January 30, Harlan Weller Government Actuary Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 4024 Washington, DC 20220

Similar documents
May 12, RE: Projection of Cash Balance Benefits. Dear Ms. Judson and Mr. Neis:

November 6, Variable and Indexed Annuities in QLACs. Dear Mr. Iwry:

August 15, Submitted via to Annual Funding Notice Under ERISA Section 101(f) Dear Mr. Good:

January 12, CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG ) Room 5203 Internal Revenue Service PO Box 7604 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044

Michael Saunders Acting Director, Employee Plans Rulings & Agreements Market Street Philadelphia, PA 19104

Re: Proposed Regulation 31 CFR Part 10 (REG ) [75 FR 51713]

August 07, Re: Regulation Identifier Number RIN 1210 AB20. To Whom It May Concern:

Interim Final Rule Health Insurance Issuers Implementing Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) Requirements under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

Re: ASB Comments Comments on Second Exposure Draft of the Modeling ASOP

Statement before the ERISA Advisory Council on Model Notices and Disclosures for Pension Risk Transfers

Limitations on Benefits and Contributions Under Qualified Plans. ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking and notice of public hearing.

Rev. Rul LAW AND ANALYSIS

May 3, Filed electronically via the Federal erulemaking Portal at

RECORD, Volume 25, No. 2 *

Re: Comments Regarding Coordination Between Actuarial Standards of Practice (ASOPs) Involving Retirement Benefits.

May 4, Mr. David Strauss Executive Director Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp K St. NW Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Strauss:

RE: Preliminary Views on Economic Condition Reporting: Financial Projections

C1 Work Group Updated Recommendation of Corporate Bond Risk-Based Capital Factors

July 9, Office of Federal Procurement Policy th Street, N.W. Room 9013 Washington, DC Attn: Raymond J. M. Wong

I. Types of Retirement Plans

The Alert Guidelines are tools used by Employee Plans Specialists during their review of retirement plans and are available to plan sponsors to use

Annual statements for years 2012 and prior did not provide sufficient granular data for us to perform similar analyses.

PROJECTED BENEFIT ILLUSTRATIONS IN CONNECTION WITH RETIREMENT PLAN AMENDMENTS. Comment Deadline November 30, 2000

May 19, Re: Investment Risk-Based Capital: A Way Forward. Dear Commissioner Fry:

Notice 97-11, CB 379, 12/30/1996, IRC Sec(s) Qualified domestic relations orders qualified plans. Headnote: Full Text: I.

Re: Proposed changes to the Annuity Disclosure Model Regulation (#245)

Please contact Bill Rapp assistant director of Public Policy at the Academy, if you have any questions.

A New Theory of Relativity: Treasury Publishes Final Regulations on Disclosure of Relative Values of Optional Forms of Benefit

Re: Proposed Actuarial Standard of Practice, Capital Adequacy Assessment for Insurers, Second Exposure Draft

PENSION RIGHTS CENTER

RE: Comment Letter on APF to Keep Term and ULSG Separate in VM-20 Calculation to Reduce Allocation Concerns

Management Alert. The Defined Benefit Plan Provisions of the Pension Protection Act of August 2006 Seyfarth Shaw LLP 1

July 14, RE: Request for Feedback on the IAIS MOCE Proposal and the C-MOCE. Dear Tom,

Re: Exposure Draft on Pension Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers

CITY OF MIAMI GENERAL EMPLOYEES AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT TRUST AND SANITATION EMPLOYEES STAFF PENSION PLAN EXCESS BENEFIT PLAN

Thank you in advance for your consideration of these recommendations.

Internal Revenue Code Section 415(b)(1)(A) Limitations on benefits and contributions under qualified plans.

2007 DEFINED BENEFIT INTERIM AMENDMENT FOR DATAIR MASS-SUBMITTER PROTOTYPES

IRS Issues Final and Proposed Hybrid Plan Regulations

The American Academy of Actuaries Duration Blanks Work Group Response to the NAIC Blanks Working Group Proposal. May 2011

DESCRIPTION OF CERTAIN REVENUE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE PRESIDENT S FISCAL YEAR 2014 BUDGET PROPOSAL

Notes from Intersector Meeting with IRS/Treasury Wednesday March 13, Proposed date for next meeting: September 11, 2013

Alternatives for Pension Cost Recognition: Implementation Issues

GASB 67/68 Accounting Valuation Report. Town of Medley Defined Benefit Plan

Limited Guidance for Selecting Reasonable or Acceptable AVMs

ENROLLED ACTUARIES PENSION EXAMINATION, SEGMENT B

July 16, Dear Mr. Yanacheak,

Issue Brief. Claim Reserve Assumption Basis for Long-Term Disability Policies. Use of Date of Incurral Versus Date of Issue.

