Is Your Executive Plan Top-Hat?

Most larger companies and some smaller ones provide many of their higher paid employees the opportunity to participate in a nonqualified retirement plan often referred to as a Supplemental Executive Retirement Plan or SERP. The rationale for having such a plan is spelled out in ERISA. The regulations specifically grants "top-hat" status to plans that are limited to a select group of management or highly compensated employees. The plan must also be unfunded (and for those people who say that lots of top-hat plans have assets set aside, that is informal funding in a rabbi trust or through insurance products or some other means).

Before going further, I'd be remiss if I did not mention that my motivation for posting this is a recent series on top-hat plan litigation in Mike Melbinger's blog.

So why should an employer or employee care if their plan is a top-hat plan or not? According to regulations under ERISA Section 104, top-hat plans are exempt from the participation, funding, vesting, and fiduciary rules under ERISA. As we shall see, this can be critically important, especially in the current statutory environment.

Backpedaling just a bit because this will help the less knowledgeable reader to understand why top-hat plans exist, let's consider what it could mean to be in a top-hat group. ERISA was enacted in 1974 to provide certain protections for employees in retirement and certain welfare benefit plans. When a plan is exempt from some of the key provisions of ERISA, it fails to provide those protections. So, being in a top-hat plan could alert a participant that he or she might not need those protections.

As some authors, mostly attorneys, have pointed out, the last year or two has seen more than the usual amount of litigation related to top-hat plans. In the typical situation, either an individual thinks that they were improperly excluded from a top-hat plan (in my completely non-legal view, this would be a tough claim to make) or because they were in a plan that was treated by their employer as being a top-hat plan, but they thought that it did not satisfy the criteria for being top-hat.

Depending on your viewpoint, the latter is either an easy claim or a difficult claim to make. Why is that? It's been more than 40 years since the passage of ERISA and we still don't have formal DOL guidance telling us what a top-hat group is. Some have argued that an individual may properly be in a top-hat group by being either management or highly compensated or both. Despite the current definition of highly compensated (Internal Revenue Code Section 414(q)) not existing until late 1986, some have argued that satisfying that criterion is sufficient. Many years ago, the DOL floated a concept that a person should be eligible for a top-hat group that a person would be eligible if their compensation was at least two times (three times in a separate informally floated concept) the Social Security Wage Base. And, finally, there is the concept that a person may rightfully be in a top-hat group if by the nature of their position, they have the ability to influence the design and amount of their compensation and benefits package.

So, knowing that we currently don't know what a top-hat group actually is, why do we care?

Suppose your company sponsors what it believes to be a top-hat plan and it turns out that it's not top-hat. Then, it's going to be subject to some fairly onerous provisions that could create massive current costs in some cases and unsolvable compliance issues in others.

Consider the following scenario.

Suppose you have a DB SERP with 20 participants. Further suppose that for whatever reason, this plan is found to not be a top-hat plan. Assuming that the company is large enough, then the plan will fail the minimum participation rules and it will necessarily (unless the company has only highly compensated employees) fail the minimum coverage tests. Full vesting must occur generally within 5 years of entry and that entry must occur not later than age 21 with 1 year of service. The plan must be funded according to ERISA's minimum funding rules. And, those plan assets must be invested according to ERISA's fiduciary standards. But, the plan will still not be a qualified plan as it doesn't meet all of the Internal Revenue Code's standards under Section 401(a).

If the plan is not qualified, it must be a nonqualified plan of deferred compensation. That makes the plan subject to Code Section 409A. So, let's throw in one more wrinkle. Let's suppose the company also sponsors a qualified DB plan and let's suppose that the qualified plan is less than 80% funded. Now, you are between a rock and a hard place. Setting aside assets (funding) for the nonqualified plan will violate Code Section 409A which will subject participants to a very large unplanned additional tax liability. (By the way, those participant will likely have to find a way to pay those taxes perhaps without having access to the deferred compensation assets in order to pay them.) Not funding the SERP will cause the plan to fail to meet minimum funding standards which will result in excise taxes under IRC 4971.

Ouch!

What should an employer do?

I've been told by more than one attorney that it is unlikely that you can get a formal legal opinion that your top-hat group is, in fact, a bona fide top hat group.

If you can't get a formal legal opinion, perhaps the best way to get comfort is to get an outsider with expertise in this area to assist with an independent analysis.

