July 2012
The following highlights the most significant New Developments published in the Pension Plan Guide since the last update on July 2, 2012.
During the past month, President Obama signed into law The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, P.L. 112-41). The legislation, which was primarily designed to provide funding for highway projects and student loan relief, would also: stabilize pension funding interest rates, raise PBGC premiums, extend the ability of employers to transfer excess pension assets to fund retiree health benefits and, for the first time, allow transferred funds to be used to pay for retiree life insurance.
The IRS has issued guidance clarifying the requirements under ERISA Sec. 101(j) pursuant to which notices must be provided to participants and beneficiaries of underfunded, single-employer defined benefit plans that are subject to funding-based benefit restrictions imposed by ERISA Sec. 206(g) and Code Sec. 436. The guidance addresses the timing and content requirements for furnishing the ERISA Sec. 101(j) notice, and provides examples illustrating the information that will satisfy the general notice requirements.
The Employee Benefits Security Administration has issued final regulations that revise the mailing address and provide web-based submission procedures for filing notices with the DOL under the Class Exemption provision of the fiduciary-level fee disclosure regulations. Fiduciaries may send paper notices to a dedicated P.O. Box number. However, the web-based procedures are expected to expedite the review process and reduce processing errors.
It the courts, the Sixth Circuit ruled that the custody of plan funds and the receipt of fees pursuant to a depository agreement with a third-party administrator did not confer fiduciary status on a bank sufficient to allow for suit under ERISA. Because the claims against the bank for failing to monitor the fraudulent actions of the TPA derived from ERISA violations, state law claims of unjust enrichment were preempted, effectively leaving the plan participants without a remedy.
The Sixth Circuit also held that the sponsor of 403(b) plans did not breach its fiduciary duty to properly implement participant investment instructions when it transferred participants' standing investments in stable value accounts into an asset allocation fund, in compliance with Labor Department regulations governing qualified default investment alternatives. The plan sponsor effectuated the transfer only after notifying the participants of the change and providing them with an opportunity to retain their prior investment. The fact that the participants did not actually receive the notice, the court concluded was not determinative.
NEW DEVELOPMENTS
1. MAP-21 Provisions Will Stabilize Funding Interest Rates, Increase PBGC Premiums, and Allow Transfers for Retiree Life Insurance
The Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act (MAP-21, P.L. 112-41), signed by President Obama on July 6, 2012, would stabilize pension funding interest rates and raise PBGC premiums. The legislation, which was primarily designed to provide funding for highway projects and student loan relief, would also extend the ability of employers to transfer excess pension assets to fund retiree health benefits and, for the first time, allow transferred funds to be used to pay for retiree life insurance.
Pension interest stabilization. For pension funding purposes, plan liabilities are calculated by discounting projected future payments to a present value by using legally required interest rates based on corporate bonds: the lower the rate, the greater the liability. These rates have been "abnormally low" for a significant period of time, the Senate Finance Committee has noted, and, as a result, contributions for 2012 will be much greater than for prior years.
Under the bill, pension plan liabilities would continue to be determined based on corporate bond segment rates, which are based on the average interest rates over the preceding two years. However, beginning in 2012 for purposes of the minimum funding rules, any segment rate must be within ten percent (increasing to 30% in 2016 and thereafter) of the average of such segment rates for the 25-year period preceding the current year. This provision would stabilize the fluctuation of interest rates from year to year, resulting in fewer sharp declines and fewer sharp increases in interest rates. This provision would not apply with respect to participant disclosures. Participants will be informed of the funded status of their plan using current law interest rate assumptions and this change for three years, according to the SFC summary.
The pension funding interest rate stabilization provision is estimated to raise $9.394 billion in revenue over ten years. In addition, retirement plan consultant Mercer, estimates that the relief provided by the Act could range from $40 to $50 billion for S&P 1500 plan sponsors for 2012. The relief could well exceed $100 billion through 2014 (see PEN Report 1951 (August 6, 2012)).
The funding rules, as impacted by MAP-21, are detailed at PEN Pars. 3137C, 3137F, and 3138.
PBGC premium increase. Under current law, employers that sponsor defined benefit plans are required to pay a fixed-rate premium to the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) equal to $35 per participant per year (indexed for inflation) and a variable rate premium equal to $9 per $1,000 in underfunding (not indexed for inflation). There is no limit on the variable rate premium. Multiemployer plans must pay premiums equal to $9 per participant, indexed for inflation.
