Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Proposed Conditions for Small Pension Plans to Continue to Avoid Annua
BenefitsLink Message Boards > Retirement Plans > Retirement Plans in General
Dave Baker
[*Thanks* to Sal Tripodi of TRI Pension
Services, for permission to reprint and edit the
following article, which appears on his site
today at http://cyberisa.com. TRI Pension
Services, started in 1994, is committed to
providing consulting, professional training, and
reference material in ERISA-related subjects.]


Current DOL regs exempt "small" pension plans from
the annual audit requirement that applies to larger
plans (i.e., engaging an independent qualified
public accountant to examine the financial
statements of the plan and to issue a report to be
attached to the Form 5500). A "small" plan is one
that has fewer than 100 participants at the
beginning of the plan year (or has between 100 and
120 participants and elects to be treated as a
small plan).

Proposed regulations issued today would require
small pension plans (e.g., profit sharing plans,
401(k) plans, money purchase plans, or defined
benefit plans) to meet certain conditions in order
to be exempt from the annual audit requirement.

Small pension plans that cannot meet these
conditions would have to engage an accountant to
audit the plan each year and attach the
accountant's report to the plan's Form 5500.

The regulations are proposed to become effective 60
days after they have been finalized, and would
pertain to plan years that begin after the
effective date.

Small welfare benefit plans would not be subject to
these new rules, and would continue to be exempt
from the audit requirement without any of the new
conditions.

To be exempt from the audit requirement, a small
pension plan would have to:

(1) have at least 95% of its assets invested in
"qualifying" plan assets, or

(2) obtain a bond for any person who handles
assets that do not constitute qualifying plan
assets, in an amount that is not less than the
value of such assets.

Qualifying plan assets are:

- qualifying employer securities,

- participant loans which meet the prohibited
transaction exemption requirements,

- assets held by a bank or similar financial
institution, as defined in DOL regs,

- assets held by an insurance company,

- assets held by a registered broker-dealer, or

- assets held by an organization that is
authorized to act as a trustee of IRAs.

In addition to meeting one of the two requirements
described above, the summary annual report would
have to include:

(1) information about the name of each
institution holding qualifying plan assets and the
amount of such assets held by such institution as
of the end of the plan year,

(2) if applicable, information about the surety
company issuing the bond described above,

(3) a notice that the participants and
beneficiaries may request a copy without charge of
any such bond and statements received from each
institution holding qualifying plan assets that
describe the assets held by the institution as of
the end of the plan year, and

(4) a notice that the participants and
beneficiaries should contact the DOL's Pension and
Welfare Benefits Administration if they are unable
to examine or obtain copies of these items.

The DOL believes this regulation would increase the
security of assets in small plans, by conditioning
the waiver of the audit requirement on enhanced
disclosure of information to participants and
beneficiaries, and, if the plan invests more than
5% of its assets in nonqualifying plan assets, by
strengthening the bonding requirement.

Written comments on the proposed regulation must be
received by the DOL by January 30 of next year.

A reprint of the full text of the proposed
regulation appears online at

http://www.benefitslink.com/erisaregs/audit

[This message has been edited by Dave Baker (edited 12-01-1999).]
Dawn Hafner
Can anyone come up with some assets that won't fit into the qualifying plan asset definition? If a limited partnership is held in a brokerage account wouldn't that still meet the requirement? Even plans that manage their investments internally would have the assets held at a financial institution in trust. I am having a hard time coming up with any examples of how a plan could fall into this category. Any examples?
Ervin Barham
Except for a few wild and crazy ones, most plans I see should be able to meet one of the guidelines. However, I am particularly
concerned with having to list financial institutions and assets on the SAR. This is no big deal for a plan with assets at one brokerage house, insurance company or bank. A lot of the smaller plans have assets at several, particularly those with segregated accounts. It adds a lot of cost to the admin fees without a whole lot of value. I also think small employers are going to balk at this and the potential for releasing asset statements, since it's too easy for participants to figure out how much is in the owner's account.

Administrators already have enough to do with useless government paperwork. Let's not add more!

Maybe I've missed the boat. I'd be interested in hearing why these new guidelines are a good idea or if my concerns are unjustified.
Malou
Some examples of plan assets that would not fit into the "qualifying" assets would be: Real Estate, collectibles, stock in a privately-held company (but not one subject to prohibited transation rules). For most plans, this may not be a major event, but in some cases it could make things rather difficult for the plan sponsor.

------------------
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2012 Invision Power Services, Inc.