Sample Plan Amendments for the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001

PENSION & BENEFITS! T reasury and IRS face a fundamental choice: Do A BNA, INC. DAILY

August 11, Fred Anderson Chair Indexed Universal Life Illustration Subgroup National Association of Insurance Commissioners

With the exposure draft including several layers of red-lining, we have attached a copy of the two sections with all changes accepted.

Actuarial Standard of Practice No. 24: Compliance with the NAIC Life Insurance Illustrations Model Regulation

October 9, Re: REG Relating to the Proposed Regulations under Section 965

State Universities Retirement System of Illinois

June 30, Full Actuarial Cost Factors. Dear Mr. Watts:

The Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit GASB Statement Nos. 67 and 68 Accounting and Financial Reporting for Pension Plans of

Re: Actuarial Valuation Report as of January 1, 2012 Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association Pension Fund

Re: Actuarial Valuation Report as of January 1, 2018 Bloomington Fire Department Relief Association Pension Fund

Re: Proposed Operational Risk Factors and Growth Charge for the Life RBC Formula

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund Application for Suspension of Benefits under MPRA EXHIBIT 21

MODEL QDRO PARTICIPANT NOT YET RECEIVING PENSION

Solutions to EA-2(B) Examination Spring, 2005

December 13, 2018 Internal Revenue Service Room 5205 Ben Franklin Station Washington, DC 20044

FRESNO COUNTY EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT ASSOCIATION (FCERA) INTERNAL REVENUE CODE COMPLIANCE POLICY

Re: City of Sarasota General Employees Pension Fund Lower Investment Return to 6.9%

1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW 1111 Constitution Ave, NW Washington, DC Washington, DC 20224

Registers of Deeds Supplemental Pension Fund Principal Results of Actuarial Valuation as of December 31, 2016

UPS/IBT FULL-TIME EMPLOYEE PENSION PLAN AND CENTRAL STATES, SOUTHEAST AND SOUTHWEST AREAS PENSION FUND

Session 5 Cash Balance Plans in 2014

ANNUAL FUNDING NOTICE. For GRAPHIC ARTS INDUSTRY JOINT PENSION TRUST. Introduction. How Well Funded Is Your Plan

This is in reply to your request for a ruling concerning the income tax treatment of pension benefits received from C.

Re: ASB Comments Comments on Third Exposure Draft of the Modeling ASOP

Distributions After Normal Retirement Age: Are You Prepared?

Re: Pre-consultation comments on draft ICP revisions 4, 5, 7 and 8

Public Employees Retirement Association of Minnesota General Employees Retirement Plan Actuarial Valuation Report as of July 1, 2017

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi Speaker, House of Representatives H-232 U.S. Capitol Washington, DC November 5, Dear Madam Speaker:

-1- Model Amendments to Add Bifurcated Distribution Options to Defined Benefit Plans

Benefits, Rights and Features Nondiscrimination Testing and Phased Retirement Programs

Synthetic GIC Reserve Proposal Supplement to November 2012 Proposal. Deposit Fund Subgroup of the. Annuity Reserves Work Group (ARWG)

October 16, The Honorable Nick Gerhart Chair, Variable Annuities Issues (E) Working Group National Association of Insurance Commissioners

We understand that this interpretation is based on IRS Reg (b)-1(a), which states:

Re: Public Education Employee Retirement System of Missouri ("PEERS") Cost Estimate of Proposed Benefit Changes

FULL TEXT OF THE PLAN RULES

Forfeitures Used to Fund Safe Harbor Contributions

A. Cash Position - Regulatory Authority to Determine Cash Positions and Non-Cash Positions and Relevant Examples

Retirement Plan of the City of Middletown

Firemen s Retirement System of St. Louis. Annual Actuarial Valuation as of October 1, 2017