The bill would: (1) adjust the variable premium for inflation beginning in 2013, (2) set a maximum variable premium of $400 beginning in 2013, (3) increase the variable premium by $4 in 2014 and by an additional $5 in 2015, (3) increase the fixed rate premium by $6 in 2013 and by an additional $7 in 2014, and (4) increase the multiemployer premiums by $2 beginning in 2013.
The flat rate premium is discussed at PEN Par. 6462. The variable rate premium is detailed at PEN Par. 6465.
Transfer of excess assets to retiree health accounts. Employers had been authorized until 2013 to transfer excess defined benefit plan assets to retiree health benefit accounts, under strictly defined circumstances. MAP-21 extends the authorization to transfer excess pension assets to retiree health accounts through 2021. The rules governing the transfer of excess assets to retiree health accounts are detailed at PEN Pars. 6770-6786.
Transfer of excess pension assts to retiree life insurance accounts. MAP-21, effective after July 6, 2012, through 2021, allows qualified transfers, qualified future transfers, and collectively bargained transfers of excess pension assets to be made to fund the purchase of retiree group-term life insurance.
Group-term life insurance that is provided through a retiree life insurance account will generally not be includible in the gross income of the participant. However, group-term life insurance may be provided through a retiree life insurance account only to the extent it is not includible in gross income. Thus, the group-term life insurance purchased with transferred assets may not exceed $50,000.
The laws governing the transfer of excess pension assets to retiree medical accounts to fund retiree health benefits also apply to transfers to retiree life insurance accounts to fund retiree group-term life insurance. However, the rules are applied separately.
In addition, a qualified transfer may not be made more than once per year. In addition, the amended rules provide that, if there is a transfer from a DB plan to both a health benefits account and an applicable life insurance account during a tax year, the transfer will be treated as one transfer for purposes of the restriction.
The rules governing the transfer of excess pension assets to retiree life insurance accounts are discussed at PEN Par. 6788.
MAP-21 was highlighted in PEN Report 1947 (July 9, 2012). The pension provisions of P.L. 112-141 are set forth at PEN Par. 29,169.
2. IRS Guidance Clarifies Notice Requirements for Underfunded DB Plans Subject to Benefit Restrictions
The IRS has issued guidance clarifying the requirements under ERISA Sec. 101(j) pursuant to which notices must be provided to participants and beneficiaries of underfunded, single-employer defined benefit plans that are subject to funding-based benefit restrictions imposed by ERISA Sec. 206(g) and Code Sec. 436. The guidance addresses the timing and content requirements for furnishing the ERISA Sec. 101(j) notice, and provides examples illustrating the information that will satisfy the general notice requirements.
General notice requirements. Single-employer DB plans that fall below specified funding levels are subject to limits on unpredictable contingent event benefits, plan amendments, lump-sum distributions, and benefit accruals. A plan administrator must provide written notice to plan participants and beneficiaries within 30 days of the plan becoming subject to the limits on unpredictable contingent event benefits and prohibited payments under ERISA Sec. 206(g)(1) and(3). In addition, in the case of a plan that becomes subject to the benefit limitations of ERISA Sec. 206(g)(4) (relating to severe funding shortfalls and the cessation of benefit accruals), written notice must be provided within 30 days after the earlier of the valuation date for the plan year for which the plan’s adjusted funding target attainment percentage (AFTAP) is less than 60% or the date the percentage is presumed to be less that 60% under ERISA Sec. 206(g)(7).
Contents of ERISA Sec. 101(j) notice. The IRS lists the information that is generally required to be in a notice for plans that become subject to the benefit limitations in ERISA Secs. 206(g)(1),(3), and (4), and that is specifically mandated in notices for plans that permit new annuity starting dates. A notice must be written in a manner that is calculated to be understood by the average plan participant and in a way that a participant or beneficiary will understand the significance of the required information relating to the benefit limitation. A single combined notice may be provided if a plan is subject to more than one benefit limitation. An example of a notice that satisfies the general notice content requirements is provided.
IRS Notice 2012-46 was reported in PEN Report 1948 (July 16, 2012) and is reproduced at PEN Par. 17,149Z.
