The Pension Protection
Act of 2006 (PPA) changed many of the rules affecting defined
benefit and cash balance plans. Recent regulations have helped to
make such plans more stable, and consequently more attractive to
plan sponsors. New design opportunities now exist for these plans,
individually and in combination with defined contribution plans.
What follows is an overview of the new provisions along with some
plan design illustrations.
Types of Retirement Plans
There are two basic types of qualified retirement plans: defined
benefit and defined contribution. A defined benefit (DB) plan
promises a specified benefit at retirement for each participant,
usually in the form of a monthly annuity payable for the life of the
participant (or the joint lives of the participant and a designated
beneficiary). This benefit is often based on a participant’s
compensation and/or years of service. An actuary determines the
amount that must be contributed each year in order to ensure that
the funds are available at retirement age. DB plans are often funded
entirely by employers, who bear the risk for investment gains or
losses.
Most DB plans are subject to insurance premiums of the Pension
Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), a government agency that
insures plan benefits. Plans that only cover owners or are sponsored
by professional service companies with fewer than 25 employees are
exempt from PBGC coverage.
In a defined contribution (DC) plan, benefits are provided from
account balances that are funded by employer contributions, employee
contributions (such as salary deferrals) or a combination of the
two. These contributions along with actual investment earnings
comprise the benefits at retirement.
Cash Balance Plan
A cash balance plan is a hybrid—a DB plan that in some ways
resembles a DC plan. Each participant receives an annual
contribution credit (usually a percentage of pay) and an interest
credit based on a guaranteed rate that may change from year to year.
The participant’s "account balance" is the sum of all contribution
and interest credits. These plans are also subject to PBGC coverage
with the exceptions noted above.
As in a traditional DB plan, the employer in a cash balance plan
bears the investment risk. An actuary determines the contribution to
be made to the plan, which is the sum of the contribution credits
for all participants plus the amortization of the difference between
the guaranteed interest credits and the actual investment earnings
(or losses). Participants appreciate this design because they can
see their "accounts" grow but are still protected against
fluctuations in the market.
In order to determine contribution and benefit limitations, the
actuary converts the guaranteed interest and contribution credits to
a monthly benefit at retirement age. Such benefit may not exceed
100% of pay or a specified dollar amount which is adjusted for
inflation ($15,000/month as of 2007 for retirement age 62 or later).
Contributions in a cash balance plan can be significantly higher for
an older employee than the DC contribution limit ($50,000 as of
2007, including catch-up contributions).
Testing for Nondiscrimination
All plans must meet certain stringent guidelines or pass
nondiscrimination tests. These rules are designed to ensure that
plan benefits or contributions do not discriminate in favor of
"highly compensated employees" (HCEs), generally defined as those
who own more than 5% of the employer or earned more than a specified
amount in the prior year ($100,000 in 2007). All others are
considered "non-highly compensated employees" (NHCEs).
When performing nondiscrimination testing, either the benefit at
retirement or the annual contribution is compared between HCEs and
NHCEs. The type of testing selected need not coincide with the type
of plan that is adopted. That is, a DB plan can be tested on a
contribution basis and a DC plan can be tested on a projected
benefits basis. Testing in this manner is referred to as
"cross-testing."
DB Problems Prior to PPA
DB plans have fallen out of favor over the past several years.
Legislative changes forced these plans to value lump sum payouts to
terminated participants as much as two to three times higher than
the amount accumulated for them under the plan, which led to funding
deficiencies. Also, deduction limits did not allow employers to make
extra contributions while the economy was strong. When the economy
weakened, market losses increased underfunding and many sponsors
were faced with rising costs at a time when corporate profits were
lower than usual.
Cash balance plans were also affected by the lump sum payout
rules. Once again, participants would receive far in excess of their
"account balance," and the plan sponsor would have to amortize the
difference. In addition, cash balance plans were plagued with legal
problems as some courts found conversions from traditional DB plans
to be age discriminatory.
DB Plans After PPA
Under PPA, the funding and lump sum payout rules are being
brought into balance. Plan sponsors now have the option of making
additional deductible contributions to fully fund the plan and even
pre-fund future accruals. In addition, over a period of four years,
new rules for lump sum payments will be phased in, resulting in lump
sum distributions that are closer to the amount of benefits funded.
Cash balance plans are also provided relief, as long as they
follow certain rules regarding interest rates. Lump sum
distributions to participants will now equal their "account
balances," without adjustment for various other published interest
rates. In addition, PPA clarifies that cash balance plans that
follow the new rules are not age discriminatory.
These changes significantly improve the outlook for DB plans by
making them more practical and predictable in both costs and
benefits. Employers can now take advantage of the unique design
alternatives available to these plans. Following are some
illustrations.
