Jump to content

New 403(b) regs


Recommended Posts

I have taken the liberty to post up a couple of quotes from an IRS website. I have placed my comments and a question in CAPS.

Peace and Hope,

Joel L. Frank

=============================================

"And now, for the brand new highlights, foremost of which is that the proposed regulations require that a 403(b)

program be maintained pursuant to a written defined contribution plan which in both form and operation

satisfies 403(b) and contains all the terms and conditions for benefits under the plan."

COMMENT: THIS IS GREAT NEWS. THE ER MUST NOW GET INVOLVED IN A MEANINGFUL WAY AND OPERATE THE PLAN MORE LIKE A "QUALIFIED PLAN" WHICH 403bs ARE NOT. THIS IS FANTASTIC NEWS FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO INVEST IN NO-LOAD FUNDS AND HAVE BEEN PRECLUDED FROM DOING SO BECAUSE THE ER WAS OUT TO LUNCH AND FRANKLY DID NOT GIVE A HOOT. WELL NOW SUCH ERS ARE COMPELLED BY LAW TO GET INVOLVED IN A MEANINGFUL WAY.

"The proposed regulations provide that these plans may terminate and distribute assets with full rollover ability..."

QUESTION: IN THE EVENT OF PLAN TERMINATION AND THUS A DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS MUST THE EMPLOYEE SATISFY A TRIGGERING EVENT IN ORDER FOR THE DISTRIBUTION TO BE AFFORDED ROLLOVER TREATMENT?

"It is intended that Revenue Ruling 90-24, in-service plan-to-plan 403(b) asset transfers, be limited to situations

where the employee is a participant of the receiving plan".

COMMENT: AT FIRST GLANCE ONE MIGHT THINK THAT THIS PUTS A DAGGER INTO OUR DESIRE TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY. BUT I WOULD NOT BE TOO CONCERNED WITH THIS PROVISION IN LIGHT OF THE FACT THAT THE ER MUST ESTABLISH A WRITTEN 403(b) PLAN WHICH WILL GIVE US ALL THE FLEXIBILITY WE ARE ENTITLED TO. IN MY VIEW THE ER WILL BE IN VIOLATION OF THE REGS TO THE EXTENT THAT IT DOES NOT OFFER NO-LOAD FUND INVESTING. THE DAYS ARE GONE WHEN THE MENU ONLY CONSISTS OF HIGH COST VARIABLE ANNUITIES/MUTUAL FUNDS. "HELP IS ON THE WAY"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel: Where does 403b impose any investment duties on an employer? Even ERISA does not require that an employer offer no load funds. Imposing qualified plan requirements on 403(b) plan will result in termination of non ERISA 403(b) plans because of the liability risks to applicable to plan administrators under state laws and substitution of IRAs. Employees will be able to contribute 4k to an IRA in 2005 ($4500 if 50) and 5k in 2008 (6k if 50) which will be enough for most teachers. In 2006 married couples will be able to participate in a Q plan and contribute to an IRA if their AGI is 75k or less (50k for single person). IRA funds can be withdrawn at any time subject only to the 10% penalty tax and there are more investment options than there are in 403b plans. Employees will be able to transfer the entire 403b balance to an IRA upon termination and avoid all of those nasty fees that you complain about.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mb: I will respond in CAPS IN THE BODY OF YOUR POST. THANKS FOR YOUR VIEWS.

Joel

=====================================================

Joel: Where does 403b impose any investment duties on an employer? Even ERISA does not require that an employer offer no load funds. Imposing qualified plan requirements on 403(b) plan will result in termination of non ERISA 403(b) plans because of the liability risks to applicable to plan administrators under state laws and substitution of IRAs.

I RECOGNIZE THAT FACT BUT YOU WOULD BE HARD PRESSED TO FURNISH THE NAME OF A 401(K) PLAN THAT LIMITS ITS INVESTMENT MENU TO COMMISSIONED BASED VARIABLE ANNUITIES/MUTUAL FUNDS. THE 457(b) IS ALIVE AND WELL NOT WITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THEY MUST OPERATE UNDER A WRITTEN PLAN DOCUMENT. THE 403(b) WILL ALSO SURVIVE ESPECIALLY IF A STATE'S LOCAL SCHOOL DISTRICTS USE A STATEWIDE 403(b) PLAN. SUCH A PLAN HAS BEEN AVAILABLE FOR NJ SCHOOL DISTRICTS FOR MORE THAN FOUR DECADES AND IS ADMINISTERED BY THE NJ DIVISION OF PENSIONS/BENEFITS.

