Several developments in recent months have made settling pension liabilities look more attractive to sponsors of defined benefit plans seeking to de-risk:  First, Ford and GM announced pension settlements of unprecedented size.  Second, Congress passed a pension funding relief bill, known as “MAP-21,” that could encourage pension settlements.  And, third, the IRS issued three private letter rulings providing useful guidance covering lump sum settlements and annuitizations.

Many sponsors of defined benefit plans, especially frozen plans, are considering ways to “de-risk” by reducing or eliminating the volatility associated with their pension obligations for financial accounting and pension funding purposes.  In April, Ford announced that its pension plan would offer lump sums to 90,000 retirees.  In June, GM announced a different pension de-risking approach: GM’s pension plan will offer lump sums to certain retirees but in the context of a plan termination. Under GM’s approach, a retiree will have a choice between: (a) receiving a lump sum distribution equal to the value of his or her remaining annuity payments, and (b) continuing to receive annuity payments from an insurance company rather than from a GM pension plan.  The pensions of some GM retirees will simply transfer from the GM plan to an insurance company without a lump sum option.  GM expects its approach to reduce its U.S. pension obligation by $26 billion.  These recent announcements demonstrate the viability of large settlement strategies.

Later in June, Congress passed pension funding relief. The relief was part of a bill entitled the “Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century Act,” which has become known as “MAP-21.”  MAP-21 could affect a plan sponsor’s analysis of whether to pursue pension settlements.  For example, the funding relief could make it less expensive, after a pension settlement, for the plan sponsor to restore the plan’s funding level with additional contributions to at least 80%; keeping the funding at 80% permits the plan to continue paying lump sums to the plan’s remaining participants.  In addition, although the legislation should reduce minimum required contributions significantly for the next several years, contributions will begin to climb again as plan sponsors make up for the lower contributions in earlier years. These factors might encourage plan sponsors to implement settlement strategies earlier, so that they will benefit from the greater impact of funding relief in the next several years.  Furthermore, MAP-21 increased PBGC premiums.  A settlement strategy relieves the plan of its obligation to pay future PBGC premiums with respect to participants whose liabilities are settled. The substantial increase in future PBGC premiums therefore makes settling liabilities more attractive.

In July, the IRS made public three recent private letter rulings covering pension settlement strategies involving lump sum offers and annuity purchases. In two, the IRS permitted lump sum offers to retirees currently receiving annuities, similar to the offer Ford announced.  In each ruling, the IRS noted that regulations permit a change in annuity payments if the plan is amended to provide increased benefits. The IRS concluded that a one-time offer of a lump sum to retirees would be treated as a benefit increase resulting from a plan amendment. Importantly, the IRS emphasized that its conclusion was based on the fact that the lump sum offer was available only for a limited period of time. In one ruling, the lump sum offer was available during a period that would not exceed 90 days; in the other ruling, the offer period would not exceed 60 days.

A third IRS ruling addressed data corrections following an annuitization.  A plan sponsor transferred plan liabilities to an insurance company, and the insurance company refunded premium amounts after data errors were discovered.  The IRS concluded that the premium refund could be returned to the employer and would not be considered a reversion subject to an excise tax.  The ruling therefore provides helpful guidance for dealing with true-ups on account of data clean-up that occurs after an annuitization.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Amy N. Moore Amy N. Moore

Amy Moore advises public and private companies and tax exempt organizations on a wide range of tax, ERISA, and employment law issues concerning all types of benefit programs.  Ms. