets
to the plan, is often unavailable, since the participant has typically already
spent the distribution in question. Thus, you should consult with benefits
counsel well versed in such plans to discuss the appropriate method of
correction.
Finally,
you may wish to consider moving some of the approval function for such
distributions to your vendor, if possible. Providers often have extensive
experience with confirming that withdrawals satisfy all applicable plan
provisions. You can still retain ultimate responsibility for withdrawal
approval if desired, but a vendor review process may well have prevented the
operational error that you cited.
As
always, the Experts thank our readers for their thoughtful questions: there
would be no Ask the Experts without readers to pose inquiries!
NOTE:
This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute
legal advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.
March 17, 2014 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - There are many factors plan sponsors must consider in selecting the most appropriate and cost efficient retirement plan platform.
On July 1, 2012, the Department of Labor (DOL) enacted
new regulations under ERISA Section 408(b)(2). In accordance with the revised
regulations, fees paid by a Covered Plan to a Covered Service Provider must
also be “reasonable” to avoid triggering a prohibited transaction. Section
408(b)((2) now defines responsible parties and clarifies the actions they must
take in order to earn an exemption from the prohibition against final fee
disclosures.
Under the new rules, a Covered Plan is any ERISA-covered
qualified retirement plan (401(k), 403(b), profit sharing, defined benefit
plans), whether or not the plan is participant-directed. A Responsible Plan Fiduciary (RPF) is any
person(s) involved in “operating” a plan (plan entrance, extension, or
renewal). Typically, this is the plan sponsor.
A Covered Service Provider (CSP) is any service provider requiring
direct or indirect fees expected to be more than $1,000 for such services
including, for example, investment advisory, actuarial, and recordkeeping.
The burden for complying with the current 408(b)(2)
regulation falls to both the CSP and the RPF when the plan meets the definition
of a “Covered Plan.”
CSPs are required to provide RPFs with the following
written disclosures:
• Members’ fiduciary status, descriptions of all services
to be provided, fees to be
charged for
services provided, whether direct or indirect.
RPFs are required to:
• Thoroughly review and determine that fees are
reasonable and accurate and
take action if
fees are not disclosed.
• Report the CSP to the DOL within 30 days if required
disclosures are not
received within
90 days of the date the request for disclosures was made.
• Replace CSPs failing to comply with necessary protocols.
Plan sponsors can now make an informed decision as to
whether there is an opportunity to reduce the cost of their retirement plan
either by negotiating a lower fee with the current provider or switching to
another, lower cost provider.
Fortunately, plan sponsors have resources to call on for assessing
their options and determining which of the myriad platforms are best suited for
the company/plan participants.
One such resource is the Department of Labor, which is
charged with protecting the interests of plan fiduciaries and participants.
(The DOL website is an excellent resource for both fiduciaries and
participants).
Another resource is an independent retirement plan adviser.
Those individuals who combine the requisite qualifications with absolute objectivity
play a very important role in guiding plan sponsors through the process of
selecting the right platform, and in assisting plan fiduciaries in controlling
costs, maintaining compliance, and seeking to minimize risk.
Assessing Plan Costs
Performing a quantitative analysis is one component in
the process of determining whether your plan meets the “reasonability” standard
with regard to costs. In the event you conclude you must lower costs as a
result of this analysis, your options can range from simply moving to funds
with lower fees (including index funds) to changing platforms. It should be
noted that “reasonable” does not always translate to the lowest cost option,
nor should it.
There are, however, risks involved in not subjecting your
plan to deeper analysis.
In other words, simply deploying a quantitative solution
to complying with 408(b)(2) typically may not rise to the definition of “best
practice.” More specifically, in addition to the quantitative analysis, you
should consider conducting an overall risk or qualitative assessment of your
plan.
When the results are viewed
in combination, the quantitative and qualitative analysis will measurably
enhance the prospect of making the best possible decision for your plan and
participants.
And, to develop
the basis for these analytics, you
should explore the advantages of adopting a systematic, repeatable (ongoing) methodology
for monitoring the inevitable changes within the retirement plan industry, and
for monitoring and benchmarking both your plan provider’s services and your
fund managers’ performance.
Many advisers focus only on the quantitative measures of
cost reduction. Treasury Partners views this as “backwards thinking” because,
in a vast majority of situations, a core focus on overall risk reduction will
most likely lead directly to cost reduction.
The Advisory Role
An adviser
can perform an extensive analysis on your plan, and based on that analysis,
recommend you negotiate improvements to the plan with your service provider,
including negotiating lower fees.
In addition, if
you have not taken your plan “to market” in several years, you should do so as
a means of assessing the competitive landscape and fulfilling one aspect of your
fiduciary responsibilities.
About The Author
Steve Bogner is a director
with Treasury Partners, and is responsible for the firm’s retirement planning
services. His areas of expertise include control/restricted stock, defined
contribution/benefit plans, life insurance/annuities, and estate planning. He
is a Certified 401(k) Professional (C(k)P), and holds Series 7, 31, and 63
securities licenses, a Series 65 investment advisor license, and is life and
health insurance licensed.
About Treasury
Partners
Headquartered in New
York City, Treasury Partners is a team of 19 investment, portfolio management,
analytical, and administrative professionals. Treasury Partners delivers an
array of wealth management, corporate cash management, and retirement planning
services.
Treasury Partners is
registered with HighTower Securities, LLC, member FINRA, MSRB, and SIPC, and
& HighTower Advisors, LLC, a registered investment advisor with the SEC. See http://treasurypartners.com.
About HighTower
Advisors
HighTower is a
financial services firm offering a platform that blends objective wealth
management advice with innovative technology. See http://hightoweradvisors.com.
NOTE: This feature
is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal
advice, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.