Employees will be able to contribute 4k to an IRA in 2005 ($4500 if 50) and 5k in 2008 (6k if 50) which will be enough for most teachers.

THANKS FOR LOOKING OUT FOR TEACHERS. YOUR ELITIST ATTITUDE IS NOTED

In 2006 married couples will be able to participate in a Q plan and contribute to an IRA if their AGI is 75k or less (50k for single person).

MANY 403(b) ELIGIBLES DO NOT HAVE A Q PLAN AND USE THE 403(b) AS THEIR PRIMARY RETIREMENT PLAN. MOREOVER, MANY OF THESE ELIGIBLES ARE NOT "TEACHERS" AND COMMAND ANNUAL SALARIES WELL IN EXCESS OF $100,000. SO WHY SHOULD THEY BE LOCKED OUT OF THE HIGHER 403(b) CONTRIBUTION LIMITS?

IRA funds can be withdrawn at any time subject only to the 10% penalty tax and there are more investment options than there are in 403b plans. Employees will be able to transfer the entire 403b balance to an IRA upon termination and avoid all of those nasty fees that you complain about.

NO RESTRICTIONS ON IRA WITHDRAWALS (SUBJECT ONLY TO THE 10 PERCENT PENALTY TAX) IS A POOR REASON TO CAN THE 403(b) IN FAVOR OF AN IRA. THE MUTUAL FUND UNIVERSE IS WHERE MOST PEOPLE INVEST BOTH INSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF PRE-TAX INVESTING. MOREOVER, AS YOU KNOW VERY, VERY WELL PRE-59 1/2 WITHDRAWALS FROM A 403(b) ARE EXEMPT FROM THE 10 PERCENT PENALTY TAX IF THE EE HAS TERMINATED EMPLOYMENT DURING OR AFTER THE YEAR S(HE) TURNED AGE 55. I DO NOT WANT TO TERMINATE 403(b) PLANS IN FAVOR OF EXTERMINATION AS YOU APPARENTLY FORECAST. I WANT THE SPONSOR TO DO THE RIGHT THING BY ITS EES. IN THIS REGUARD WOULD YOU PLEASE LOG ONTO THE FLORIDA RETIREMENT SYSTEM'S WEBSITE AND TELL US WHAT YOU THINK ABOUT THEIR "INVESTMEN PLAN". DO THE SAME FOR THE 457(b) PLAN OF THE CITY OF NEW YORK. AND WHILE YOU'RE AT IT TRY THE 403(b) Plan operated by the 403(b) Trust of the Wisconsin Education Association. PLEASE GET BACK TO US WITH YOUR THOUGHTS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is no prudent man requirement for non ERISA 403b plans that would require the use of no load funds.

If the rules for administering 403(b) plans become too onerous then public school districts can offer IRAs without any administrative burdens. Most public school teachers contribute less than 5k to a tax deferred plan because their salaries are below 50k and they participate in a non contributory state retirement plan. (NJ provides both a DB plan and lifetime retiree medical for teachers after 5 years of service.) I dont know where you get the idea that many teachers are paid over 100k since only about about 6% of all workers, not just teachers, have comp in excess of the FICA wage base of 87.9k.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mb: You have basically re-stated your position. With all due respect you have not been attentive. I stated: MANY 403(b) ELIGIBLES DO NOT HAVE A Q PLAN AND USE THE 403(b) AS THEIR PRIMARY RETIREMENT PLAN. MOREOVER, MANY OF THESE ELIGIBLES ARE NOT "TEACHERS" AND COMMAND ANNUAL SALARIES WELL IN EXCESS OF $100,000. SO WHY SHOULD THEY BE LOCKED OUT OF THE HIGHER 403(b) CONTRIBUTION LIMITS?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I take issue with a couple of your assertions: 1. An employer doesn't offer IRAs---it is simply purchased by a qualified individual. 2. Most DB PERS that k-12 teachers belong to are contributory, ie NJ/NY/CA.---not non-contributory as you erroneously assert. 3. NJ requires 25 years of service (NOT FIVE AS YOU ASSERT) in order to get retiree health insurance. ONCE AGAIN YOU ARE SHOWING YOUR ANTI-PUBLIC EMPLOYEE BIAS.