Cash Balance Plan Example
A cash balance plan can provide partners of different ages the
same benefit, as illustrated below. The plan formula is 38.636% of
pay for owners and 16% of pay for non-owners.
|
Partner A |
51 |
$220,000 |
$85,000 |
|
Partner B |
58 |
$220,000 |
$85,000 |
|
NHCE |
31 |
$25,000 |
$4,000 |
The contribution and interest credits are projected to normal
retirement age for each participant and then converted into a
monthly accrued benefit. The accrued benefits are compared for
nondiscrimination testing. As a percentage of pay, the NHCE’s
benefit at retirement is greater than that of the two partners (who
are HCEs), so the plan is not discriminatory.
Combined Plan Designs
In the past, an employer’s maximum deduction to all plans for a
fiscal year equaled the greater of the required contribution for the
DB plan or 25% of total participants’ eligible compensation. Under
the new rules, as of 2006 an employer can contribute up to 6% of pay
to a DC plan in addition to the required DB contribution, even if
the resulting total exceeds the 25% limit. Employee deferrals do not
count towards the 6% or the 25% limit. This new rule offers many
opportunities for a combined plan approach.
DB + Safe Harbor 401(k) Combo
Shown below is a DB plan for 2006 in which the contribution
exceeds 25% of payroll. Under the new rules, the employer can also
adopt a safe harbor 401(k) plan that meets the 401(k)
nondiscrimination requirements by guaranteeing a 3% of pay
contribution to all NHCE participants. The plan also allows
discretionary profit sharing contributions. In this example the
profit sharing contribution is allocated on a cross-tested basis,
with a higher percentage going to the owner, who is older. The sum
of the safe harbor and profit sharing contributions cannot exceed 6%
of total participant compensation.
|
Owner |
52 |
$220,000 |
$133,518 |
$20,000 |
$14,250 |
|
Assistant |
25 |
$35,000 |
$5,334 |
unknown |
$1,050 |
|
Total |
|
$255,000 |
$138,852 |
$20,000+ |
$15,300 |
|
*Profit sharing contribution includes the 3% safe harbor
contribution. |
Prior to 2006, this sponsor would have only been able to deduct
the DB contribution, and the owner’s salary deferrals would have
been limited based on what the assistant deferred. The addition of
the safe harbor 401(k) profit sharing plan allows the owner to
increase his own contribution by $34,250 with an additional
contribution for the assistant of only $1,050. The assistant can
further benefit by making pre-tax salary deferrals into the 401(k)
plan.
Cash Balance + Safe Harbor 401(k) Combo
Here is an illustration of a cash balance plan with a safe harbor
401(k) profit sharing plan for 2006:
|
Owner 1 |
59 |
$220,000 |
$100,000 |
$20,000 |
$14,283 |
|
Owner 2 |
54 |
$220,000 |
$100,000 |
$20,000 |
$14,283 |
|
Other HCE |
56 |
$120,000 |
$3,000 |
$6,600 |
$6,672 |
| 8
NHCEs |
various |
$372,470 |
$9,312 |
unknown |
$20,710 |
|
Total |
|
$932,470 |
$212,312 |
$46,600+ |
$55,948 |
Over 85% of the employer contribution is allocable to the owners
and they can each defer $20,000 as well. The profit sharing
contribution is allocated on a cross-tested basis, with different
percentages going to the owners, the non-owner HCE and the NHCEs.
The plan design can go even further by excluding some employees
from each plan and combining the plans for testing purposes. It can
be useful if you have both older and younger HCEs. The younger HCEs
can benefit under the DC plan while the older HCEs benefit under the
DB plan.
Note that effective in 2008, DB plans covered by the PBGC will no
longer count towards the 25% contribution deduction limit. As a
result, sponsors of PBGC insured plans will be able to fund a DC
plan up to 25% of compensation in addition to their DB plan.
Other DB Plan Considerations
Employers interested in adopting a DB plan should be willing to
commit to the contribution requirements of these plans over the long
run. There is little flexibility in calculating required
contributions. The plans also tend to be more expensive to
administer and, if covered by the PBGC, will incur premium expenses.
However, these costs may be far outweighed by the ability to fund
significant amounts towards retirement.
The value to a particular employer of any of the plan designs
outlined previously is highly dependent upon the ages of the
participants. Each of these designs is subject to complicated
nondiscrimination requirements which must be performed annually.
Changes in the employee census can cause significant changes in the
costs and allocations.
Conclusion
PPA has created new plan design opportunities that incorporate DB
plans. Traditional DB plans are now less likely to become
underfunded with distributions mirroring accumulated contributions
with interest. A cash balance plan is a viable alternative to the
traditional DB plan, offering a benefit more easily understood by
participants. Cash balance plans also allow employers to equalize
contributions for key employees of different ages.
Combining traditional DB or cash balance plans with DC plans can
greatly expand contribution possibilities. These designs can be
highly individualized to best match the census of the plan sponsor.
Employers who are interested in increasing their annual
contributions and are willing to commit to these contribution levels
should seriously consider the alternatives that now exist.
[top of page]
|