Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
The Employee Benefit Security Administration of the Department of Labor (DOL) has recently announced a more liberal view toward charging tax-qualified retirement plan expenses against the accounts of participants in 401(k), ESOP, and other defined contribution plans. This article provides a brief overview of the kinds of expenses that plans may pay and then explains how the new DOL guidance provides employers and plan sponsors with greater flexibility in allocating these expenses to participant accounts.
Expenses that Plans May Pay: Administrative v. Settlor Decisions
Employers are not required to pay all costs associated with the maintenance of their tax-qualified retirement plans. While the DOL has long recognized that there are occasions under which plans may pay plan expenses, most employers proceed with caution in deciding to pay plan expenses from plan assets, because that decision is a fiduciary act under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).
Specifically, ERISA provides that, subject to certain exceptions, the assets of an employee benefit plan shall never inure to the benefit of any employer and shall be held for the exclusive purpose of providing benefits to participants and beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the plan. ERISA Section 403(c)(1). Further, in discharging their duties under ERISA, fiduciaries must act prudently and solely in the interest of the plan participants and beneficiaries, and in accordance with the documents and instruments governing the plan provided they are consistent with the provisions of ERISA. ERISA Section 404(a)(1)(A).
The DOL has long taken the position that the above provisions prohibit an employer or other plan fiduciary from using plan assets to pay for expenses associated with decisions relating to the establishment, design, and termination of a plan. See, eg, Letter from DOL's Pension Welfare Benefit Administration to Kirk F. Maldonado (March 2, 1987). These so-called “settlor” functions are presumed to arise from an employer's sponsorship of a plan, and to involve decisions that employers make in their own best interests. Consequently, the DOL requires that employers bear all costs leading up to any settlor decision. See, eg, DOL Adv. Op. Ltr. 2001-01A (January 18, 2001).
Once an employer makes a settlor decision, plan assets may pay any expenses incurred to implement that decision. Id. Employers often pay a plan's administrative costs, but are not required to do so. When they do not, plan fiduciaries have the authority to use plan assets to pay reasonable expenses of administering a plan, including direct expenses properly and actually incurred in the performance of a fiduciary's duties to the plan. See, eg, DOL Adv. Op. Ltr. 2001-01A (January 18, 2001). Thus, for example, once a plan sponsor has decided to terminate a plan, the reasonable expenses incurred in implementing a plan termination would generally be payable by the plan. DOL Adv. Op. Ltr. 97-03A (January 23, 1987) (stating that these expenses would typically include “auditing the plan, preparing and filing annual reports, preparing benefit statements and calculating accrued benefits, notifying participants and beneficiaries of their benefits under the plan and, in certain circumstances, amending the plan to effectuate an orderly termination that benefits the participants and beneficiaries.”).
The following chart summarizes some examples of the types of plan expenses that the DOL has classified as settlor and administrative: Disclosed in Advisory Opinion 2001-01A.
Settlor Expenses that Plan Sponsor | Administrative Expenses Payable |
Consulting fees relating to evaluation of plan sponsor's alternatives for compliance with ERISA or tax laws | Amending a plan to comply with tax laws or ERISA |
Plan design studies | Nondiscrimination testing necessary to maintain tax-qualified status |
Amending a plan to spin-off assets | Calculating benefits payable under |
Union negotiations related to | Communicating to participants re. |
Amending a plan to establish a | Expenses associated with operation of loan program |
Amending a plan to establish early retirement window | Requesting an IRS determination letter for early retirement window amendment |
Even if an expense qualifies as an administrative expense that may be paid with plan assets, a plan sponsor should confirm that the payment of that expense is permissible under the plan document. The DOL has taken the position that when a plan document is silent regarding the payment of administrative expenses, the plan may pay reasonable administrative expenses. Even when a plan document provides that the employer will pay any such expenses, if the employer has reserved the right to amend the plan document, ERISA permits the employer to amend the plan to require the plan to pay administrative expenses but only on a protective (not retroactive) basis. DOL Adv. Op. Ltr. 2001-01A, fn. 5.
Allocating Plan Expenses in a Defined Contribution Plan
Traditional pension or defined benefit pension plans do not involve individual accounts for participants, because these plans merely promise a formula-based retirement benefit and place full funding responsibility on the employers who sponsor them. When these plans incur administrative expenses, plan assets may pay them ' but this does not affect the retirement benefits that participants will ultimately receive.
Defined contribution plans are fundamentally different in this respect, because they require an allocation of plan assets between the accounts of participants. Investment gains and losses pass through to the accounts of participants. Administrative expenses will also pass through to the accounts of participants, unless the employer pays them. Until recently, prior DOL pronouncements (For example, the DOL had previously ruled that imposing the costs of a QDRO determination solely on the participant (or alternate payee) seeking the QDRO would violate ERISA and that such an expense had to be allocated the plan as whole. DOL Adv. Op. Lt. 94-32A (August 4, 1994).) effectively prevented defined contribution plans from charging a participant's account for plan expenses specifically attributable to the account. This forced plans to divide administrative expenses between all plan participants' accounts.
In Field Assistance Bulletin 2003-3 (FAB), the DOL expressly stated that defined contribution plans need not treat all participants alike when allocating administrative expenses to participants. This opens the door for passing a plan's administrative expenses through to participants in appealing new ways. The FAB permits a plan:
To charge plan expenses to the accounts of former employees, but not necessarily to those of active employees. According to the FAB, it is permissible for a plan to assess administrative expenses against:
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?