The new 403(b) Regs affect not only public school employees/colleges/universities but the entire 501©(3) community. And if HR 3718 becomes law the entire public employee workforce on the state and local level will be able to invest in 403(b) plans.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel,

Did you know that Van Guard charges $10 per fund per year in their 403(b) program?

Did you know that T. Rowe Price charges $15 per fund in their 403(b) program?

Many of these low cost providers are not low cost.

Do you know that 401(k)s cost the employer thousands of dollars a year to administer?

Do you know that public 403(b)s have no administration cost billed to the employer?

if a plan docs were needed and an administrator to handle the plan the admin costs would sky rocket. I agree with mbozek that many employers will get rid of 403(b)s if they need plan docs and the additional cost of an administrator.

403(b)s are simple retirement plans.

Do you know that low cost providers are available in 403(b) plans but participants choose variable annuities because of the service and benefits?

Do you know that school and non-profits choose what investments (403b1 or 403b7) are available in their plan.

I really don't get the hatred of variable annuities, if you don't like them invest in a 403b7. Ask you employer to add one to the vendor list. But adding administrative hassles to employer will not decrease cost but increase it.

Have a nice day

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I will respond to your remarks in CAPS. Thanks for your views.

Joel

===================================================

Did you know that Van Guard charges $10 per fund per year in their 403(b) program?

Did you know that T. Rowe Price charges $15 per fund in their 403(b) program?

Many of these low cost providers are not low cost.

Do you know that 401(k)s cost the employer thousands of dollars a year to administer?

SO WHY DO THEY NOT TERMINATE THESE "EXPENSIVE" PLANS?

Do you know that public 403(b)s have no administration cost billed to the employer?

YOU CAN AFFORD TO BE CHARITABLE WHEN YOU CHARGE 200-300 BP.

if a plan docs were needed and an administrator to handle the plan the admin costs would sky rocket. I agree with mbozek that many employers will get rid of 403(b)s if they need plan docs and the additional cost of an administrator.

THE NYC 457(b) PLAN CHARGES THE EE/INVESTOR 34 BP WHICH INCLUDES THE PLAN'S $50 ADMINISTRATION FEE. WHY CAN'T THIS APPLY TO A 403(b) PLAN?

403(b)s are simple retirement plans.

THEY ARE INDEED SIMPLE AND EXPENSIVE BECAUSE THEY ARE SOLD BY RETAIL STOCK BROKERS WHO MUST SELL IN ORDER TO MAKE A LIVING.

Do you know that low cost providers are available in 403(b) plans but participants choose variable annuities because of the service and benefits?

I LIKE ANNUITIES---THE LOW COST VARIETY IE TIAA-CREF WITH 3 BP FOR MORTALITY AND EXPENSE CHARGES NOT THE INDUSTRY AVERAGE OF 100 BP.

THE "SERVICE AND BENEFITS" IS SIMPLY A SALES PITCH. EXCEPT FOR TIAA-CREF THE PURCHASE OF AN ANNUITY (FIXED OR VARIABLE) FOR PRE-TAX INVESTING IS LIKE OPENING UP AN UMBRELLA INDOORS. THIS HORRIFIC ABUSE IN THE 403(b) COMMUNITY WILL BE A THING OF THE PAST WITH THE ADOPTION OF THE PROPOSED REGS IN 2006.

Do you know that school and non-profits choose what investments (403b1 or 403b7) are available in their plan.

CURRENTLY THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A NON-ERISA "403(b) PLAN". THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED REGS ARE ALL ABOUT. CURRENTLY WITH NON-ERISA 403(b) ARRANGEMENTS THE ER COULD NOT GIVE A HOOT AS TO THE TYPE OR COST OF THE INVESTMENT BEING SOLD TO ITS EMPLOYEES===THIS HANDS OFF APPROACH LEADS TO YOUR DESCRIPTION THAT IT IS A "SIMPLE RETIREMENT PLAN". IN ITS CURRENT FORM IT IS AKIN TO PURCHASING US SAVINGS BONDS ON THE PAYROLL DEDUCTION BASIS.

I really don't get the hatred of variable annuities, if you don't like them invest in a 403b7. Ask you employer to add one to the vendor list.

