ICI Measures Adequate Income Replacement

Research findings show Social Security benefits and retirement income from employer-sponsored retirement plans, annuities, and IRAs together provide substantial income for U.S. retirees.

Most American workers maintain or increase their spendable income after claiming Social Security, according to a new analysis of tax data by Investment Company Institute economists Peter Brady and Steven Bass.

Economists Jessica Holland and Kevin Pierce of the Statistics of Income (SOI) Division of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) also contributed to the new analysis, ICI says. The effort involved researchers analyzing tax data from 1999 to 2010, finding that the median worker had replaced 103% of spendable income after claiming Social Security.

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

Findings show Social Security benefits and retirement income from employer-sponsored retirement plans, annuities, and individual retirement accounts (IRAs) together provide substantial income for U.S. retirees. As expected, the analysis contends Social Security is “relatively more important for lower-income individuals,” while private retirement income sources matter more to higher-income individuals.

“Those in the middle receive a similar amount of income from both sources,” ICI finds.

“The vast majority of workers we analyzed reported retirement resources other than Social Security,” Brady observes. “Indeed, 89% of individuals held or drew income from employer plans, annuities, and IRAs. These results suggest that a much higher share of retirees get income from these sources than reported in government surveys, and adds to the mounting evidence that household survey data understate retiree income.”

NEXT: Discretionary income also increases 

ICI says that by “looking at what tax filers, employers, and financial institutions actually report to the IRS, we are able to paint a more accurate picture.”

Findings show, of the 89% of individuals who had non-Social Security retirement resources, the vast majority (81%) received income, either directly or through a spouse, from employer plans, annuities, or IRAs.

“Another 8% had evidence of these resources—a Form 1099-R (reporting a rollover or other retirement account transaction that did not generate income), a Form 5498 (indicating IRA ownership), or both—but were not yet drawing on them,” ICI reports.

The authors of the analysis stress that their research “compares taxpayers’ spendable income, as reported on their tax returns and on information returns provided to the IRS, three years after they claim Social Security with their spendable income the year before they claimed.”

As such, the 103% replacement rate measures for the median taxpayer “indicates that spendable income rose for more than half of taxpayers.” Median replacement rates three years after claiming were higher for individuals in the lowest income quintile (123%), ICI finds, “and lower for top earners (95% for the top 1% of the income distribution).”

ICI has prepared a fact sheet describing the research in more detail, available here.

IRS Examiners Told to Look at Cash Balance Plan Benefit Formulas

A memo offers examples and would be a helpful guide for cash balance plan sponsors to assess whether their plan offers definitely determinable benefits.

A memorandum directs Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Employee Plans (EP) staff reviewing benefit formulas in cash balance defined benefit plans to apply the analysis in an attached Issue Snapshot on Definitely Determinable Benefits.

In general, a qualified plan “within the meaning of section 401(a) is a plan established and maintained by an employer primarily to provide systematically for the payment of definitely determinable benefits to his employees over a period of years, usually for life, after retirement,” the IRS notes. 

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

According to the memo, for a cash balance plan, a determinations specialist reviewing a determination letter request, or an exam agent auditing a plan in which the benefit formula is not the subject of a determination letter, should follow the analysis (including examples) in the attached Issue Snapshot for determining whether a benefit formula based on only a portion of annual compensation, a special bonus, or other measure not based on annual compensation, is “definitely determinable.”

Generally, the memo says, if the terms of the plan specifically allow the employer to vary the employee’s compensation used in the benefit formula (e.g., an employee’s annual compensation less an amount designated by the employer), the plan would violate the definitely determinable rule.

The memo offers examples and would be a helpful guide for cash balance plan sponsors to assess whether their plan offers definitely determinable benefits.

«