February 2011
The following highlights the most significant New Developments published in the Pension Plan Guide since the last update on January 31, 2011.
During the past month: the Employee Benefits Security Administration has extended the applicability date for the new disclosure rules applicable to service providers under ERISA Sec. 408(b)(2) to January 1, 2012; the IRS has clarified application of the QJSA rules under Code Sec. 401(a)(11) and Code Sec. 417 to distributions under an investment option that provides guaranteed annual lifetime income; and The White House has issued a fiscal year 2012 budget that includes a proposal that would require employers that do not sponsor qualified plans to provide for automatic enrollment in individual retirement accounts or annuities.
In the courts, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled that plan participants in 401(k) plans may be able to bring a class action for breach of fiduciary duty involving excess fees and imprudent investment options if the class is properly defined to ensure that the applicable typicality and adequacy of defense requirements. In a separate case, the court further concluded that plan fiduciaries did not breach duties imposed under ERISA by including and maintaining a company stock fund as a plan investment option. Absent ``imminent financial collapse’’ of the company the stock fund could not be treated as an imprudent investment option, the court explained.
Finally, the First Circuit Court of Appeals has held that the anti-cutback rule does not prohibit the elimination of an unexercised option to transfer funds from a profit-sharing plan to a pension plan.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
1. EBSA Extends Applicability Date of Fee Disclosure Rules to January 1, 2012
The Employee Benefits Security Administration will extend the applicability date for the new disclosure rules applicable to service providers under ERISA Sec. 408(b)(2) to January 1, 2012. The interim final rules had been scheduled to apply to plan contracts or arrangements for services in existence on or after July 16, 2011. The extension will allow the DOL to review comments and develop final rules that will ensure better compliance.
Plan fee disclosure rules. The final regulations are designed to provide plan fiduciaries with sufficient information to evaluate the reasonableness of compensation and fees directly and indirectly paid to certain service providers (including affiliates), and assess the potential for conflicts of interest that may affect the performance of a service provider. A service contract or arrangement would not be reasonable, for purposes of the prohibited transaction exemption authorized under ERISA for necessary plan services, unless covered service providers (including fiduciary service providers, banks, consultants, investment providers, and third party administrators) complied with a series of new disclosure requirements.
Absent compliance by the service provider with the disclosure requirements, the plan fiduciary would be subject to liability for engaging in a prohibited transaction. However, the DOL has incorporated a Class Exemption into the final regulations that would relieve a fiduciary of liability for a Prohibited Transaction resulting from a service provider's failure to comply with the notice requirements. The fiduciary may not have had knowledge of the service provider's compliance failure and would be required to take actions upon discovering the failure, including notification of the DOL.
The regulations are set forth at PEN Par 24,808T. The rules are detailed at PEN Par. 4635.
The extension of the applicability date of the fee disclosure rules was reported in PEN Report 1876 (February 21, 2011).
2. Seventh Circuit Opens Door for Class Action Fiduciary Breach Claims under 401(k) Plans
Plan participants in 401(k) plans may be able to bring a class action for breach of fiduciary duty involving excess fees and imprudent investment options if the class is properly defined to ensure that the applicable typicality and adequacy of defense requirements are satisfied, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. However, the court vacated a class certification that was so broad and diffuse as to not allow for a determination of whether there was sufficient congruence between the interests of members of the class.
Class action suits allege excess fees and other fiduciary breaches. Participants in 401(k) plans maintained by Boeing and International Paper brought separate suits under ERISA, alleging various breaches of fiduciary duty. Specifically, it was charged that the fiduciaries: caused the plans to pay excessive fees and expenses (through contract fees and revenue sharing for mutual funds in the plans); included improper investment options in the plans; and concealed material information from participants regarding plan fees and expenses and plan investment options.
The trial court granted each of the participant representatives' motions to certify a class under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(1) (Rule 23). The class definition adopted by the trial court included "all persons, excluding the Defendants and/or other individuals who are or may be liable for the conduct described in the Complaint... who are, were, or may have been affected by the conduct set forth in the Complaint, as well as those who will become participants or beneficiaries of the Plan in the future."
The companies appealed, arguing that the class definition did not meet the applicable procedural requirements. More broadly, the companies asserted that class treatment is never permissible for actions under a defined contribution plan because each employee chooses which instrument to include in his or her account and the amount of the investment. The Seventh Circuit consolidated the cases in order to review the disputed class certification.