3. Bank That Failed to Detect TPA Mismanagement of 401(k) Account Funds Not Subject to Suit Under ERISA
The custody of plan funds and the receipt of fees pursuant to a depository agreement with a third-party administrator (TPA) did not confer fiduciary status on a bank sufficient to allow for suit under ERISA, the U.S. Court of Appeals in Cincinnati (CA-6) has ruled. In addition, because the claims against the bank for failing to monitor the fraudulent actions of the TPA derived from ERISA violations, state law claims of unjust enrichment were preempted, effectively leaving the plan participants without a remedy.
TPA misconduct in managing plan funds. A TPA managed various employee benefit and 401(k) retirement plans. Going beyond the traditional administrative services, however, the TPA directed clients to send funds to accounts that he opened in his company’s name at a bank. The bank advised the TPA to open the account in his name and provided titles referencing the accounts’ corresponding clients. Because the accounts bore the name of the TPA’s company, the TPA, as the sole owner and operator of the company, was able to transfer money among and out of the accounts, thereby allowing for the subsequent embezzlement of customer funds.
The TPA briefly moved accounts to another bank, but that bank closed the accounts for improper activity. Unfortunately, the original depository bank failed to exercise the same vigilance. In fact, the bank facilitated the TPA’s withdrawals and transfers, receiving over $50 million in deposits from plan accounts and plan assets. The bank also collected fees and analysis charges from the TPA accounts, totaling more than $500,000 over the course of the relationship.
As a consequence of the bank’s failure to comply with requirements under the Bank Secrecy Act to report large currency transactions and suspicious activity, the U.S. Financial Crimes Enforcement Network, assessed a fine of $10 million. The failure to monitor the accounts and the TPA’s unusual account activity further raised the suspicion that the bank knew or should have known about the TPA’s misconduct.
When the TPA declared bankruptcy in 2006, the pervasive theft and fraud was discovered. The bankruptcy trustee filed suit against the bank on behalf of the victimized plans for which he assumed fiduciary status on behalf of the TPA. The trustee asserted ERISA claims against the bank, both as a fiduciary and as a nonfiduciary, as well as state law claims based on negligence and aiding and abetting.
A federal district court ruled that ERISA provided the trustee with standing to sue on behalf of the defrauded plans, but that the bank was not an ERISA fiduciary, subject to suit. The court also dismissed the nonfiduciary claims against the bank and ruled that ERISA preempted the state law aiding and abetting claim. However, the court allowed the trustee’s state law negligence claim to proceed.
Subsequent to the ruling, former clients of the TPA also brought suit. In a consolidated complaint, the clients and the trustee further charged the bank with recklessness and unjust enrichment under state consumer protection laws. The court again found, however, that ERISA preempted the remaining state law claims against the bank.
Bank as fiduciary. In order to recover damages (as opposed to equitable relief), the trustee needed to persuade the appellate court that the bank was an ERISA fiduciary. The trustee charged that the bank exercised authority or control over the ERISA plan accounts by maintaining accounts for the TPA, receiving deposits to the accounts, and permitting the TPA to transfer and withdraw money from the accounts. However, the court found that the TPA maintained the accounts and directed account activity, while the bank merely held the funds on deposit. Custody of the plan assets alone, the court stressed, cannot establish control sufficient to confer fiduciary status.
Similarly, the fact that bank advised the TPA on how to structure its accounts did not create fiduciary status. Control of the accounts remained with the TPA, the court explained.
The trustee’s strongest argument supporting control by the bank over plan assets was the fact that the bank withdrew over $500,000 in fees from the TPA’s plan accounts. Precedent in the Sixth Circuit holds that the unilateral disposition of funds incident to the termination of a contractual relationship with plans could create discretionary control necessary for fiduciary status. However, the court noted that the bank merely collected routine fees contractually owed under the depository agreement, and did not unilaterally exercise any power to pay itself fees. The mere collection of fees, the court stressed, did not subject the bank to liability as an ERISA fiduciary.
McLemore v. Regions Bank (CA-6) was reported in PEN Report 1949 (July 23, 2012) at Par. 24,011W.
4. Rules Modify Mailing Address and Web-Based Submission Procedures for Filing Fee Disclosure Notices With DOL
The Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has issued direct final regulations that revise the mailing address and provide web-based submission procedures for filing notices with the DOL under the Class Exemption provision of the fiduciary-level fee disclosure regulations. Fiduciaries may send paper notices to a dedicated P.O. Box number. However, the web-based procedures are expected to expedite the review process and reduce processing errors.
