Wednesday, February 26, 2020

Financial Reporting and Regulatory Update on the Horizon

Posted by OnCourse Staff November 9, 2015 11:41am

Photo Credit: Murali Nath

By James Redding, Senior Manager, Financial Audit


Retirement Plan

Taking a look at what pension-related legislative initiatives are winding their way through the halls of Congress, it is apparent that we have a very thin legislative agenda.

The Treasury Department has announced inflation-adjusted figures for retirement account savings for 2016, and there are only a few minor tweaks to income phase-outs for certain IRA contributors and to the adjusted gross income limits.

During 2014, the pension contribution limits stayed the same as in 2013. Last year, we saw small increases in the maximum amounts you could save for 2015, and those increases are carried over for 2016. The increases are driven by the cost-of-living index which did not meet the legal thresholds that trigger increases for 2016. Here are the details:

  • 401(k)s: The annual contribution limit for employees who participate in 401(k), 403(b), most 457 plans, and the federal government’s Thrift Savings Plan, is $18,000 for 2016, the same as in 2015.
  • The 401(k) Catch-Up: The catch-up contribution limit for participants age 50 or older in these plans also stays the same at $6,000 for 2016. Participants who turn 50 on or before December 31, 2016, are eligible to make the additional $6,000 catch-up contribution for the year.
  • Defined Benefit Plans: The limitation on the annual benefit of a defined benefit plan remains unchanged at $210,000 for 2016.

On May 13, 2015, Senators Johnny Isakson (R-GA) and Christopher Murphy (D-CT) introduced the Lifetime Income Disclosure.  The bill is similar to legislation introduced in prior congresses, and it would require participant statements to include annuity equivalents. An annuity equivalent is the monthly annuity payment that would be made if an employee’s total account balance were used to buy a life annuity that commenced payments at the plan’s normal retirement age (generally 65). The Department of Labor (“DOL”) would be directed to provide the assumptions that would be used in converting a participant’s balance to a projected lifetime income stream.

In early June, the bipartisan Receiving Electronic Statements to Improve Retiree Earnings (“RETIRE”) Act was introduced. This initiative has long been supported by the retirement industry, and it would allow electronic delivery of participant notices to be the default. Participants would have the ability to opt out and receive hard copy notices and would receive an annual notice of their ability to opt out on paper.

Recent DOL Guidance for Locating Missing Participants

A challenge sometimes faced by plan sponsors is how to locate missing participants. For one reason or another, a plan on occasion may still be holding benefits for someone when contact with the individual is lost.

On August 14, 2014, the DOL issued new guidance on how fiduciaries of terminated defined contribution plans can fulfill their obligations under ERISA to try and locate missing participants/beneficiaries and distribute their account balances. This guidance removes the old requirement of using the IRS and SSA letter-forwarding services, which are no longer in existence, and replaces it with using internet search tools. Otherwise, the guidance is similar, namely – the preferred method of distributing assets is to open an individual retirement plan in the name of the missing participant or beneficiary.

General concept

When terminating a defined contribution plan, all participants become immediately vested in their account balance, and distribution of assets must occur as soon as administratively feasible. As part of the termination process, the plan administrator must notify and obtain direction from all participants (or their beneficiaries) about account balance distribution. However, participants may have moved, passed away, or simply failed to respond to correspondence related to the plan termination. Where a plan administrator is unable to obtain direction about how to distribute assets, plan fiduciaries must decide how to handle distribution of these “missing participant” accounts.

The decision to terminate a plan is a settlor function; however, the decision of how to distribute the terminating plan’s assets is a fiduciary one. Fiduciaries must act prudently and solely for the exclusive benefit of the participant or beneficiary when exercising that decision, or risk potential legal action.

Steps for locating missing participants

Regardless of the size of the account, plan sponsors who cannot locate participants using routine methods, such as first class mail or electronic notification, must take all of the following steps before concluding that an individual cannot be located. These steps, outlined in FAB 2014-01, the new guidance, are generally considered low cost with a high potential for success:

  1. Use certified mail. The DOL previously provided a model notice that can be used for such mailings, but use of that specific language is not required.
  2. Check related plan and employer records. When the retirement plan records are not current, plan sponsors should check with administrators of related plans, such as medical plans, for a more current address of a missing participant. Due to privacy issues, the plan sponsor may need to request that the other administrator forward a letter on its behalf to the missing participant or beneficiary.
  3. Use free electronic search tools. Plan fiduciaries should make reasonable use of Internet search tools that do not charge a fee. Such online services include search engines, public record databases (such as those for licenses, mortgages, and real estate taxes), obituaries, and social media.
  4. If these steps do not work, the fiduciary should determine if additional search steps are appropriate. Additional steps might include the use of commercial locator services, credit reporting agencies, information brokers, investigation databases, and other services that may involve charges. In determining whether these additional steps are appropriate, a fiduciary is allowed to take into account the size of the benefit and the amount of the additional expense. The cost of using these methods can be charged to the participant’s account as long as it is reasonable and consistent with the terms of the plan and ERISA’s general fiduciary rules.