Class action fiduciary breach claims under DC plans. Initially, the appeals court found that individual participants in a DC plan are not precluded, under LaRue v. DeWolff, Boberg & Associates (552 U.S 248 (2008) and PEN Par. 24,002A), from bringing fiduciary breach claims as a class action. However, LaRue does not guarantee individual participants the right to proceed as a class. The Seventh Circuit emphasized that before deciding whether to allow a case to proceed as a class action, a trial court must make the factual and legal inquiries necessary under Rule 23. It is not sufficient for the trial court to review the complaint and ask whether, taking the facts as the party seeking the class presents them, the case seems suitable for class treatment.
With respect to the Boeing plan participants, the court initially found that the charge that the company imposed excess fees on participants and the claim that the company failed to satisfy its fiduciary duties in the selection of investment options described problems that could operate across the plan, rather than just at an individual level. Accordingly, the court concluded that the proposed class met the commonality requirement of Rule 23(a)(2).
However, the court was unable to determine whether the typicality requirement of Rule 23(a)(3) was met because the class was defined too broadly to allow it to ascertain whether there was sufficient congruence between the investments held by the named plaintiffs and those held by the unnamed members of the class. A class representative in a DC case, the court explained, must "at a minimum, need to have invested in the same funds as class members."
In addition, the court could not determine, because of the size of the class, whether the adequacy of defense requirement of Rule 23(a) was met. The court suggested that some members of the broadly defined class could actually be harmed by the relief being sought.
With respect to Rule 23(b), the court stressed that, absent a common interest between the class members, it could not assume that an adjudication of one person's claim would be dispositive of the interests of other members not parties to individual adjudication or would substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests (as required under Rule 23(b)(1)((B)).
The court further found that the failure to satisfy the requirements of typicality and adequacy of defense also applied to the class of International Paper participants. According to the court, there was no guarantee that the misrepresentation claims of the lead plaintiff were typical of the other members of the class. Similar problems pertained to the imprudent investment option claims and excess fee charges.
Note: The court suggested that a more clearly defined class could satisfy the Rule 23(a) requirements. In defining the class more narrowly on remand, the trial court would, however, need to assure the class representatives, at a "meaningful level of detail" stand in the same position as the absentee members of the class.
Spano, et al., v. The Boeing Company, et al., and Beesley, et al., v. International Paper Company, et al., were reported in PEN Report 1875 (February 4, 2011) at Par. 24,008L.
3. Decline in Stock Price Did Not Establish Selection of Company Stock Fund as Plan Investment Option as Imprudent
Plan fiduciaries did not breach duties imposed under ERISA by including and maintaining a company stock fund as a plan investment option, according to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. The ERISA Sec. 404(c) safe harbor did not shield the fiduciaries from the charge that the investment option was imprudent. However, absent ``imminent financial collapse’’ of the company, the stock fund could not be treated as an imprudent option.
Stock drop follows failed business deal. A large U.S. telecommunications company lent over $1.8 billion to a Turkish company in 1999 pursuant to a project to improve the infrastructure for mobile telephone service in Turkey. The Turkish company, however, effectively defaulted on the loan in May 2001.
The stock of the company was trading at $30 per share on May 16, 2000, the day the company filed a 10-Q Report with the SEC that announced planned sales to the Turkish company, but did not disclose the financing arrangement. In March 2001, the company’s proxy statement revealed that $1.7 billion of the company’s $2.8 billion in gross long-term financing was tied up with the Turkish company. In April 2001, following further disclosures in the financial press, the company stock dropped from $14.95 to $11.50 per share. By the end of the class period under review, the value of the stock had increased to $15 per share. The stock fluctuated upwards, but closed at $15 per share on December 31, 2001, when the company reported a net loss of $5.5 billion for the year.
The company maintained a 401(k) plan that allowed participants to manage investments in their individual accounts. In addition the plan was structured as an ERISA 404(c) plan, under which participants were solely responsible for allocating assets among the various funds offered and supported by the plan. Among the plan investment options was a company stock fund in which participants could invest up to 100 percent of their assets.
Plan participants invested in the company stock fund filed suit against the company, the profit-sharing committee, and various plan fiduciaries alleging that the fund violated ERISA by:
The trial court issued summary judgment for the fiduciaries, ruling that that fiduciary’s actions were shielded from liability under ERISA Sec. 404(c).