Report Regarding Revisions to Actuarial Guideline 25 From the American Academy of Actuaries AG 25 Subgroup

DB: Basics of Defined Benefit Plans 2017 Syllabus

AGENDA REQUEST. Consent Agenda No. 2. March 20, 2017 SUBJECT:

GREATER PENNSYLVANIA CARPENTERS PENSION FUND

Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund Actuarial Certification of Plan Status as of January 1, 2014 under IRC Section 432

SEIU National Industry Pension Fund

August 29, Dear Mr. Bean:

December 19, St. Paul Teachers' Retirement Fund Association 1619 Dayton Avenue, Room 309 St. Paul, Minnesota

Re: Informational Bulletin: Notice to Actuaries Submitting Actuarial Summaries and Studies for Private Self-Insured Employers

City of Gainesville Consolidated Police Officers and Firefighters Retirement Plan

Conduent Human Resource Services Retirement Consulting. The Police and Firemen s Retirement System of New Jersey

The ERISA Industry Committee Re: Revenue Ruling (Defined Contribution to Defined Benefit Rollovers) voluntarily mandatory

Transcription:

January 30, 2012 Harlan Weller Government Actuary Department of the Treasury 1500 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Room 4024 Washington, DC 20220 David M. Ziegler Manager Employee Plans Actuarial Group Internal Revenue Service 200 Constitution Avenue Room N5655 Washington, DC 20210 Re: Application of IRC 415(b) Limits Dear Mr. Weller and Mr. Ziegler: The American Academy of Actuaries 1 Pension Committee has become aware of an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) position with respect to Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 415(b) that differs substantially from the widely held understanding of the practitioner community. In short, we understand the IRS s position to be that a plan cannot pay the full single life annuity limit ($200,000 annually in 2012) at a commencement age between 62 and 65 unless the plan provides unreduced benefits at that age. We further understand that a plan cannot without reducing the single life annuity limit pay a Qualified Joint and Survivor Annuity (QJSA) (as defined in IRC Section 417) unless the plan provides that QJSA form of benefit free (i.e., without reduction for the form of benefit). We would like to express our concern regarding this interpretation and respectfully request clarification and/or additional guidance. In addition, we request that, if this is indeed the IRS s position, it be promulgated in a proposed regulation exposed for public comment, and applied only prospectively (with Section 411(d)(6) protection of accrued benefits) once such a regulation is finalized. Background IRC Section 415(b) imposes a dollar limit on benefits payable from qualified defined benefit plans. The 2012 limit is $200,000 a year for a single life annuity. Section 415(b)(2)(C) provides that the limit is reduced for benefits that begin before age 62, and Section 415(b)(2)(B) provides that there is no adjustment for form of payment if the benefit is paid as a QJSA. 1 The American Academy of Actuaries is a 17,000-member professional association whose mission is to serve the public and the U.S. actuarial profession. The Academy assists public policymakers on all levels by providing leadership, objective expertise, and actuarial advice on risk and financial security issues. The Academy also sets qualification, practice, and professionalism standards for actuaries in the United States.

