Compliance November 28, 2023

Part-Time Retirement Eligibility Proposal Seeks to Clarify Complex Legislation

The IRS published fiduciary guidance on legislation intended to give more part-time workers access to retirement plans.

Reported by

The Internal Revenue Service published a rule proposal on November 24 that would clarify the part-time eligibility requirements in the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act of 2019 and the SECURE 2.0 Act of 2022.

The first SECURE Act legislated that part-time employees cannot be excluded from 401(k) plans if they worked for at least 500 hours in three consecutive 12-month periods.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

David Ashner, an ERISA and tax attorney with the Groom Law Group, says that per the text of the SECURE Act, this provision came into effect on January 1, 2021, which means that as of January 1, 2024, employees who have served 500 or more hours each year in the meantime must be enrolled in plans unless they are disqualified for another reason.

SECURE 2.0, on the other hand, reduced the 500-hour requirement to two consecutive 12-month periods, rather than three, and took effect on January 1, 2023. This means that employees can become eligible under SECURE 2.0 starting on January 1, 2025. SECURE 2.0 also applies to 403(b) as well as 401(k) plans.

Vesting

According to the rules, employees can also earn vesting credits for employer contributions using the same logic. In other words, if a part-timer works at least 500 hours for a year and then becomes full-time for a year, or vice versa, an employer with a two-year vesting schedule must credit the worker for both years.

As Ashner explains, if the employer does offer contributions “and there’s a vesting schedule, an LTPT employee gets a year of vesting if they work 500 hours in a 12-month period. They can’t be required to work 1,000 for vesting purposes.”

Exemptions Still Good

Ashner explains that DC plan eligibility conditions based on employer classifications are still valid under the proposal, provided they are not merely a proxy to exclude participants based on age or service. For example, a class exemption for intern employees or for a branch of a business based in a college town—which effectively removes part-time or young adult participants by proxy—may be challenged by the IRS.

An eligibility condition may not have “the effect of imposing an age or service requirement,” says Ashner.

The comment period for the proposal runs until January 26, and there will be a public hearing on March 15. The proposal will be finalized some time after.

Ashner says the statutory requirement under the first SECURE Act is effective on January 1, 2024. He adds that “the proposed regulation is not technically effective; the regulation will need to be finalized after notice and comment before it can be made effective. But the proposed regulation reflects how the IRS is likely to interpret the statute (subject to any changes in the final rule), so plans should pay attention to the guidance.”
Data & Research November 28, 2023

LIMRA: Plan Advisers Will Play Key Role in Future of In-Plan Annuities

Of plan sponsors considering an in-plan annuity, 79% do so through a plan consultant or adviser, according to a LIMRA study.

Reported by

Plan advisers will play a key role in in-plan annuity options’ trajectory in the next 12 months, according to research by trade group LIMRA released Tuesday.

As of now, an estimated nine out of 10 defined contribution retirement plans do not offer participants an in-plan annuity option, according to LIMRA. That has been the case for years despite a push from insurance providers for in-plan options, but 2024 may finally be a “tipping point,” the insurance trade group wrote in its report.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

According to the survey of 566 private sector plan sponsors with at least 10 full-time employees, about three in four sponsors will be making a decision about adding an in-plan option within the next 12 months.

“Paternalistic employers do not want their current and former employees to fend for themselves,” LIMRA’s researchers wrote in an executive summary of the report. “They would rather make certain decisions for their employees, on the grounds that it will be to their employees’ financial benefit in the long run.”

Earlier this month, Transamerica Corp. and payroll provider ADP Inc. separately announced annuity offerings to plan participants. Transamerica’s is a partnership with a State Street target-date-fund series that embeds the annuity into the glide path. ADP’s offering is through Hueler Companies’ Income Solutions, which offers participants a choice of institutionally-priced annuities.

LIMRA noted in the report that the definition of an in-plan annuity could be an annuity inside a target-date fund, an annuity that linked to the retirement plan or a separate, stand-alone annuity sold to participants via the plan.