ERISA 404(c) does not apply to claim of imprudent fund selection. The initial issue addressed by the court was the application of the ERISA Sec. 404(c) defense to the charge of imprudent fund selection. The court explained that ERISA Sec. 404(c) shields a fiduciary from liability for the consequences of decisions over which it had no control, but which were in the sole control of the participant. The court agreed with the Department of Labor that the selection of plan investment options and the decision to continue offering a particular investment vehicle are acts to which fiduciary duties attach. These acts are not within a participant’s power to control and, thus, the court explained, are not acts to which the 404(c) safe harbor applies
ERISA Sec. 404(c), accordingly, did not shield the fiduciaries from liability for the allegedly imprudent decision to include the company stock fund in the plan’s investment menu. However, the court rejected the argument that the mere drop in the price of the company stock was sufficient proof that the company stock fund was an imprudent investment choice. The existence of other investment options in the plan, the court reasoned, offered assurances that the plan was adequately diversified and that a participant’s retirement portfolio could not be held hostage to the company’s fortunes.
In addition, the court stressed that the evidence did not indicate that the company was facing ``imminent collapse.’’ The volatility of the company stock was within the bounds of reason and expectation as described in plan documents. The company was financially sound and nothing should have tipped the plan fiduciaries off to the proposition that the company’s stock fund had ``become so risky or worthless’’ that the company stock fund had to be withdrawn from the plan immediately.
Note: The impact of the fact that ERISA Sec. 404(c) does not shield allegedly imprudent investment choices is, thus, effectively neutralized by the high threshold for liability established by the Seventh Circuit. Under the standard articulated by the Seventh Circuit, a company stock fund will not be treated as an imprudent investment option absent evidence of the ``imminent collapse’’ of the company.
Failure to disclose shielded by ERISA 404(c). The participants alleged that ERISA Sec. 404(c) did not apply because the fiduciaries did not adequately describe the risk and return characteristics of the stock fund and allegedly concealed material information about the company’s financial problems and other material non-public funds related to the stock fund that prevented participants from making informed investment decisions and exercising control of their individual accounts.
The court found that the plan’s SPDs, annual reports, benefits statements, and Prospectus, all of which described the company stock fund as a high risk option, satisfied the requirement under ERISA Reg. 2550.404c-1(b)(2)(i)(B)(1)(ii) that the fiduciary provide a ``general description of the investment objectives and risk’’ of the stock fund.
In determining whether the fiduciaries concealed material information, the court applied the general fiduciary obligation under ERISA, which requires the disclosure of ``material facts affecting the interests of plan participants and beneficiaries.’’
A violation of ERISA’s disclosure requirement, the court explained, requires evidence of either an ``intentionally misleading statement, or a material omission where the fiduciary’s silence can be construed as misleading.’’ Evidence that a fiduciary ``negligently misrepresented’’ information, the court stressed, is not sufficient to establish a violation of ERISA’s disclosure duty. Rather, the Seventh Circuit (in contrast to the Sixth and Ninth Circuits) conditions a violation of the disclosure obligation on a ``deliberated misstatement.’’
Applying these principles, the court noted that the fiduciaries were not required to provide all information about the company’s business decision in ``real time’’ to plan participants. The participant failed to present evidence that the fiduciaries misled them or violated ERISA by failing to inform the participants about problems with the business transaction in a more timely fashion.
Note: Under the court’s analysis, the fiduciaries, by complying with the general disclosure duty under ERISA, also effectively satisfied the ERISA 404(c) conditions governing the disclosure of material information.
ERISA 404(c) protects fiduciaries from failure to monitor charge. The court also ruled that ERISA Sec. 404(c) shielded the fiduciaries from the charge that they failed to appoint competent personnel to manage the plan and neglected to monitor committee members and provide them with necessary information. The duty to monitor, the court advised does not require fiduciaries to review all business decisions made by plan administrators. The conditions necessary for the application of the ERISA Sec. 404(c) safe harbor were met, the court concluded, because plan procedures required annual renewal of committee appointments, periodic reports by the committee, and an outside auditing of the plan.
Howell v. Motorola, Inc., et al., and Lingis, et al., v. Dorazil were reported in PEN Report 1877 (February 28, 2011) at Par. 24,008P.