IF THE ER DID ITS DUE DILLIGENCE IT WOULD ALREADY BE ON THE VENDOR LIST. WHY IS IT THAT 403(b) IS THE ONLY RETIREMENT SCHEME THAT SPORTS A VENDOR LIST---THE LA SCHOOLS OFFER 80 VENDORS. WHAT COULD BE MORE ABSURD? COULD THIS BE A PRIMARY REASON FOR THE NEW REGS? I THINK SO.

But adding administrative hassles to employer will not decrease cost but increase it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Employers do not terminate their 401k plans because they do not have the cheaper 403b alternative available to c3 organizations. Under DOL guidelines employers are passing the 401k admin costs to employees. Please cite the provision in the regs which will require employer due diligence on costs or investment options since 403b does not have a prudent investor rule for selecting investments. The written document requirement will impose admin burdens on plan sponsors such as enforcing hardship distributions, limitation on loans and mrds which will be impossible to administer in a program that uses individual annuities/accounts. Requiring compliance with the terms of a written plan will require the employer to chose one of three options:

1. hire extra staff and use internal resources to administer compliance with the terms of the plan which will not please taxpayers who pay for public education.

2. Hire a TPA to provide the admin services and pass the cost along to participants of between $50-150 per year per participant which will reduce contributons to the plan. NYC costs are not a good example because no other SD has its buying power.

3. Terminate the 403b plan and allow participants to contribute to an IRA.

Some people like VAs for the guarantees they provide. This is an investor decision.

Note: The proposed regs will not have any effect on the number of vendors who can offer their products because state law controls vendor selection. The LA SD has 80 403b vendors because Cal Ins law section 770.3 has been interpreted to require a SD to allow all vendors to solicit 403b products as long as one ins co is allowed to sell an annuity product. The larger providers such as Vanguard will stay way from SDs with such large vendor lists because it would have to use agents to sell its products.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Employers do not terminate their 401k plans because they do not have the cheaper 403b alternative available to c3 organizations.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE CODE DOES NOT ALLOW FOR A 401(K) INVESTMENT MENU TO BE RESTRICTED TO INDIVIDUAL ANNUITIES/ACCOUNTS?

Please cite the provision in the regs which will require employer due diligence on costs or investment options since 403b does not have a prudent investor rule for selecting investments.

ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE PROPOSED REGS DO NOT REQUIRE A PRUDENT INVESTOR RULE?

The written document requirement will impose admin burdens on plan sponsors such as enforcing hardship distributions, limitation on loans and mrds which will be impossible to administer in a program that uses individual annuities/accounts.

SO IF IT WILL BE IMPOSSIBLE TO ADMINISTER WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE PROPOSED REGS?

IF ALL THE SD IN A PARTICULAR STATE COMBINE THEIR BUYING POWER INTO A SINGLE 403(b) PlAN THE COST FACTOR WOULD BE ELIMINATED. AS I SAID IN A PREVIOUS POST NEW JERSEY HAS OFFERED A STATEWIDE PLAN FOR MORE THAN

FORTY YEARS.

Some people like VAs for the guarantees they provide. This is an investor decision.

SO WHY DO ONLY A SMALL FRACTION OF 401(K)S OFFER THE VA?

Edited by Appleby to add "quotes"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel,

Your posts are interesting to me, but just a little bit hard to determine where your comments begin Vs the quotes.

You may already know this, but you can indicated quotes by highlighting the quoted text and clicking on the “QUOTE” tab that appears above the posting box

Life and Death Planning for Retirement Benefits by Natalie B. Choate
https://www.ataxplan.com/life-and-death-planning-for-retirement-benefits/

www.DeniseAppleby.com

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Joel: Everyone knows that 403b plans are cheaper to administer because there is no ADP testing, detailed 5500 reporting, auditors opinons, IRS determination letters, etc that are required for 401k plans. I dont know how your comment connects with the quote you took from me.

403(b) doesnt have any rule regarding investment selection which exists under ERISA. I dont see any reference to due diligence.

Like every regulation, the purpose of the requiring administration of the plan in accordance with its written terms is to collect income and FICA tax from employees of the school districts that don't comply with the regs.

