Bankruptcy Appellate Panel Upholds IRA Assets
Exclusion
May 19, 2008 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - A 10th U.S. Circuit
Bankruptcy Appellate Panel has upheld a lower court ruling
that the proceeds of debtor's rolled over benefits from an
employee stock ownership plan (ESOP) are to be excluded from
the debtor's bankruptcy estate.
A bankruptcy appellate panel said a U.S. Bankruptcy
Court judge in Kansas was correct in turning aside an
argument by a creditor that the funds now held in an IRA
should be included in the pool of the debtor’s assets
used to repay debts. The lower court judge ruled – and the
appellate panel agreed – that the creditor had not proven
that the ESOP was improperly established or administered –
a prerequisite for putting the funds into the bankruptcy
estate.
According to the appellate opinion, the ESOP was
established by Volo Holdings in December 2000 as a
retirement benefit for its employees. On March 13, 2002,
the Internal Revenue Service issued a favorable
determination letter stating that the ESOP plan was
properly qualified based on the information supplied by
Volo.
Christopher Joseph Seferyn and Vincent Rook were
the only employees of Volo to participate in the ESOP.
Seferyn and Rook were each 50% owners of Volo and each
owned 50% of the shares of the ESOP, the opinion
said.
Seferyn liquidated the ESOP in December 2004 and
rolled his funds into an IRA. Seferyn later filed for
Chapter 7 bankruptcy relief and listed the IRA as exempt
from his bankruptcy case.
The U.S. Bankruptcy Court for the District of Kansas
denied Missouri Building’s motion for summary judgment
and ruled that Seferyn’s IRA was exempt from his
bankruptcy estate.Missouri Building was one of Seferyn’s
creditors.As of October 14, 2005, the IRA had a value of over
$1.1 million.
Missouri Building arguedthe ESOP was not a qualified retirement plan because
it did not comply with IRS’s Revenue Ruling 2004-4,
which meant the IRA assets should be counted among the
debtor’s bankruptcy estate.“The IRS issued a favorable determination letter
specific to the ESOP established by Volo Holdings in its
organization form at the time of creation. Missouri
Building did not present evidence that the ESOP was
established and administered in any way other than the way
initially approved by the IRS,” the court said.
The appellate ruling in Missouri Building LLC v.
Clark (In re Seferyn), B.A.P. 10th Cir., No. KS-07-094,
unpublished 5/15/08, is available
here
.
May 16, 2008 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - The board of the
nation's largest public pension plan has decided to keep its
powder dry - for now, anyway - on legislation that would open
up the program to some in the private sector.
Yesterday the board of the California Public Employees’
Retirement System (CalPERS) decided to take a neutral stand
on AB 2940, a bill authored by Assemblyman Kevin de Leon,
D-Los Angeles, that would make California the first state
in the nation to open its public retirement plan to workers
in the private sector.
The bill is aimed at the 6 million employees in California
who aren’t offered a pension or retirement savings plan at
work (see
Bill Would Open CalPERS to Private Sector Workers
).
A recommendation to the Benefits and Program
Administration Committee noted that AB 2940 would allow
CalPERS to administer the Program through various
structures that “…could limit its direct involvement in the
management and fiduciary decisions that employers and
qualified retirement plan providers generally make.”
Further that “most of the bill’s requirements can be met
through contracts with private-sector service providers,
with management and oversight provided by CalPERS’
professional staff.”
The analysis presented said that, “In effect, AB 2940 would
allow the Board to determine CalPERS’ level of involvement
in the operations of the Program, from developing and
administering the Program completely in-house, to
contracting-out all these functions to a third party, or a
combination of the two approaches.”
Cost Considerations
The report to the board said that CalPERS’ costs for
developing, administering, and marketing the program
contemplated under AB 2940 could be divided into two
phases: (1) initial development and start-up costs; and (2)
ongoing administration or operating costs.
According to the report, “The estimated start-up costs
would be approximately $1.74 million for 13.2 PYs over an
implementation period of approximately 18 to 30 months,”
including approximately $500,000 in one-time costs
associated with securing the services of outside tax and
securities counsel to, among other things, assist CalPERS
in obtaining the necessary federal regulatory
approvals.
Once the program was operational, CalPERS’ ongoing
administrative costs would range from $806,000 to $1.46
million annually, for 7.7 to 15.4 PYs, according to the
report.
The report also noted that continuing annual appropriations
may be required for an indefinite period pending the
build-up of assets sufficient to generate fee revenues
off-setting CalPERS’ annual operational costs.
The presentation to CalPERS' Benefits and Program
Administration Committee contained the following analysis
of various other retirement savings proposals similar to AB
2940 that have recently been introduced or considered in a
number of other states:
- The Legislature recently considered and rejected
Senate Bill 728, which would have established the Maryland
Voluntary Employee Accounts Program (MVEAP) administered by
the Maryland Teachers and State Employees Supplemental
Retirement Plans. Authorized plan structures under the
MVEAP would have included 401(a) plans, including 401(k)
plans, as well as trusts or savings incentive match plans
under 408(p) of the Code. Instead, and at the Legislature's
instruction, the Maryland Supplemental Retirement Plans
recently conducted a study of Voluntary Employee Accounts
to examine cost efficiencies, potential for state
liability, and organization and administration requirement
with regard to a state-sponsored program.
The study concluded that each participating businesses
would have to routinely and regularly sign and return
documents to a central administrator, provide annual
reconciliation of contribution history, and follow
instructions on distribution and collection of
miscellaneous employee communication materials. It
estimated that the MVEAP would require a subsidy of between
$300,000 and $500,000 a year for at least five to seven
years. Estimated costs included: design and drafting of
special plan documents that describe the structure of the
accounts, specific control mechanisms, and specific
employer responsibilities; draft, submit and obtain rulings
from the IRS and Department of Labor that approve plan
documents with an estimated duration of 12 to 18
months.
- The Legislature has considered five universal
retirement savings proposals since 2003. Last year, it
appropriated money for the Washington Department of
Retirement Systems (DRS) to produce a report scheduled for
release this December, which studies the various legal
issues and obstacles that must be addressed in order to
implement such a plan. The current legislative vehicle is
House Bill 2044, which would create the Washington
Voluntary Accounts Program (WVAP) to offer employees a
vehicle for saving and private employers a method for
offering benefits. The bill designates the State Treasurer
as the custodian of the WVAP account, and allows the DRS to
implement and operate the WVAP either in-house or through
an external third party contract. It also makes
implementation and operation contingent on funding and
allows the DRS to freeze or reduce enrollments and
establish a waiting list if continued enrollment would
cause expenditures to exceed revenues.
- HB 70 expands participation in 457 and 403(b) deferred
compensation plans the State offers to its own employees to
nonprofit corporations or other employers authorized by the
IRC to participate in such DC programs.
- SB 24 would allow small business employees to
participate in a newly established 401(a) pension plan
administered by the Michigan State Department of Management
and Budget.
Connecticut - SB 652 is a one paragraph measure that
requires the State Controller to establish a tax-qualified
defined contribution retirement program to provide
retirement investment plans to self-employed individuals,
small employers with no more than 100 employees, and
non-profit organizations. The Controller is authorized to
contract with a third-party administrator to manage the
plans, and recover implementation and operating costs from
plan assets.
-
SB 652
is a one paragraph measure that requires the State
Controller to establish a tax-qualified defined
contribution retirement program to provide retirement
investment plans to self-employed individuals, small
employers with no more than 100 employees, and non-profit
organizations. The Controller is authorized to contract
with a third-party administrator to manage the plans, and
recover implementation and operating costs from plan
assets.