4. Elimination of Transfer Option That Caused Reduction in Accrued Benefits Did Not Violate Anti-Cutback Rule
The anti-cutback rule does not prohibit the elimination of an unexercised option to transfer funds from a profit-sharing plan to a pension plan, according to the First Circuit Court of Appeals.
An individual participated in a pension plan and a profit-sharing plan. Benefits under the pension plan were subject to an offset, pursuant to which a participant's pension benefit would be reduced by his account balance in the profit-sharing plan. When the participant retired in March 2004, the plans also contained a "transfer option" that would have enabled the participant to transfer his profit-sharing balance into the pension plan and, thereby, avoid the offset. The participant was aware of the option and received estimates of his benefits under the option. However, he did not actually exercise the option.
Subsequent to the participant's retirement, the employer amended the plans, effective December 31, 2004, to eliminate the transfer provision. After being denied the right to exercise the option in 2008 (at age 62), the participant filed suit, alleging that the amendment violated the anti-cutback rules, which generally prohibits plan amendments that decrease accrued benefits.
The First Circuit initially noted that the amendment had the incidental effect of significantly reducing the participant's projected benefits. However, the court explained that IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4, Q-A 2(b)(2)(viii) explicitly authorizes the elimination of plan provisions permitting the transfer of benefits between and among plans. Limiting language contained in IRS Reg. 1.411(d)-4, Q-A 2(a)(3)(i) and Q-A 3(a) does not, the court stressed, afford protection for a transfer option (or other ancillary benefit) even when its elimination results in a reduction of protected benefits.
Tasker v. DHL Retirement Savings Plan, et al , was reported in PEN Report 1874 (February 7, 2011) at Par. 24,008K.
5. Election to Receive Guaranteed Benefits Under 401(k) Annuity Option Triggers QJSA Requirements
The IRS has issued a private letter ruling clarifying the application of the QJSA rules under Code Sec. 401(a)(11) and Code Sec. 417 to distributions under an investment option that provides guaranteed annual lifetime income. According to the IRS, the election to receive the guaranteed benefits, but not the election to participate in the investment option, will require the benefit to be paid as a qualified joint and survivor annuity.
Target date fund would provide guaranteed annual lifetime retirement income. A limited partnership sponsored a 401(k) plan that proposed a new plan investment option consisting of a target date fund that would provide guaranteed annual lifetime retirement income. Participants would be able to choose to invest all or a portion of their funds in the plan under the option.
Under the option, as retirement age approaches, a portion of the participant's investments would be automatically directed into group flexible premium variable deferred annuity contracts issued by insurance companies. The portion of the participant's funds invested in the option that would be directed towards variable annuity contracts would be gradually phased in, beginning at the time the participant attained age 50. By the time the participant attained age 60, all funds in the option would be invested in variable annuity contracts. Because of the guaranteed secured lifetime income benefit, a participant's investment in equity markets relative to fixed income investments would not (unlike traditional target date funds) be adjusted downwards as the participant approached retirement age.
Upon retirement (but no earlier than age 62) a participant may elect to receive lifetime payments in amounts determined as a guaranteed percentage of the asset value of the portion of the participant's individual account under the option. Alternatively, a participant may decline to make an election and withdraw funds on an ad hoc basis until all funds have been withdrawn from his or her account.
In the event a participant makes a withdrawal election, the participant, absent any further action, will receive guaranteed withdrawals for the remainder of his or her lifetime in amounts equal to or greater than the initial guaranteed withdrawal amount. Note, although guaranteed withdrawals would be treated as withdrawals from the participant's account for purposes of determining the participant's account balance, the guaranteed withdrawals would be paid regardless of the amount of funds, if any, remaining in the participant's account.
A participant who never makes the guaranteed withdrawal election would be allowed to withdraw funds from his or her account on an ad hoc basis. However, once all funds were withdrawn from the account, the participant would not be entitled to any additional benefits.
Regardless of when or if a participant chooses to make the guaranteed withdrawal election, in the event of a participant's death the participant's remaining account balance, would be paid to the participant's spouse (and not a nonspousal beneficiary).
Guaranteed withdrawals as life annuity under QJSA rules. The initial issue reviewed by IRS was whether guaranteed withdrawals under the option would constitute a life annuity for purposes of the qualified joint and survivor rules of Code Sec. 401(a)(11) and 417. Note, the joint and survivor requirements generally do not apply to self-directed 401(k) plans unless a participant elects payments in the form of a life annuity.
