Compliance November 3, 2014

Enforcing Plan Limits for 403(b)s Not So Simple

There are unique rules for 403(b) plans that make enforcing contribution and benefit limits not so straightforward.
Reported by

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently announced cost of living adjustments affecting dollar limitations for retirement plans, which included an increase in the elective deferral limit to $18,000 for 2015 and an increase in the age-50 catch up deferral participants are allowed to make to $6,000 for 2015. But for 403(b) plans, according to Susan Diehl, president of PenServ Plan Services, participants are also allowed a special catch up contribution in addition to the age-50 catch up: the 15-years-of-service catch up.

The 15-years-of-service (YOS) catch up is not subject to cost of living adjustments. It is limited to the lessor of:

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

  • $3000;
  • $15,000 minus prior 15 YOS catch up contributions; or
  • ($5,000 X YOS) minus prior elective deferrals (excluding age-50 catch ups).

Catch up contributions made by participants are considered 15 YOS catch ups first, up to the limit, then categorized as age-50 catch ups, Diehl told attendees of the 2014 Association of Pension Professionals and Actuaries (ASPPA) Annual Conference.

Ed Salyers, a certified public accountant (CPA) with his own practice, and former senior tax specialist with the Tax Exempt and Governmental Entities Division of the IRS, told attendees that they should keep all records of participant contributions indefinitely to defend against the IRS because the agency only keeps employee W-2s for 10 years.

There are also different rules for 403(b) plans for Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Section 415 limits on the amount of additions that may be made to participants’ retirement accounts. Specifically, for calculating 415 limits, the 403(b) is not aggregated with another defined contribution (DC) plan offered by the sponsoring employers. So, for example, if a hospital offers both a 401(k) and 403(b) plan for its employees, they must aggregate employee deferrals in the two plans for the individual employee deferral limit, but not for the 415 plan additions limit, Diehl said. Also, if a hospital offers a 401(a) plan to which 403(b) matching contributions are made, it does not have to aggregate the two plans for the 415 limit.

An exception is when the plan participant contributes to another DC plan offered by an employer it controls. For example, Diehl said, a doctor may contribute to a 403(b) plan offered by a hospital to which he is affiliated, but may also have a private practice for which he sponsors a retirement plan. In that case, the 403(b) additions must be aggregated with the DC plan the doctor sponsors, to calculate 415 limits. According to Diehl, if there is an excess to the 415 limit, it always has to be corrected in the 403(b) plan.

Another unique provision of 403(b)s Diehl pointed out is the ability to make contributions on behalf of employees that have separated from service for up to five years after separation. For example, schools sometimes use this provision to put accrued, unused vacation pay into the plan for separate participants rather than pay them. These contributions are considered employer non-elective contributions and may not exceed 415 limits.

Finally, Diehl pointed out that non-profit employers must think differently about what entities would make a controlled group for purposes of aggregating plans sponsored by different employers. There are no owners in non-profits, so they must look at the similarity of their boards of directors. Also, if one entity’s board has the authority to name 80% of another entity’s board, the two entities are part of a controlled group. Ronald J. Triche, associate general counsel and director of Government Affairs for ASPPA, moderator of the conference discussion, added that if two entities that share a budget, training or people may elect to be a controlled group.

Salyers noted that 457 plans also have unique provisions. For the individual deferral limit, employer contributions are also counted, so for 2015, the total of both employee and employer contributions cannot exceed $18,000. However, 457 plans provide for an additional catch up contribution of the lesser of twice the basic dollar limit or underutilized amounts. For 415 limits, 457 plan additions are only aggregated with additions to another 457 plan offered by the same employer. Salyers pointed out there is no formal IRS correction for excess contributions, so 457 plan sponsors “must get it right.”

Administration November 3, 2014

GE Sued for Moving to DC Model for Retiree Health Care

One current and one former General Electric employee have sued the company for moving to a defined contribution (DC) model for retiree health care benefits.
Reported by

According to a lawsuit filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, “By terminating the Plans for plaintiffs and tens of thousands of other current or retired salaried employees, GE is in breach of a promise to participants in the summary plan description (SPD), restated and reaffirmed in July 2012, that GE ‘expects’ and ‘intends’ to continue the GE Medicare Plans ‘indefinitely.’” The lawsuit says GE terminated the GE Medicare Plans for participants younger than age 65 as of January 1, 2015, just two months after the plan restatement in July 2012.

In addition, the lawsuit challenges a subsequent GE decision on September 8, 2014, to cancel the plans for participants older than age 65. Instead, GE will give participants who are older than 65 an account or subsidy of $1,000 a year to assist them in paying for supplemental health insurance on the open market. 

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

According to the complaint, the GE Medicare Benefit Plans include the GE Medical Care Plan for Pensioners (MCPP), the GE Pensioners Hospital Indemnity Plan (PHIP), the GE Pension Prescription Drug Plan (PPDP), and the GE Medicare Insurance Plan for Retirees (GEMIP). In the summary plan description (SPD) for the plans, GE reserves the right to terminate, amend or replace the plans, but the SPD also says, “A decision to terminate, amend or replace a plan may be due to changes in federal law or state laws governing qualified retirement or welfare benefits, the requirements of the Internal Revenue Service, ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] or any other reason.” 

The lawsuit claims GE assumed a fiduciary duty not to exercise or abuse its discretion to terminate the plans except for a serious and good faith reason of the kind set forth in the SPD. 

The lawsuit asks the court to preliminarily enjoin GE from terminating the plans, unless and until GE can demonstrate some serious and good faith reason to justify its action. 

The complaint in Kauffman v. General Electric Co. is here.

«