November 5, 2013 (PLANSPONSOR.com) – The Government Accountability Office (GAO) asked the U.S. Treasury and Department of Labor (DOL) to revise electronic disclosure rules governing employee-sponsored retirement plans to improve clarity and protect participant rights.
The move comes after the DOL’s 2011 request to the GAO for more research on trends in electronic disclosure within qualified retirement plans. Now, two years later, the GAO released a 46-page report on the subject examining the extent to which law and regulation permits electronic disclosures, as well as the impact of advantages and disadvantages presented by the growing practice.
In short, the GAO found federal statutes and regulations under the purview of the DOL and the Department of the Treasury do, in fact, allow employers who sponsor private retirement plans to furnish all related disclosures to participants electronically—but only so long as affirmative consent is attained in advance and participants meet certain Web accessibility requirements.
When neither of these conditions can be met, or when requested by participants, plan sponsors must send paper disclosures.
Industry representatives and participant advocates reported various advantages and disadvantages concerning the use of electronic delivery to the GAO. Both groups agreed that the popularity of electronic delivery continues to grow in the face of new technology efficiencies—such as reduced costs and better digital tracking of disclosures—that can be advantageous to both plan sponsors and participants.
The GAO’s analysis of these concerns identified multiple weaknesses in the current electronic delivery requirements prescribed by the DOL and the Treasury, according to the report. For example, although participants may request paper disclosures at any time, requirements permitting default electronic delivery and sponsors’ use of a secured website to furnish disclosures may not fully protect a participant’s ability to choose paper as their preferred delivery method on an ongoing, rather than a document-by-document, basis.
But
there are a few simple guiding principles to know, according to S. Derrin
Watson, Esq., an attorney who works for SunGard in Goleta, California, with
their Relius line of educational programs and products. Watson shared five
guiding principles for service and eligibility with attendees of the American
Society of Pension Professionals & Actuaries 2013 Annual Conference:
Years
of service are forever; once you’ve earned them, they don’t stop counting.
Warren reminded attendees that years of service can come from many sources, including
the current plan sponsor, related employers, cosponsors of multiple employer
plans and predecessor employers.
Everyone
credited with service has an entry date. This is specified in the plan document
and is generally the first entry date after or coincident with the date the
individual satisfies the plan’s minimum age and service requirement.
An
individual enters the plan on his or her entry date if the individual is an
eligible employee on that date.
A
person who becomes an eligible employee after his or her entry date enters the
plan immediately.
Break-in-service
rules can change these outcomes, but they are very limited.
Watson explained
several scenarios. An employee who satisfies the age and service requirements
for eligibility, and enters the plan on their entry date, but terminates and is
rehired later, re-enters the plan immediately. The same is true for an employee
who meets the requirements but terminates before their entry date and is
rehired later. If an employee satisfies the plan’s service requirement, but
hasn’t met the minimum age requirement, terminates and is rehired later, can
enter immediately if they’ve met the minimum age requirement while not employed
by the sponsor, or must wait for the next entry date following or coinciding
with meeting the minimum age requirement. Finally, an employee who terminates
before he or she meets the minimum service requirement and is rehired later,
must wait to enter the plan on the entry date following satisfaction of the
service requirement.
Break-in-service
rules can throw a glitch in rehire administration; they allow plan sponsors to
disregard service in some situations. Watson explained three break-in-service
rules:
Plan
sponsors that require two years of service for eligibility to enter the plan,
can require two years of service following rehire if an employee did not finish
their two years of service prior to termination.
If
a terminated employee incurs a one-year break-in-service, the plan sponsors can
require them to complete a year of service upon rehire before entering the
plan. However, the plan sponsor must use a retroactive entry date for that
employee, meaning the employee must be able to retroactively contribute to
the plan and get matching contributions. Watson said this rule is only helpful
to plan sponsors if the employee comes back as a part-time employee and never
gets another year of service in a plan year. “Otherwise it is an administrative
headache,” he stated.
The
rule of parity break-in-service rule allows a plan sponsor to treat a rehire as
new for purposes of plan eligibility if he or she had the greater of five
breaks-in-service or breaks-in-service equal to the years of service prior to
termination. This also creates administrative headaches, because if the
employee was paid and had part of his or her account forfeited, the employee
can buy back the forfeiture if he or she repays the distribution, including
deferral amounts. The money must be put back in the source account, but the
plan sponsor and recordkeeper must keep up with the different tax basis for
that amount.
The
Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act (USERRA) can also be
an administrative headache for military personnel reemployed after their
military service. One day of reemployment is all that is needed for retroactive
retirement plan rights, Watson said. They are deemed to have had compensation
during their time away; they must be given time to make deferrals for past
years, and plan sponsors have to keep up with what money is for which year.
They also get match on those deferrals for the respective year, but plan
sponsors do not have to credit earnings or reinstate any forfeitures.
The
Heroes Earnings Assistance and Relief Tax Act (HEART) adds another bump in
administration. Watson explains that HEART provides for employers to pay
military members away doing service the difference between their military pay
and the pay they would receive if they were still working at their daily job.
For retirement plan purposes, the plan sponsor must treat the employees
receiving those payments as if they are still employed, and deferring, if they
were before. Then, if a service member employee returns to employment, USERRA
rules apply for counting full compensation for retroactive contribution
purposes.
It is important to
understand all the rules that affect rehire administration, because, as Watson
said, some present “an opportunity to foul up.”