Notice requirements. In February 2012, the fiduciary-level fee disclosure regulations under ERISA Sec. 408(b)(2) were finalized with an extended effective date of July 1, 2012 (see PEN Par. 24,809F). The final regulations require certain service providers to retirement plans to disclose information about the service providers’ compensation and potential conflicts of interest to plan fiduciaries. If the disclosure requirements are not met, a prohibited provision of services under ERISA Sec. 406(a)(1)(C) will occur.
However, the final regulations provide an exemption for a responsible plan fiduciary from the prohibited transaction provisions, if the fiduciary takes certain steps upon discovery of the disclosure failure. Specifically, the responsible plan fiduciary, upon discovering the failure of the covered service provider must disclose the required information and make a written request for the information to the service provider. In addition, the fiduciary must notify the DOL of the service provider's failure to comply, within 90 days, with the written request for information.
Note: The notice to the DOL must contain specified information (e.g., the identity and EIN of the service provider, description of services rendered, description of deficient information). In addition, the notice must indicate the date of the written request for information and whether the covered service provider continues to provide services to the plan. Finally, the notice must be filed with the DOL no later than 30 days following the earlier of: (a) the service provider's refusal to furnish the requested information, or (b) 90 days after the written request for information is made.
Modified addresses. Separate addresses were included in the final regulations for paper notices and electronic notices. The direct final regulations provide a new mailing address and provide for electronic submission through the DOL’s website.
For paper notices, a dedicated Post Office Box has been established to replace the original mailing address. The new mailing address is: U.S. Department of Labor, EBSA, Office of Enforcement, P.O. Box 75296, Washington, DC 20013.
In addition, effective September 14, 2012, the DOL is eliminating the email address previously provided in the final regulations. Instead, responsible plan fiduciaries may submit notices electronically through a link on the DOL’s website at www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/feedisclosurefailurenotice.html. Instructions for using this website will be provided separately by the DOL. The website will include clear instructions for submissions and provide immediate confirmation to responsible plan fiduciaries that notices have been received by the DOL.
Note: EBSA notes that the web-based procedures will afford immediate, electronic confirmation for plan fiduciaries that their notice has been received. The online submission procedures will also benefit EBSA by enabling its staff to more efficiently receive, process, and review Class Exemption requests under the regulations, which will benefit fiduciaries who wish to use the authorized relief. EBSA further expects fiduciary errors to be fewer because the web-based procedures will include clear instructions and better ensure the transmission of complete information. The automated procedures are similarly expected to reduce transcription and other errors by EBSA.
Effective date and comments. The DOL believes that the new electronic submission process will benefit both the responsible plan fiduciaries and the DOL, and, thus, does not anticipate any significant adverse comments on the changes. However, the DOL is accepting comments. If no significant adverse comments are received during the comment period, no further action on the proposed regulations will be taken. Therefore, the direct final regulations will be effective September 14, 2012, without further action or notice, unless significant adverse comments are received by August 15, 2012. If significant adverse comments are received, a timely withdrawal of the amendment in the Federal Register will occur.
The regulatory development was discussed in PEN Report 1949 (July 23, 2012). EBSA Reg 2550.408(b)-2(c)(1)(ix)(F) is reproduced at Par. 14,782. The Preamble to the rules is set forth at Par. 24,809J.
5. Unilateral Transfer of Participant Assets from Stable Value Fund Complied with Plan Terms and QDIA Rules
The sponsor of 403(b) plans did not breach its fiduciary duty to properly implement participant investment instructions when it transferred participants' standing investments in stable value accounts into an asset allocation fund, in compliance with Labor Department regulations governing qualified default investment alternatives, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals has ruled. The plan sponsor effectuated the transfer only after notifying the participants of the change and providing them with an opportunity to retain their prior investment. The fact that the participants did not actually receive the notice was not determinative.
Participants in University Medical Center 403(b) plans affirmatively elected to invest their accounts in stable value funds (SVF) offered under the plans. The stable value funds also served as the plans' qualified default investment alternative (QDIA) for participants who did not choose an investment option when opening an account. However, following the issuance of DOL regulations in 2007 that prohibited stable value funds from being used as a QDIA, the plans changed their default investment vehicle to a life span time based asset allocation model (LSA).