Looking at a history of case law and DOL opinion on the topic, one might consider these elements:

• The percentage of the workforce in the top-hat group
• The relative pay of the top-hat group as compared to the pay of those people not in the top-hat group
• Whether the top-hat group was selected by the Board as compared to being, for example, any employee with the title Vice President or higher
• Whether individuals in the top-hat group, especially those among the lower-paid in the group, have significant management responsibilities
• Whether individuals in the group need the protection of ERISA

Nobody really knows. But, having an independent analysis might show that an employer is acting in good faith in determining the group. Given the downside of getting it wrong, it may just be worth it to find out.

Finally, I want to reiterate that I am not an attorney and I have no qualifications to provide legal advice. As such, nothing in this post or anything else that I write should be construed as legal advice or as the practice of law.

IRS Proposes Updated Pension Nondiscrimination Rules

I wrote recently about some of the causes of the relative demise of defined benefit (DB) plans. Last Thursday, although it was dated Friday, the IRS released a new proposed nondiscrimination regulation. We had been told that this was coming down the pike. It was going to be all good. It was going to provide relief so that a DB plan that was compliant and was frozen to new entrants (sometimes called soft frozen) would not suddenly become non-compliant due to natural turnover and promotions of active employees in the plan. That the IRS addressed this nearly 23 years after the regulations were finalized was long overdue, but good news.

We didn't know that there were going to be other changes. One of the hallmarks of the suite of nondiscrimination regulations (nondiscrimination, coverage, minimum participation) is that they provided objective tests to determine whether a plan discriminated unfairly in favor of highly compensated employees (HCEs). In fact, the final regulations tell us that satisfying the various tests included in them are the sole method of demonstrating nondiscrimination. While this caused a significant burden for some companies and their plans, it gave plan sponsors comfort in knowing that passing those tests meant that there plans were, in fact, nondiscriminatory. Many design and redesign studies were done because of this knowledge.

Then came last week,

I now digress into some technical mumbo jumbo the likes of which this blog has not seen for a while. If you don't like or care about the technical stuff, please stick with me; I'll return to the more common language soon.

The rules for nondiscrimination in amount under 1.401(a)(4)-2 and -3 contain something known as the general test. Under the general test, there exists a concept known as the rate group. For each HCE, there is a rate group consisting of that HCE and all other nonexcludable employees whose normal and most valuable accrual rates are at least as big as those of that particular HCE (people with similar accrual rates can be grouped to be considered to have the same accrual rate as each other). Once we establish the rate groups, we must demonstrate that each rate group satisfy the head counting portion of the same coverage test under Code Section 410(b) that the plan uses to satisfy coverage. So, if the plan uses the Ratio Percentage Test to satisfy 410(b), then each rate group must have a ratio percentage of at least 70%. On the other hand, if the plan uses the more complex Average Benefit Test to satisfy 410(b), then each rate group must have a ratio percentage at least equal to the lesser of the actual ratio percentage for the testing population or the midpoint of the safe and unsafe harbors (this threshold is far less than 70% and is frequently in the neighborhood of 30%).

This has been the case since 1993. In fact, there are now people performing testing who were not alive when we started doing testing this way.

Under the proposed regulations, however, that lower threshold would not be available to plans that have separate formulas for which there is not a reasonable business criterion. The proposed regulation tells us that naming names (common in designs often known as QSERPs) does not constitute a reasonable criterion. The problem is that when the word reasonable is used, we, the practitioners never know what someone else thinks is reasonable.

So, will we be left doing tests that we think are correct only to learn that someone else with a higher authority thinks that we have misconstrued what is reasonable? Is this a calling to just stop providing retirement benefits? After all, we could design perfectly good retirement plans for our clients today that we learn tomorrow have suddenly failed to still be nondiscriminatory.

From a personal standpoint, the good news is that even most of the aggressive designs that my colleagues work with would seem to satisfy the reasonable business criterion test. There are lots of plans out there, however, that do not, and these plans may be in trouble if and when the proposed regulations are finalized.

Would you like to know if your plans seem safe or potentially in trouble? I'll be happy to help you figure that out.

Women's Pension Protection Act

Without much fanfare, on September 30, Senator Patty Murray (D-WA) introduced the Women's Pension Protection Act of 2015. Thus far, all of the co-sponsors are Democrats (or caucus as Democrats) and until Senator (and Democratic Presidential hopeful) Bernie Sanders (I-VT) signed on, all of the co-sponsors were women.

The bill is intended to address what a fairly large number of us view as an issue, that women are often not as prepared for retirement as men. And, there is no real thought here that this is because women choose to not prepare, but instead that their life circumstances (women bear children and men don't) are often different.

With no Republicans signing on, it seems unlikely that this bill will become law on a stand-alone basis, but it could become a negotiating point and get tossed into another bill of type or another that has broader support.

