(b)lines Ask the Expert – Information Sharing Agreements

May 6, 2008 ((b)lines) - A 403(b) plan sponsor asks: For the time frame between August 24, 2007, and December 31, 2007, should we enter into Information Sharing Agreements with the vendors that currently have a payroll slot with us? We plan to consolidate our list to a smaller number but may not have that task done before January 1, 2009. So what can it hurt if we enter into an Info Sharing Agreement with these companies now so we can focus on getting our written plan document together and ready?

It certainly does not hurt to start thinking about the information sharing agreement (ISA) process now so that you can focus on getting your written plan document ready for 1/1/09. A good case can be made that the goal should be not to let the cart get before the horse, try to determine how your plan will be designed and administered, and then let that determine who will be requested to sign an ISA and what it will say, and put that in place by 1/1/09.

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

However, a deadline is a deadline. If you will still be allowing exchanges among multiple vendors by 1/1/09 and they are not clearly “in the plan” for administrative purposes, you will need them to execute ISAs for any post-2008 exchanges.

Also, there is a lot of confusion about when “information sharing agreements” are and are not required. The “information sharing agreement” rules generally apply as of January 1, 2009, when there are “exchanges” out of a 403(b) contract/custodial account that is a “regular” part of a 403(b) plan. As to pre-2009 exchanges, while under the final 403(b) regulations and clarifying IRS guidance issued in November 2007, you will still need to coordinate (subject to some reasonable, good faith standards) with providers of post-2004 but pre-2009 contracts/custodial accounts that were not transferred out of your plan in a pre-9/25/2007 “90-24 transfer.” A formal ISA does not appear to be required for contracts that ceased receiving contributions prior to 2009. (Some IRS staff members have informally indicated that they interpret Rev. Proc. 2007-71 to require an ISA for pre-2009 contracts that cease to receive contributions only in calendar year 2008, but that is not clear.)

In sum, regardless of which of the above rules apply to you, obtaining ISAs with all providers to which you have made contributions in 2008 may be advisable as a protective measure if you are butting up against the 1/1/09 deadline, but it is not preferable to actually getting everything done by 2009. Also, think carefully about what those ISAs say.

David Levine, Groom Law Group, Chartered

This feature is to provide general information only, does not constitute legal advice as part of an attorney-client relationship, and cannot be used or substituted for legal or tax advice.

Tags
Reported by
Reprints
To place your order, please e-mail Reprints.

Survey Finds Many Women Underinsured

May 5, 2008 (PLANSPONSOR.com) - Many working moms underemphasize their own financial picture, including insurance and annual earnings, and focus on their spouse's financial contribution to the family.

A survey sponsored by The Hartford Group, an insurance provider, found that two-thirds of moms say it is “extremely” or “very important” for their spouse or partner to have disability insurance, compared with only half who say it is “extremely” or “very important” to have coverage themselves. A news release said the poll found less than half of mothers (47%) who work outside the home have short-term disability insurance and even fewer (37%) have long-term disability coverage.

Another possible reason for mothers’ lack of disability coverage is that many are unaware of their vulnerability and what conditions constitute a disability, the release said. Only 24% of mothers surveyed say they completely understand disability insurance. Sixty-one percent of moms surveyed think accidents or injuries are the leading cause of short-term disability.

“The burden on mothers today is enormous, including contributing half and in some cases, all of the household income. Yet, many are not taking an important step to safeguard their family finances,” said Laura Marzi, assistant vice president in The Hartford’s Group Benefits Division, in the news release.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

The Hartford suggested one possible reason mothers perceive a less critical need for income protection is that they often draw smaller salaries than their spouse. In The Hartford’s survey, nearly half of moms polled say they earn under $50,000 per year, with 64% of single mothers earning $25,000 to $50,000 annually. In comparison, a majority of fathers (54%) surveyed draw an annual income of $50,000 to $100,000.

Marzi noted that 97% of mothers surveyed report they would have to change their lifestyle if they lost part of their family’s income for three to six months. In addition, only 6% of moms say that they have saved enough to live off their savings in case they become disabled.

For The Hartford’s survey, independent market research agency Opinauri, Inc., conducted an online survey polling 971 U.S. adults, aged 18-64, in February 2008.

«

 

You’ve reached your free article limit.

  You’re out of free articles!! 

Subscribe to a free PW newsletter - get free online access!

 Don’t leave before subscribing! 

If you’re a subscriber, please login.