The NJ div of Pensions is not a model for investment selection of retirment plan assets since its performance as the exclusive manager of all NJ state retirement plan assets over the last few years has been criticized by govt officials and outside financial advisors will be given part of the state pension portfolio to manage. Also didnt the NJ Division of Pensions have problems managing the NJ 529 plan until it was given to Franklin Templeton? I remember reading unflattering comparisions to NYs 529 plan that was managed by TIAA/CREF.

I dont know what you mean by the last statement.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

mb: I have attempted to be deliberate in this dialogue by posting your quote and then placing my response in CAPS. Yet it is apparent that you refuse to respond directly to my rebuttals but simply restate, albeit using different words, your original position/post. I respectfully have to tell you that I find this quite frustrating.

The NJ Division Pensions in addition to being the Administrator of the five DB PERS also is the Administrator of a DC Plan known as the Supplemental Annuity Collective Trust (SACT)---this is the statewide 403(b) plan that all eligible NJ public employees may contribute to. Its expense ratio (paid by the participants) is 10 bp. Its investment results are separate and distinct from the corpus of the 5 DB Plans because the 403(b) Plan offers individual funds for the personal investor. So your remarks that the Division has achieved less than stellar performance is irrelevant.

Q.: After you review the offering of the SACT can you tell us if this statewide 403(b) Plan is a workable model for the other 48 states to follow. Moreover, have you had a chance to review the Investment Plan of the Florida Retirement System? Is this not a fine model for the "new" 403(b) plan? Have you had a chance to look at the 403(b) Trust that was established by the Wisconsin Education Association? And what about the Federal Thrift Savings Plan as a model for a 403(b) Plan?

The point I am attempting to make is that the ers and ees do not have to be burdened/abused with an avalanche of retail stockbrokers decending on the workplace each business day to "sell" commissioned based annuities/mutual funds under the current 403b regs. And I was hoping that the "new" regs would be a major impetus for the vast majority of uncaring/selfish ers to follow the lead that was established many decades ago by the decision makers in NJ and Wisconsin.

The NJ SACT program is not as popular as it could be because of many restrictions, so it is a minority 403(b) carrier among eligible publice employees in NJ. On the other hand the 403(b) Trust established by the Wisconsin Education Association is the major 403(b) carrier among eligible public employees in the state of Wisconsin. This is proof positive that the high cost Variable Annuities and mutual funds that are so prevalent throughout the country are sold and not bought. It is the rare individual that given a choice of high cost products and no-load products would choose the high cost variety.

Peace and Hope and have a good Thanksgiving,

Joel L. Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I dont compare different state laws that regulate 403b plans. I provide advice to clients on how to comply with the regulatory requirements for deferred compensation plans under state and/or federal laws. The proposed 403b regs will impose significant administrative burdens on employers because of the requirement that a 403b plan be administered in acordance with a written document which contains all of the plan terms. The compliance costs will be paid by plan participants through reduced contributions to the plan. The IRS has not committed itself to developing a determination letter process which would provide certainty to sponsors that the form of the plan complies with the regs because it would divert resources from other areas. Under the regs, maintaining a 403b plan will be all risk and no reward for sponsors because of the compliance aspects.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QUESTION: IN THE EVENT OF PLAN TERMINATION AND THUS A DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFITS MUST THE EMPLOYEE SATISFY A TRIGGERING EVENT IN ORDER FOR THE DISTRIBUTION TO BE AFFORDED ROLLOVER TREATMENT?

=====================================================

Doesn't anyone care to reply?

Peace,

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the triggering event is the termination of the 403(b) plan.

I've been reading the comments in this thread and have a few thoughts.

It remains to be seen whether the plan document requirement will pass muster. I'm sure there will be a fight on this -- the key issue being whether the Treasury/IRS has the authority to require a written plan (until these regs came out, they consistently said they didn't have the authority).

Assuming they can impose a written plan requirement, then the next issue is whether this will subject an employer to ERISA. I'm sure this will be the subject of many a debate (if ERISA does apply, then all of the fiduciary rules would kick in).

If both of the above happen, all of you may be correct. Mix it all up and what do you have? Higher admin costs, some plan terminations, maybe lower investment fees, maybe the investment fees stay the same and the higher admin costs are eaten by the investment providers, etc.

Obviously, no one knows what the impact will be. However, those who have the "big brother" attitude (e.g., the IRS) think that oversight in this area is long overdue (of course the IRS concern is compliance, not investments).