Disposing of missing participants’ account balances

Generally, once a plan sponsor is satisfied that it has taken appropriate steps to find missing participants, and has documented those efforts, it should review the terms of the plan for direction as to how to treat the participant’s account. Plan documents often provide for the funds in question to be moved to the plan’s designated forfeiture account. If participants later make a claim for benefits, the amount should be restored to their accounts and paid out in accordance with their direction.

The DOL makes it clear that applying 100% tax withholding and turning the entire account over to the IRS is not an appropriate method of handling the accounts of missing participants.

FAB 2014-01 describes the DOL’s preferred method of disposing of a missing participant’s account as a rollover to an individual retirement account or annuity (“IRA”). The DOL offers a safe harbor from fiduciary liability if this approach is used. In reality, it may be hard to find an IRA provider willing to establish an account for a person who cannot be located. Other options the DOL offers for consideration if the IRA approach is not viable for whatever reason are to establish an interest-bearing, federally insured bank account for the participant, or to transfer the account to a state’s unclaimed property fund. Due to the adverse tax consequences for the participant, these last two options are not the preferred approaches, and fiduciaries must determine if they are prudent to use.

Federal Appeals Court Strengthens ERISA Fiduciary Duty of Prudence

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit recently held that a plan fiduciary will be liable for losses caused by breaches of their ERISA fiduciary duty to act prudently unless they are able to show that a fiduciary in a similar situation “would have” made the same decision. Other federal courts have applied a “could have” standard under which a fiduciary would generally not be held liable if another fiduciary in the same situation could have made the same decision. In its decision to apply a “would have” standard, the Fourth Circuit Appeals Court substantially raised the standard under which fiduciary decisions will be reviewed to determine if the fiduciaries are liable for losses caused by fiduciary breaches under ERISA.

In this case, the participants in the plan brought a breach of ERISA fiduciary duty claim against the plan fiduciaries alleging that the plan fiduciaries failed to act prudently when they decided to sell company stock held by the plan. The company stock was sold near all-time lows but rose substantially higher months after the sale. The plan participants claimed that the plan fiduciaries failed to engage in a prudent process and conduct a thorough investigation before selling the company stock.

The lower court held that although the plan fiduciaries had in fact breached their fiduciary duty to act prudently by not conducting a thorough investigation before selling the stock, the plan fiduciaries were not liable for the loss because the decision was one that a prudent fiduciary “could have” made after performing an investigation. The Appeals Court rejected the lower court’s ruling and held that as the evidence showed that the plan fiduciaries had breached their duty of prudence to the plan, in order to avoid liability for the loss, the fiduciaries must show that a prudent fiduciary in the same situation “would have” made the same decision had they undergone a proper investigation. The case was sent back down to the lower court for a determination of liability based on the “would have” standard.

Considerations for plan sponsors

This case highlights the need for plan fiduciaries to have a strong process in place for investigating and reviewing investment options when making plan decisions. Although this case dealt with decisions related to company stock, the court’s analysis and holding would apply to any fiduciary decision regarding plan investments. Plan sponsors should evaluate their plan investment review and documentation process with their plan advisors to ensure that it is thorough and demonstrates the exercise of procedural prudence.



Add a comment

  • Required fields are marked with *.

If you have trouble reading the code, click on the code itself to generate a new random code.


OnCourse Staff

The OnCourse writing staff work to keep you informed about the most pertinent financial industry news of the moment