Incident to the change in the default investment alternative, the plan's service provider (Lincoln Retirement Services) mailed a notice to participants informing them that the funds in the SVF would be reinvested in the LSA, unless the participant made a special election to maintain their present allocation. Two plan participants claimed not to have received the notice and maintained that they would have retained their investment in the SVF. However, because the participants did not contact the plans, the employer, or the service provider during the one month period after the mailing of the notice, the participants' accounts were transferred to the LSA. Upon subsequently discovering the changes in their investment profiles in quarterly statements received in October 2008, the participants immediately switched their investments back to the SVF. However, they alleged that during the 3 month period their accounts incurred significant losses ($85,000 and $16,900). In order to recover the losses, the participants filed suit against the employer and the service provider, alleging that the defendants had breached their fiduciary duty under ERISA to administer the participants' investments in accordance with their instructions.
The trial court ruled that the sponsor was shielded from liability by the DOL safe harbor regulations. On appeal, the participants argued that the safe harbor rules were not relevant because they only apply to employer-selected investments made on behalf of participants who have failed to elect an investment vehicle. Because the participants had affirmatively elected to invest in the stable value fund, they maintained that the transfer of their investment from the stable value fund to the QDIA fell outside the scope of the safe harbor.
In rejecting the participants’ argument, the Sixth Circuit cited the position of the DOL stated in the Preamble to the safe harbor regulations that “[w]henever a participant or beneficiary has the opportunity to direct the investment of assets in his or her account, but does not direct the investment of such assets, plan fiduciaries may avail themselves of the relief provided by the final regulations, so long as” the other safe harbor requirements are satisfied. In addition, the court noted that the “opportunity to direct investment” includes the situation where the plan administrator requests participants who previously had elected a particular investment vehicle to confirm their intent to retain that investment.
Finally, the court concluded that the fact that the participants did not actually receive the notice did not preclude application of the safe harbor. Because the sponsor took measures reasonably calculated to ensure actual receipt of the notice by providing the service provider with addresses for the distribution of the notice by first class mail and relying on records indicating that the correct number of letters was delivered, the failure of the participants to actually receive the notice, the court reasoned, did not establish fiduciary breach.
Bidwell v. University Medical Center was reported in PEN Report 1950 (July 30,2012) at Par. 24,011X.
6. Minimum Required Funding Contributions Were Not Limited by Terms of Collective Bargaining Agreement
An employer's obligations to meet the minimum funding requirements of Code Sec. 412 and Code Sec. 430 with respect to its defined benefit plan were not excused where the minimum required contribution exceeded the amounts specified in the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) and other related documents, according to an IRS letter ruling.
The plan was a jointly-administered, single-employer Taft-Hartley fund created under a series of CBAs and a separate memorandum of understanding (MOU) incorporated into the CBAs and entered into by an employer and eight unions. Based on the CBAs and other controlling provisions that required specific contributions by the employer, the employer always maintained that it was required to contribute only the amounts for which it had bargained. According to the employer, requiring it to meet the minimum funding requirements of Code Sec. 412 would constitute a violation of the Labor Management Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §186, as the contributions would exceed the contributions called for and permitted by the CBAs.
The IRS determined that the CBA and other agreements were subject to Code Sec. 412 and Code Sec. 430. Specifically, the contributions required under Code Sec. 412 and Code Sec. 430 were not limited to the amounts stipulated in the CBA documents and the CBA documents did not preempt ERIS Sec. 302(a) and ERISA Sec. 303.
In addition, because the contributions required under Code Sec. 412 and 430 were not limited to the amounts stipulated in the CBA documents, the excise tax provisions of Code Sec. 4971 were applicable to the employer to the extent that any funding deficiencies arose as a result of amounts having been contributed under the CBA documents that were less than contributions required under the Code. The IRS noted that if a tax is imposed pursuant to Code Sec. 4971, the unpaid minimum required contribution is not paid within the time limit set by Code Sec. 4971, then an additional tax equal to 100% of the unpaid minimum required contribution will be imposed.
IRS Letter Ruling 201208042 was reported in PEN Report 1947 (July 9, 2012) and reproduced at Par. 17,434J.