As a result of these IRC provisions, it has been widely understood that (using 2012 limits as an example) a $200,000 benefit could be paid beginning at age 62 as a qualified joint and 100 percent (or any lesser percentage at least equal to 50 percent) survivor annuity. IRC Section 415 regulations limit the benefit that can be accrued (not simply the benefit that can be paid) to the Section 415 limit. This provision has been understood to mean that since early commencement factors and optional forms of benefit are part of the accrued Section 411(d)(6) protected benefit, and there are legislated provisions with respect to these items under Section 415, then the accrued Section 415 limited benefit at any time is really a matrix of benefits payable at different times and in different forms. For example, assume that a participant s accrued benefit under the plan formula (before applying the Section 415 limits) is $300,000, payable at the plan s normal retirement age of 65. The plan pays 80 percent of the accrued benefit at age 62, and pays a 100 percent QJSA using an optional form factor of 0.9. The plan s (pre-limit) accrued benefit payable at age 62 as a 100 percent QJSA is $300,000 *.8 *.9 = $216,000. Since the maximum benefit payable at age 62 as a 100 percent QJSA under Section 415(b) is $200,000, the accrued benefit payable at age 62 as a 100 percent QJSA has been understood to be $200,000. Based on informal discussions with IRS officials, however, we understand that the IRS interprets the regulation (and specifically Section 1.415(b)-1(a), which limits the benefit that can accrue to the Section 415 limit) to mean that the benefit payable at age 62 is $200,000 *.8 *.9 = $144,000. This interpretation appears to consider the Section 415 limit to be an age 65 benefit payable in the form that is unreduced under the plan (typically the single life annuity), rather than considering the legislated reduction factors and QJSA form to be part of the 415 benefit. In this example, therefore, the accrued age 65 benefit is limited to $200,000 and, since the plan reduces benefits for periods before age 65 and for QJSAs, the $200,000 is then reduced using plan factors. After learning of this interpretation, IRS representatives were asked to confirm it at the Dialogue with IRS session on Oct. 26, 2011, at the Conference of Consulting Actuaries meeting (the questioner focused solely on the QJSA payable at age 65 to simplify the question for discussion purposes). The IRS representatives articulated the position described above, indicated that it was an intentional change promulgated in the 2007 Section 415 regulations, and further indicated that the philosophy behind the change had to do with a comparison to the rank and file plan benefits (i.e., if the rank and file did not receive a free QJSA, then executives limited by Section 415 should not either). We understand that similar discussions occurred at the annual meeting of the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries. Analysis We believe this interpretation is contrary to statute (IRC Section 415(b)), the 2007 Section 415 regulations, and common understanding of the requirements by practitioners. Many plan documents with determination letters have language that does not comport with this interpretation. In addition, if this were indeed the rule, it easily could be circumvented by restating the plan formula differently, but equivalently, without changing any participants benefits. We will address each of these issues in turn. 2

Statute Early Commencement Reductions We believe that this interpretation is not supported by the clear, plain language in the statute. IRC Section 415(b)(1)(a) sets forth the Section 415(b) dollar limit for an annual single life annuity of $160,000 (since adjusted with cost of living increases in accordance with Section 415(d) to $200,000 for 2012). Section 415(b)(2)(C) reads as follows, and appears only to give the secretary of Treasury the authority to prescribe reductions in the limit for early commencement at ages below 62: 415(b)(2)(C) Adjustment To $160,000 Limit Where Benefit Begins Before Age 62 - If the retirement income benefit under the plan begins before age 62, the determination as to whether the $160,000 limitation set forth in paragraph (1)(A) has been satisfied shall be made, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary, by reducing the limitation of paragraph (1)(A) so that such limitation (as so reduced) equals an annual benefit (beginning when such retirement income benefit begins) which is equivalent to a $160,000 annual benefit beginning at age 62. Reductions for QJSA Forms of Benefit IRC Section 415(b)(2)(B) similarly appears to give the secretary of Treasury the authority to prescribe methods to convert benefits payable in a form other than a single life annuity to an equivalent single life annuity for purposes of comparison to the limits (which is equivalent to reducing the limits for optional forms that provide survivor benefits) but clearly provides that no adjustments are to be made for qualified joint and survivor annuities: 415(b)(2)(B) Adjustment For Certain Other Forms Of Benefit If the benefit under the plan is payable in any form other than the form described in subparagraph (A), or if the employees contribute to the plan or make rollover contributions (as defined in sections 402(c), 403(a)(4), 403(b)(8), 408(d)(3), and 457(e)(16)), the determinations as to whether the limitation described in paragraph (1) has been satisfied shall be made, in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary by adjusting such benefit so that it is equivalent to the benefit described in subparagraph (A). Regulations For purposes of this subparagraph, any ancillary benefit which is not directly related to retirement income benefits shall not be taken into account; and that portion of any joint and survivor annuity which constitutes a qualified joint and survivor annuity (as defined in section 417) shall not be taken into account. [Emphasis added]. No Evidence of Intent As discussed above, we understand that the IRS believes that this treatment of the limits was a deliberate change made when the 2007 regulations were issued. But despite the drastic nature of this change (causing a 28 percent reduction from $200,000 to $144,000 for a joint and 100 percent survivor annuity payable at age 62 in the example above), it was not 3