OnCourse Staff's Posts Subscribe to RSS Feed

Flood Coverage – Still a Hot Regulatory Issue
Interagency Statement on Sharing BSA Resources and Challenges
New Jersey's Corporate Business Tax Legislation: A Look at the Impact for Banks
Correspondent Banking: The Challenges of Data Transparency
Regulation E and Business Account Errors
Controls over Employee and Officer T&E Expenses
Is Regulation CC Put on the Back Burner?
Training – An Investment and Risk Management Tool
Are You Gambling with Your BSA Program?
The Case of Foreign Banks and Heightened Scrutiny
IRS and New Jersey Tax Audits of Banks
State Taxation of Financial Institutions in Today's Environment
Does your 401(k) Plan need an Audit?
De-Risking of Foreign Correspondent Banks
Same Day ACH Credits – Phase One
FinCEN Finalizes Ruling on Beneficial Ownership and Ongoing Customer Due Diligence
Keep an Eye On Your Chip!
Is the IRS Status of your Defined Benefit plan in Jeopardy?
The Dilemma of Banking Medical Marijuana Businesses and Other Indirect Risks
Is your Institution Monitoring Working Capital Lines of Credit?
Financial Reporting and Regulatory Update on the Horizon
BSA/AML Training: Is your program effective?
Planning in a Consolidating Banking Industry
To opt-out or not to opt-out, that is the question – A reminder on March 31, 2015 Call Report, Schedule RC-R, item 3.a
Anti-Money Laundering – The Age of Technology
Top Compliance Topics Discussed at the NJ Bankers Compliance University
Some tips and tricks for dealing with Regulatory Examinations
Updated Regulation E Booklet from the OCC!
Is Flood Disaster Still on the Heat Map?
Have You Implemented Your Plan yet?
FDIC Consumer Newsletter
More Flood Insurance Changes...
Same Sex Married Couples - Ensuring Equal Treatment – Announcement from Consumer Financial Protection Bureau
Truth in Lending (Regulation Z) Annual Threshold Adjustments (CARD ACT, HOEPA and ATR/QM)
FFIEC Releases Revised BSA/AML Examination Manual: So what’s new?
OFAC Consolidates Non-SDN Listings
Coping with HOPA
Coping with the CFPB’s Ability-to-Repay Rule
ABA Survey on Impact of Dodd Frank Compliance
ABA Mortgage Origination Deskbook
Who handles Your Dormant Accounts?
Appraisal Disclosure Rule
Cybercriminals Broaden their Attacks in Social Networks
The Importance of Segregating a Bank’s Credit Function from its Lending Function
Appraisal Management Companies in Regulatory Crosshairs
All About the Home Owners Protection Act
Requesting Current Financial Information
Countdown to Windows XP End of Life and Support: Are you still at Risk?
314(b) Distinct Advantages for Financial Institutions
Where is the Document?
Building a Better Hen House
Ready the Ramparts! : IT Security and the Modern Bank
The Credit -- Er, IT Crisis?
Keeping the Balance: IT Security and the Org Chart
IT Security: "IT's" About Process
Wag the Dog
Consumerization of Technology and its influence on Information Security
Detective, Reactive and Preventive: Evolving Your IT Security
Do You Know The Security Features of the New $100 Bill?
Segregation of Duties for Wire Transfer Processing
How do you charge Early Withdrawal Fees on Time Deposits?
Do you still offer NOW Accounts?
Policy Changes Required – Do you Wait until Annual Approval?
Summarizing ACAMS White Paper on EDD and AML Risk Assessments (Industry Survey)
ACAMS to provide Free Webinar
ACBB Changes its Name
Who Do You Give Cash to?
ABA Briefing to Help Banks Address Cyber-security Threats
The OCC Issues Booklet: “A Common Sense Approach to Community Banking”
Safe Deposit Box Contents are not insured – But They COULD Be!
Allowance for Loan Loss Tips and Tricks
FDIC Can Review New Products
Let’s Talk About Overdrafts!
Community Banks Slowly Warm Up to Private Student Loans
Has your Bank updated the Adverse Action Notice?
Regulation E and NACHA Rules: When you Want to Stop Payment on a Recurring Debit
CFPB Stands Up Against Poor Debt Collection Practices
Don’t Forget the Small Stuff
Double Endorsed Checks: What is the Risk?
Social Media – Will the Regulators Do Spot Checks?
How Does Your Bank Handle Customer Requested Maintenance Changes?
OCC Releases Booklet on "Common Sense" Community Banking
New SAR Filing Updates
Is your BSA/AML automated monitoring system up to par?
The Importance of BSA Training
Office of Foreign Assets Control (“OFAC”) introduces the OFAC SDN Fuzzy Logic Search Tool
Filing the New CTR Forms: What you need to Know
FFIEC Proposed Risk Management Guidance on Social Media: Beware and Prepare
Solutions to Reducing Dormant Accounts at Your Institution