Among plan sponsors already offering in-plan options, many are doing so as the qualified deferred investment alternative, according to Matt Drinkwater, corporate vice president of annuity and retirement income research at LIMRA.

“The qualified default investment alternatives (QDIA) results indicate that the in-plan annuities are often (but not always) the designated QDIA, most often a target-date fund,” he wrote via email. “We didn’t see any differences [in whether it’s a QDIA or not] by size of plan or size of employer.”

About half (49%) of plan sponsors surveyed who do not offer an in-plan option have considered adding one “at some point,” LIMRA found.

Advisers Key

LIMRA noted that large, established plan sponsors have been first to offer participant in-plan annuities, with growing interest coming from the smaller end of the market. It also found that plan advisers or consultants often play a key role in a plan sponsor considering an in-plan option, coming in second among the top reasons for providing the option.

The reasons, in order, were:

  • Plan sponsors feel obligated to help employees have income in retirement (43%);
  • Plan sponsors had an in-plan option recommended by a plan consultant/adviser (39%);
  • Plan sponsors feel the best place to create retirement income is from the plan (37%);
  • Plan sponsors want to manage workforce turnover/retirements by providing an income option (36%);
  • Employees are demanding the option (35%); and
  • Plan recordkeepers are recommending the option (22%).

LIMRA also cited a “strong connection” between employers who offer or have offered defined benefit pensions in the past and current interest in providing in-plan annuities.

“Employers offering DB pensions—active or frozen—tend to offer in-plan annuities to a greater extent than do employers who do not have DB pension plans,” LIMRA researchers wrote in the executive summary. “Also, employers who used to offer DB pensions are more likely than other employers to offer in-plan annuities.”

Earlier this month, PLANSPONSOR, a sister publication of PLANADVISER, reported that technology giant IBM plans to replace its 401(k) employer match with automatic contributions to its cash balance plan. The new retirement benefit will create what a spokesperson for the firm called “a stable and predictable benefit that diversifies a retirement portfolio and provides employees greater flexibility and options.”

Obstacles 

There are still several obstacles to wholesale implementation of in-plan annuities, according to LIMRA.

The biggest block, according to the trade group’s executive summary, is lack of demand among employees. That dearth of interest, however, may be due to lack of knowledge about the potential for a guaranteed paycheck, according to the researchers.

“The vast majority of workers have either never heard of in-plan annuities or know little about them—not enough to make a fully informed decision about how appropriate they might be,” LIMRA researchers wrote. “Also, demand can be increased by employers, by taking the time to explain them, offering group meetings, and building broad awareness prior to adding an in-plan annuity.”

Many employers are also concerned with the products themselves, citing cost, complexity and lack of portability across retirement plans among their reasons not to offer in-plan annuities.

Limited attention and resources of human resource departments may also play a role in the lack of uptake, LIMRA noted. Smaller employers are particularly apt to pass on annuities for this reason and would be more likely to bring them on if presented as “turnkey, plug-and-play” solutions in plan design.

Finally, fiduciary concerns about providing in-plan options were mentioned by plan sponsors but were generally lower down on the list of issues, LIMRA’s researchers wrote. Fiduciary concern has likely abated in recent years after in-plan annuities were approved by regulators, including in 2019’s Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement Act, according to the researchers.

Whatever the outcome of in-plan uptake, LIMRA made clear the role plan advisers and consultants will play in their future: 79% of plan sponsors who do not yet have an in-plan option relied on advisers or consultants when evaluating the option.

“Building awareness and buy-in among the plan advisor community will be critically important for the growth of the in-plan annuity market,” LIMRA researchers wrote.

LIMRA surveyed 209 sponsors of DC plans offering in-plan annuities and 357 sponsors of DC plans that do not offer in-plan annuities. Results were weighted to ensure they were representative based on plan size for DC plans with 10 or more active participants.

«