Initially the IRS explained that, under IRS Reg. 1.401(a)-11(b)(1)(i), a life annuity is an annuity that provides retirement benefits and conditions payments or possible payments under the annuity on the survival of the participant. The IRS noted that the election by a participant to begin guaranteed withdrawals would be an election by the participant of an annuity that provided retirement payments and required the survival of the participant as a condition of receiving annuity payments. Accordingly, IRS concluded that the election to receive guaranteed life withdrawals (but not the election to merely participate in the investment option) would be an election to receive benefits in the form of a life annuity, requiring application of the QJSA requirements.
Annuity starting date. The second issue addressed by IRS was the applicable annuity starting date for QJSA purposes. The annuity starting date, under Code Sec. 417(f)(2)(A) is the first day of the first period for which an amount is payable as an annuity, or (if the benefit is not payable as an annuity) the first day on which all events have occurred which entitle the participant to a benefit.
The IRS concluded that the applicable annuity starting date for QJSA purposes would be the date the participant elects to receive the guaranteed benefit and the dates (if any) that an increase in the guaranteed withdrawal amount occurs as a result of an internal transfer or an external rollover. As a consequence of the IRS position, a QJSA waiver and any required spousal consent would need to be provided within 180 days prior to the participant's election to receive the guaranteed benefit (or the date of an increase in the guaranteed amounts). Absent such a waiver under Code Sec. 411, the guaranteed annual lifetime retirement benefit would need to comply with the QJSA rules.
IRS Letter Ruling 201048044 (September 9, 2010) was reported in PEN Report 1874 (February 7, 2011) and reproduced at Par. 17,433C.
6. Obama 2011 Budget Would Require Employers to Provide Automatic IRAs
President Obama’s fiscal year 2012 budget includes a proposal that would require employers that do not sponsor qualified plans to provide for automatic enrollment in individual retirement accounts or annuities. The proposal would also double the tax credit for small employer plan startup costs to $1,000. The proposals would become effective after December 31, 2012.
Automatic IRAs. Under the 2012 budget proposal (as in the 2011 budget proposal), employers in business for at least two years that have more than ten employees would be required to offer an automatic IRA option to employees, under which the employees could elect to voluntarily make regular contributions to an IRA on a payroll-deduction basis. The employer would not be required to make any contributions. In addition, if the employer sponsored a qualified retirement plan, SEP, or SIMPLE plan for its employees, it would not be required to provide an automatic IRA option for its employees.
The employer offering automatic IRAs would be required to provide employees with a standard notice and election form informing them of the automatic IRA option and allowing them to elect to participate or opt out. Any employee who did not provide a written participation election would be enrolled at a default rate of 3% of the employee’s compensation in an IRA. Employees could opt out or opt for a lower or higher contribution rate up to the IRA dollar limits. Employees could choose either a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA, with a Roth IRA being the default selection.
Contributions by employees to automatic IRAs would qualify for the saver’s credit to the extent the contributor and the contributions otherwise qualified. Employers could claim a temporary tax credit for making automatic payroll-deposit IRAs available to employees. The amount of the credit for a year would be $25 per enrolled employee up to $250, and the credit would be available for two years. The credit would be available both to employers required to offer automatic IRAs and employers not required to do so (for example, because they have ten or fewer employees).
Small employer startup credit. Small employers with no more than 100 employees are authorized under Code Sec. 45E to receive a tax credit for up to 50 percent of the costs of establishing new retirement plans. The credit, which may be claimed for qualified costs incurred in each of the 3 years beginning with the tax year in which the plan becomes effective, is currently capped at $500. The budget proposal would double the Code Sec. 45E tax credit to a maximum of $1,000 per year for three years. The expanded credit is designed to encourage small employers that would otherwise adopt an automatic IRA to adopt a new 401(k), SIMPLE, or other employer plan instead, while also encouraging other small employers to adopt a new employer plan. However, the expanded startup costs credit for small employers, like the current startup costs credit, would not apply to automatic or other payroll deduction IRAs.
PBGC authorization to set risk-adjusted premiums. The proposed 2012 budget would also empower the PBGC, for the first time, to set its own premiums based on the health of the premium payer (and the risk to the PBGC) and the circumstances of the plan. The budget would require two years of study and public comment before the proposal could be implemented and would require the gradual phasing-in of any premium increase.