Pandemic Preparedness: Are you testing your Pandemic Plan?
Regulation E Foreign Remittance Rules
FFIEC issues revised “Supervision of Technology Service Providers” booklet
Expiration of Unlimited Deposit Insurance for NIBTAs
Is Your Institution's Marketing UDAAP Compliant?
What is Enterprise Risk Management?
New OCC Guidance Released on Investor Owned Properties
Electronic Work Papers - Why acxell Made the Switch
OCC to Toughen Exams in Response to United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee On Investigations
Clarifying Regulatory Obligations Regarding Continuing Activity SAR Filings
Federal Regulatory Agencies Proposal New Rule
Risk management - Smaller institutions and the benefits of ERM
Strengthening Your Loan Maintenance Monitoring
New Lending Proposal from CFPB
FDIC Reaches Settlement on Overdraft Fees
FRB Guidance on Foreclosures
Loan Denials and Withdrawals – Tips to Sure Up your Process
Regulation O – 5 Easy ways to avoid violations
The Summer of CFPB Proposals
Community Lenders Seize Market Share From Big Banks by Using Advanced Online Lending Technology
Dodd-Frank Rule to Change Legal Lending Limit Monitoring Requirements
The ABCs of a TDR
Supreme Court ruling for the Freeman, et al. v. Quicken Loans, Inc case
New FinCEN Guidance for CTR Aggregation for Businesses with Common Ownership (FIN – 2012 –G001)
Senior member of House of Financial Services Committee Introduces Overdraft Protection Act
FinCEN is looking to streamline the financial institution reporting process by issuing mandatory E-filing reporting requirements.
Curry: Operational Risk Now OCC’s Top Concern
JOBS Act Client Alert - Rules 506 of Regulation D
New Rules Proposal for Servicers Coming from the CFPB
Wall Street Receives Volcker Rule Clarity
De-stressing with stress testing
Banks Participate in Information Sharing to Battle Online Theft
IT security: Is your program still effective?
Banking Solutions: ALLL and GAAP in Agreement
How are the most recent regulatory enforcement trends that banks are facing today affecting internal audit? Why?
What are the most recent regulatory enforcement trends that banks are facing today?
Mobile banking: How do we get there?
UBS further struggles with $2 Billion loss by Rogue Trader
Capital One Becomes Dodd-Frank Test as Nation’s Fifth Largest Bank
Community Banks to receive US Funding for Small Businesses
FDIC fields questions about overdraft guidance
Negligent Hiring – A mistake can cost more than just money!
Regulatory Burden – Managing the Pain
From Embezzlement to Imprisonment: Former Citigroup employee faces charges with $19.2 million in bank fraud
TDR or Not to TDR …Much Ado about Nothing?
Finding the Right Hire
Model behavior: Is your ALM model capturing your bank’s risks?
ALLL best practices: Pay attention to qualitative factors
Abandoned Property Law, and its new New York State of Mind
Consumerization of Technology and its influence on Information Security
FDIC releases Provisions on Dodd-Frank to help Community Banks
Social Media in the Employment Arena – It Gets Funky!
The Proof is in the Pudding: Affects of Dodd-Frank on Community Banks
Banks and Businesses get "swiped" over Fees
A little bit of this, and a little bit of that: Fed Unveils list of Banks Helped during Financial Crisis of 2008
IT Security: "IT's" About Process
To Test or Not to Test; That is the Question
2011 Failed Bank List Hits 25
Wag the Dog
Committee on Financial Services to Hold Hearing on the Effects of Dodd-Frank on Small Biz and Banks Today
2011 Failed Bank List up to 18
A Culture of Whatever: On the Path to Proper Governance
The Test Drive: Leasing or Buying a HR IT Platform
Detective, Reactive and Preventive: Evolving Your IT Security
Cracking the ALLL Code: How to Develop the Right FAS 114 Methodology
Double Digits: Bank Closings up to 11 in 2011
FCIC Releases Report on the Causes of the Financial Crisis
Part of the In Crowd: Thoughts on the Dodd-Frank Act
Another One Bites the Dust: Regulators Close 4 Banks
Keeping the Balance: IT Security and the Org Chart
On Notice: FDIC Issues Rule for Temp Unlimited Deposit Insurance
2011 Failed Bank List Up to 3
Welcome to OnCourse
Stick 'Em Up!
Time for a Tune-Up: The Necessity of a HR Audit
Visa Instituting Two-Tiered Debit Card Interchange Structure
The First Failed Banks of 2011
The Credit -- Er, IT Crisis?
Painting a Masterpiece: The Art of the ALLL Reserve
The Law on Your Side: Understanding HR Regulations in 2011
Building a Better Hen House
Ready the Ramparts! : IT Security and the Modern Bank
No Respite from RESPA