In any event, I think the fireworks related to the first 2 items being fought out will be interesting to watch.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A written document has never been required for a 403b plan because the language of 403b1 only requires an employer to purchase an annuity for an employee unlike IRC 457(b) which defines an eligible deferred compensation plan as "a plan established and maintained by an eligible employer". A qualified plan is required to be in writing because 401(a)(2) requires the plan trust to be in writing. My concern with requiring a written document is that the IRS will impose tax penalities on employees and employers if the "material terms" (which are not clearly defined in the proposed regs) are not described in the plan document in the opinion of an IRS agent or if the plan has not been amended for changes in the tax law or plan operation, change in investments, custodians, etc. Unlike qualified plans there is neither a remedial amendment period requiring amendment of 403b plans to conform to changes in the tax law (because they are not maintained by an employer) or a determination procedure to approve 403b plans which will make compliance an uncertain, haphazard and expensive prospect to np and public employers. Requiring employers to maintain formal documentation and amendment of 403b plans will result in the termination of many 403b plans. A secondary reason for not requiring a written document is that formal adoption of a plan can be construed in some states as creating fiduciary liability for the employer to litigious employees.

Having a written document does not create an ERISA plan- its the imposition of employer control that will create ERISA issues for NP employers who will find it less risky to allow contributions to IRAs by payroll deduction of up to $5000 in 2006 ($6000 in 08).

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I think the triggering event is the termination of the 403(b) plan."

==================================================

Would this trigger require legislation because sections 403(b)7 and 403(b)11 do not include "plan termination" as a distributable or triggering event?

Joel

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Actually, Joel, I'm too busy marshalling forces to prepare written comments to the IRS in protest of much of the content of the proposed regulations (many of which have no statutory authority) to stop long enough to figure out what you are saying. My concern is to protect the interest of employers (especially those in non-ERISA plans) who would be heavily burdened with the new requirements, and the participants who would lose so much ownership and control if these regulations are finalized. As a pioneer in the 403(b) market, I do remember the intent of Congress in implementing 403(b) plans (in 1958 for non-profits and 1961 for public education employees) as a unique and special benefit for a group of people that need it. It appears that the IRS has foregotten that. The fight begins.

Peace yourself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ellie: 403b annuities have never been regarded as an employer sponsored plan by Congress. In 1942 Congress exempted the predecessor IRC provision for TDAs from the nondiscrimination requirements (participation, nondiscrimination, intergration, etc) imposed on qualified plans. The 1958 amendment limited contributions by salary reduction to 20% of comp. (Prior to 1975 there were no limits on the amount of employer contributions.) The origin of 403b plans can be traced to the incorporation of TIAA in 1918.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Empoweryourmind

Am I missing something? I administer a 403(b) plan for a NP org. We have a plan document and according to EGTTRA regs, the plan does not have to be amended for purposes of the limits. So it appears we're free and clear there. To my knowledge, all qualified plans are required to have a plan document. Is that not true? I also believe that since 403(b) Plans may terminate, but cannot rollover the 403(b) assets into a 401(k) Plan there is not much benefit to terminate the plan b/c the regs are cumbersome. If I recollect correctly, the regs have been monsterous since ERISA... ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

E: Under the proposed regs the plan document, not the law will control how the plan is administered so 403(b) will have to be revised for every change in tax law or regs. Under current law a non ERISA 403(b) is not required to be in writing. Under current law there is no distribution of assets upon termination of a 403(b) plan because the employee owns the interest in the annuity.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, Joel, I'm too busy marshalling forces to prepare written comments to the IRS in protest of much of the content of the proposed regulations (many of which have no statutory authority) to stop long enough to figure out what you are saying.

=====================================================

Actually, Ms. Lowder, I am taking some time from my busy schedule to suggest to you that rather than telling us that you can't spare enough time to figure out what I am saying that you say nothing until you do have enough time to figure out what I am saying.

Peace and Hope,

Joel L. Frank

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I also believe that since 403(b) Plans may terminate, but cannot rollover the 403(b) assets into a 401(k) Plan there is not much benefit to terminate the plan b/c the regs are cumbersome. If I recollect correctly, the regs have been monsterous since ERISA...

=====================================================

Empower: Erisa 403(b)s and non-erisa 403(b)s may not terminate until the 403b Regs are finalized which should be for plan years beginning after 12/31/05. Currently an eligible rollover distribution from a 403(b) can be made to a 401(k).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...