Generally, the bill would make two key changes:

• Require spousal consent for lump sum distributions from defined contribution plans unless those distributions are made as part of a direct rollover (to another plan or IRA)
• Change the coverage rules of ERISA Section 202 and analogously Code Section 410 to require broader coverage under qualified retirement plans for part-time workers who customarily work at least 500 hours per year

Fundamentally, what this bill would attempt to do is a step in the right direction. However, the implications of this bill from an employer standpoint would be to increase the cost of employing part-time workers. For many businesses that do employ such low-hour (10-20 hours per week or seasonal) workers, their choices would seem to come from among these:

• Absorb the additional costs of employing these part-timers
• Employ fewer part-time workers
• Not have a qualified retirement plan

Two of those three options are not good for women (or for men, for that matter). And, this appears to be part of a trend in legislation that increases the cost of part-time, seasonal, and temporary labor.

Proponents of the bill would say that something needs to be done and that this would be a good start. They would tell you that minimum wages need to be raised and there needs to be a place in the workforce for less than full-time workers who will eventually be able to retire.

As I said, I would be very surprised if this bill were to move anywhere on a stand-alone basis, but it could be a bargaining chip as part of a larger piece of legislation.

Another Argument for Defined Benefit

I know, defined benefit (DB) plans are dead. Actually, while there aren't as many as there used to be, I'm going to give you one more argument why they make more sense as a retirement vehicle.

Yesterday, I wrote about managing the risk in active pension liabilities. Way back in 2010, I wrote about generally managing risks and noted that plan sponsors tend not to manage defined contribution plan risks. Most of those risks that I have considered have been financial risk. Today, I am going to focus on the intersection of financial risk and compliance risk and make a case to have a DB plan as your primary retirement vehicle rather than a 401(k) plan.

In the world of 2015, we see consolidation in many industries. We also see companies, often private, being gobbled up by private equity firms. Either of these actions will usually create a larger controlled group. And, people who focus on retirement plan compliance know that most retirement plan compliance testing must be done on a controlled group basis.

Before working to point out a solution, let me give you an example to help focus on the problem.

BPE is a big private equity firm. Their general approach to retirement plans (and other benefits) has been to ignore them and let each company do what it wants. But, as BPE get bigger, its controlled group gets more complex. Having multiple industries represented in its portfolio, BPE is ultimately the sponsor of all kinds of 401(k) plans. Their engineering company (EC) has an extremely generous 401(k) plan that matches 150% on the first 8% of pay that an employee defers. Their pork rinds company (PRC) has a 401(k) plan that matches 10 cents on the dollar on the first 2% of pay that an employee defers.

BPE never saw this as a problem. But, then one day, an inquisitive Principal (IP) at BPE was reading my blog (of all things) and came across this. He saw that BPE might have a compliance problem in its controlled group because of the disparate nature of its 401(k) plans.

Ring ring ring -- that's my phone as IP calls me. He wants to know how to fix the problem. He says that surely this problem can't be real. After an hour on the phone, we have inventoried all the plans at BPE and found that they have failed to satisfy various compliance tests (coverage under Code Section 410(b), for example) for several years.

IP has a solution though. He tells me that BPE will force some of its companies to retroactively cut the employer match in some of these more generous plans.

Bzzz!

You can't do that. In fact, if BPE were to choose to fall on its sword and approach the IRS for a negotiated retroactive solution, we would suspect that the IRS would only be receptive to increasing benefits for nonhighly compensated employees (NHCEs) in the less generous plans.

IP is not happy about this. PRC runs on very low margins, but because they make more pork rinds than any company in the world, they do throw off a lot of cash. However, increasing benefits would eliminate most of that free cash that is being generated. There is stunned silence on the other end of my phone.

While the story is fictitious, the gist of the scenario is not. I've seen this happen. By being a serial acquirer, companies run into compliance problems and with 401(k) plans not being the easiest to prove nondiscriminatory, either costs escalate or they get cut at the portfolio companies that tend to employ more higher paid individuals.

What sort of plan tests better? A few weeks ago, I wrote about some. Suppose BPE had a defined contribution looking cash balance plan. One of the nice things about these plans is that they test well. Designed properly, and proper design truly is a key, financial risk is manageable. And, with that as their primary plan, the secondary 401(k)s can be managed so that compliance there will no longer be an issue.

Unfortunately, the benefits world has been resistant to this whole concept. But, you have an open mind, don't you?

We need to talk.

IRS Gives Limited Pension Nondiscrimination Relief

Just 10 days ago, I wrote about the request to the IRS and Treasury from Senators Portman and Cardin to provide pension nondiscrimination testing relief to sponsors who have soft frozen their defined benefit (DB) plans. In Notice 2014-5, the IRS has done that, albeit on a temporary basis.