The budget proposals were discussed in PEN Report 1877 (February 28, 2011).
7. IRS Imposes Significant Increase in User Fees for Determination Letter Requests in 2011
The IRS, generally effective February 1, 2011, significantly increased the user fees applicable to requests for determination letters on the qualified status of employee benefit plans and other requests.
Determination letter requests. In the event a plan is intended to satisfy a design-based or nondesign-based safe harbor, or if the applicant is not electing to receive a determination letter with respect to any of the general tests, and the applicant is not electing to receive a determination letter with respect to an average benefit test, the following user fees will apply.
In the event the applicant is electing to receive a determination letter with respect to the average benefit test and/or any of the general tests, the following fees apply:
(1) Form 5300… $4,500 (up from $1800 in 2010).
(2) Form 5307…$1800 (up from $1000 in 2010).
(3) Form 5310 …$4,000 (up from $1800 in 2010).
(4) Multiple employer plans (Form 5300):
(5) Multiple employer plans (Form 5310):
Rev. Proc. 2011-8, I.R.B. 2011-1, January 3, 2011 is reproduced at PEN Par. 17,299T-58.
See PEN Par. 565--580 expanded discussion of the application of the user fee rules.
PEN ENHANCEMENTS
1. Rolling PEN Revision. A significant value added feature of PEN that should be highlighted is the ``rolling revision,’’ in which important developments in the pension and benefits field are reflected in PEN Explanations within a short period of time following release. Reflecting legislation, court cases, Final and Proposed Regulations, Revenue Rulings, Revenue Procedures, Letter Rulings, Opinion Letters, Field Assistance Bulletins and other releases by IRS, DOL, PBGC, SEC and other governmental agencies allows PEN to be the most current and up-to-date resource available.
2. Benefit Practice Portfolios Provide Practitioner Oriented Insight on Pension Law
Benefit Practice Portfolios are available to internet subscribers to the CCH Pension Plan Guide. These Portfolios, usually written by nationally recognized experts, provide insights into specific areas of pension law. There are well over 150 Portfolios on a host of diverse subjects, written for pension and benefits practitioners.
A sampling of recent Benefit Practice Portfolios includes:
3. Keeping Up with PPA Guidance
The Pension Protection Act of 2006 represents the most sweeping overhaul to the pension law in more than 30 years. In addition to making myriad changes to the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA, the PPA requires government agencies to issue perhaps hundreds of guidance items over the next several years.
Keeping track of these guidance issuances will be a monumental task for pension and benefit practitioners. CCH has created a valuable search aid --the Table of PPA Guidance --which allows practitioners to quickly locate PPA guidance items. The Table lists official guidance issued by government agency (Internal Revenue Service, Department of Labor, Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, and joint agency releases), form of guidance, date of issuance, short description of the guidance, and the CCH paragraph number at which the guidance item may be found in full text. Internet customers can quickly link from the Table to a specific guidance item. The Table of PPA Guidance is designed to help busy practitioners stay abreast of the continuing flow of PPA issuances and is available exclusively to CCH PENSION PLAN GUIDE subscribers.
The Table of PPA Guidance is at PEN Par. 51C.
4. Comprehensive Plan Reporting and Disclosure Calendar Chart
Employee benefit plans are subject to numerous reporting and disclosure requirements that require information to be provided to plan participants and beneficiaries and filed with the IRS, DOL, PBGC, and other government agencies. Failure to comply with any applicable reporting requirement can result in significant penalties.
In order to assist plan administrators and others in satisfying their reporting obligations, PEN features a plan reporting calendar that neatly encapsulates all of the various reporting requirements. The calendar lists the reports required in a calendar year in chronological order. In addition, the calendar highlights the subject matter of a report and indicates both the party required to file the report and the party to whom the report must be directed.
The Plan Reporting Calendar is at PEN Par. 36.
5. Check "Calendars . Tables . Interest Rates" for Quick Answers
Electronic and print customers of the CCH Pension Plan Guide can find many pertinent pension facts and figures by consulting the handy "Calendars. Tables. Interest Rates" section of the Guide.
Some of the helpful features of this section are:
Print customers will find the "Calendars . Tables . Interest Rates" division in Volume 1 of their Guide. Internet customers will find the same information by selecting "Pension Plan Guide" under the "CCH Pension Explanations" blue bar, then clicking on "Tables and Other Documents," the first item on the menu.