explicitly discussed in the preamble to either the proposed or final regulations. In addition, there is no text and there are no examples in the final regulations that clearly articulate, or even suggest, this intent. Given the substantial preambles to both the proposed and final regulations, we believe that, had the drafters of the regulation intended to make such a significant change in prevalent practice and prior guidance, their intent would have been made clear in the preamble (as well as in the text of the regulations and/or examples in the regulations). Contrary Examples in the Regulations The final regulations include two examples that clearly contradict this interpretation, and another that strongly suggests a contradiction. Section 1.415(b)-1(d)(7) Examples 1 and 2 In these examples, the plan provides that early retirement benefits are determined by reducing the accrued benefit by 4 percent for each year by which the early retirement date precedes age 65. Example 1 illustrates the effect of a free QPSA (leading to no reflection of pre-commencement mortality when determining the reduction in the Section 415 limit for commencement before age 62) but in doing so makes clear that the limit at a commencement date before age 62 is the full dollar limit (the $180,000 dollar limit in effect for 2007 when the regulations were issued in the example) reduced from age 62, not age 65, despite the fact that the plan does not provide unreduced benefits at age 62. Example 2 makes the same point in illustrating the limit for an employee beginning benefits at age 60.5, providing that the limit is determined by reducing the $180,000 dollar limit from age 62. These examples explicitly contradict the position that the IRS intended that the limit be unreduced at age 62 only if plan benefits were unreduced at age 62. 1.415(b)-1(c)(6) Example 4 In this example, the plan provides a benefit equal to 100 percent of the participant s highest three-year average compensation. The plan also provides a 100 percent QJSA that is reduced (the reduction in the single life annuity benefit to provide the QJSA is half the full actuarial reduction), and a lump sum option that is the actuarial present value of the 100 percent QJSA (i.e., the lump sum includes the QJSA subsidy). The example makes the point that the benefit compared to the Section 415 limit is adjusted when the QJSA subsidy is included in the lump sum, and, by omission, strongly implies that the subsidy is ignored if the benefit actually is paid in the form of the 100 percent QJSA. Example 4 specifically provides the following commentary about the lump sum option requiring adjustment, and is silent on the QJSA option needing adjustment: The special rule that disregards the value of the survivor portion of a QJSA set forth in paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section only applies to a benefit that is payable in the form of a qualified joint and survivor annuity. Any other form of benefit must be adjusted to a straight life annuity in accordance with paragraph (c)(1) of this section. Accordingly, because the benefit payable under the plan in the form of a single-sum distribution is actuarially equivalent to a straight life annuity that is greater than 100 percent of a participant s average compensation for the period of the participant s high-3 years of service, the limitation of section 415(b)(1)(B) has been exceeded. 4

Form over Substance We also believe that enforcement of this position by the IRS could be ineffective because plan formulas simply could be restated in a manner that would allow the full dollar limit to be paid as a 100 percent QJSA at age 62. For example, consider the example discussed above the participant s accrued benefit before reflecting Section 415 limits is $300,000, the Section 415(b) limit is $200,000, the plan s earliest commencement age is age 62, and the actuarial reduction at age 62 is 20 percent. Under the IRS s interpretation, the participant s single life annuity benefit would be limited to $160,000 (80 percent of $200,000). Such a plan could be amended, however, to change the normal retirement date to age 62, reduce the plan formula by 20 percent, and provide actuarial increases from age 62 to 65 (on the same basis as the previously applicable actuarial reductions). Such a change would not change the benefits payable to any participant who is not affected by Section 415 limits (other than perhaps vesting a few participants earlier), and thus would not violate Section 411(d)(6). At the same time, such a change would permit the $200,000 benefit to be paid at age 62 to this participant. Viewed from this perspective, instead of providing an unreduced early retirement benefit only for certain high-paid participants, the plan instead would provide an actuarially increased benefit between ages 62 and 65 for everybody except for certain high-paid participants. We believe that the ease with which the IRS interpretation could be circumvented is further evidence that the interpretation is not supported by the statute or intended by the regulations. We appreciate the Treasury and the IRS giving consideration to these requests. Please contact Jessica M. Thomas, the Academy s senior pension policy analyst (202-785-7868, thomas@actuary.org) if you have any questions or would like to discuss these items further. Respectfully submitted, Michael F. Pollack, FSA, MAAA, EA, FCA Chairperson, Pension Committee American Academy of Actuaries 5