For background, a DB plan is soft frozen typically when a grandfathered group of participants are allowed to continue accruing benefits, but no new entrants are allowed into the plan. From a testing standpoint under Code Sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b), the plan will typically pass in the early years as the group benefiting under the plan will look a lot like the group that was benefiting immediately before the soft freeze. Eventually, however, as turnover tends to be higher among nonhighly compensated employees (NHCEs) than among highly compensated employees (HCEs) and because more participants will 'graduate' from NHCE status to HCE status than conversely, testing results get worse.

The typical alternative then is to aggregate the soft frozen DB plan with one or more DC plans for testing purposes. The aggregated plan is then referred to as a DB/DC plan, a name that does not quite roll off the tongue, but is descriptive nonetheless. DB/DC plans may be tested on a benefits basis (usually will pass) or on a contributions basis (usually will fail), but in order to be tested on a benefits basis, the DB/DC plan must jump through one of a number of hoops. Without going into detail, this is usually easy in the early years and gets more and more difficult with each passing year. Add to that that the DC plan being aggregated with the DB plan cannot be a plan subject to Code Section 401(k) or 401(m) (or a part of a larger plan subject to one of those sections) or be an ESOP and the process gets a little bit more difficult to deal with.

According to the Notice, if a sponsor soft froze its DB plan before December 13, 2013 and its DB/DC plan met one of the requirements to be cross-tested on a benefits basis for the 2013 plan year, then for any plan year that begins before 2016, the sponsor generally may continue to test this DB/DC plan on a benefits basis. In the meantime, IRS has requested comments on this notice and will continue to evaluate how such situations should be handled.

This relief is only short-term in nature and there are many situations that will not be helped by this relief, but if you are one of the lucky sponsors, this may give you the help you were looking for.

Private Equity Groups and Retirement Plan Compliance

They buy companies. They sell companies. That means, among other things, that at any given point in time, they own lots of companies.

What are they? They're private equity firms. And, in their normal mode of operation, many of them constitute a controlled group of corporations within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 1563(a)(1).

So? Bully for them, right. Actually, if we look more closely, it may be far more complicated than that when it comes to retirement plans. In the most typical situation, each portfolio company will maintain one or more qualified retirement plans. So, the controlled group maintains lots of qualified retirement plans. And, because private equity firms usually allow each portfolio company to operate autonomously, the proverbial left hand may not know what the proverbial right hand is doing.

Usually, in my experience, they are mostly or entirely defined contribution (DC) plans. That's good, but let's think about the compliance issues. Each DC plan needs to satisfy the coverage rules of Code Section 410(b) on a controlled group basis. Each plan needs to satisfy the benefits, rights, and features rules of Treasury Regulation 1.401(a)(4)-4 on a controlled group basis. Each plan that is not a 401(k)/(m) plan (or 403(b)) needs to satisfy amounts testing under Treasury Regulation 1.401(a)(4)-2 (or -3 for a DB plan) on a controlled group basis. Each plan that is subject to 401(k)/(m) may wind up needing to be aggregated with another like plan in the controlled group for testing purposes.

I'm going to simplify this a little bit, but here is the way that we might look at the compliance situation for a group of DC plans in a controlled group.

• Count up the number of nonexcludible (generally all that are at least age 21, have at least 1 year of service, are not covered by a collective bargaining agreement, and are not nonresident aliens) highly compensated employees (HCEs) in the controlled group. Let's call this number CGH.
• Do the same thing for the nonhighly compensated employees (NHCEs) in the controlled group. Let's call this number CGNH.
• For each plan, determine the number of HCEs and NHCEs, separately who are covered by that plan. For plan 1, we will call those numbers P1H and P1NH. For plan 2, let's call them, P2H and P2NH. You get the picture.
• Now, take the ratio (P1NH/CGNH)/(P1H/CGH). Is it at least 70%? Are the similar ratios for all of the other plans also at least 70%? In my experience, the answer is often no. If the answer is yes, you are in good shape. If it's no, you may have problems.
• At this point, you'll need to consider other issues such as plan aggregation, current year versus prior year testing methods, safe harbor designs, qualified separate lines of business (QSLOBs) and other equally wonderful concepts. You probably need an expert.

We could go on for pages and pages here. These situations often get ugly. The private equity company probably never thought about this stuff. Suddenly, the plans maintained by the companies that they own may have compliance problems.

In reality, when dealing with this type of organization, I've seen this issue more often than not. It's not part of the buying decision, it's not part of ongoing process, and frankly, the people completing (and signing) Forms 5500 for the various plans probably don't even realize the problem exists.

I've seen it. It's usually ugly. I can help.