PEN ENHANCEMENTS
1. Sample 401(k)/Profit-Sharing Plan Documents
A sample volume submitter/401(k) profit-sharing plan and a sample standardized and nonstandardized 401(k)/profit-sharing plan have been added to the Pension Plan Guide.
The plan documents have been restated for EGTRRA and contain addendums that reflect required amendments for PPA, among other requirements. The plans were provided by ftwilliam.com, a product of Wolters Kluwer Law & Business.
The sample volume submitter/401(k) profit-sharing plan is located at PEN Par 31,160 and following. The sample standardized and nonstandardized 401(k)/profit-sharing plan is at PEN Par, 31,170 and following.
2. New Practice Tools Available to Internet Customers
Three new practice tools are now available to Pension e-library subscribers. The tools may be found under Practice Tools/Pensions.
The Plan Distribution Rollover Decision Tree is an interactive decision tree that allows the user to look at what type of plan the distribution is coming from and then determine what type of plan the distribution can be rolled into. There are links to relevant Pension Plan Guide explanations, and to the full text of relevant laws and regulations.
The Maximum Loan Amount Calculator is also an interactive decision tree, which can be used to calculate the maximum amount of a loan that can be taken from a defined contribution plan/401(k) plan. There are links to relevant Pension Plan Guide explanations, and to the full text of relevant laws and regulations.
In the Glossary of Pension Terms, a user can find an alphabetical list of pension terms, select the terms desired, and generate a chart with the definitions and links into the Pension Plan Guide explanations.
3. Rolling PEN Revision. A significant value added feature of PEN 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 the IRS, DOL, PBGC, SEC and other governmental agencies allow PEN to be the most current and up-to-date service.
4. Latest Benefits Practice Portfolio Address Reporting of Fees Under Brokerage Windows. The latest CCH Benefit Plan Portfolio discusses the reporting of fees under separate brokerage accounts in light of guidance recently provided by the Department of Labor under DOL Field Assistance Bulletin 2012-2 (CCH PEN Par. 19,981Z-28). Written by Richard Perlin, retirement plan consultant and president of E.R.I.S.A., Inc., in Skokie, IL, the Portfolio provides insights and tips in complying with the guidelines.
The Portfolio “Ins and Outs of EBSA’s Fee Disclosure Rules for Separate Brokerage Accounts” is available exclusively to Internet subscribers. To access, select “Pension Explanations” and click on “Benefit Practice Portfolios.”
Benefits Practice Portfolios Provide Practitioner Oriented Insight on Pension Law. Benefit Practice Portfolios are available to Internet subscribers to the CCH Pension Plan Guide. The Portfolios, written by nationally recognized experts, provide insights into specific areas of pension and benefits law. There are well over 150 Portfolios on a host of diverse subjects written for pension and benefits subscribers, including the following.
6. DB/K Document from ftwilliam.com is Industry First for Leveraging DB/K Plans
In an industry first, ftwilliam.com, which provides third-party administrators (TPAs) and other retirement plan professionals integrated Software as a Service (SaaS) workflow solutions, has launched its all-new DB/K document. The DB/K document (see CCH Pension Plan Guide ¶136 ), which wraps a 401(k) document (the 401(k) component) and either a cash balance or a defined benefit document (the DB component) together into one plan, is an important tool for individuals working with those types of documents.
"The combined DB/K document is definitely an industry trend right now and after listening to our customers, we're excited to be the first to offer this unique plan," said Tim McCutcheon, General Manager of ftwilliam.com. "As DB/K plan safe harbor compliance becomes more popular with businesses, ftwilliam.com is in position to support customers with the new DB/K wrap option."
The new DB/K "wrap" document is available in the ftwilliam.com retirement plan document package.
7. 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 calendar is revised annually. The updated 2012 plan reporting calendar will be reflected in the February 6, 2012 issue of the Pension Plan Guide.
The Plan Reporting Calendar is at PEN Par. 36.
8. Check "Calendars: Tables: Interest Rates" for Quick Answers
Comprehensive Reporting and Disclosure Calendar Chart (PEN Par 36)
Current withholding tax tables (PEN Pars. 46, 46A, and 46B)
Cost-of-living adjustment charts for retirement plans, IRAs, and Social Security (PEN Par 48)
PBGC monthly benefit chart (PEN Par. 49)
Table of Public Laws Amending the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA (PEN Par. 51B)
Table of current and historical interest rates (PEN Par. 52 and following)
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.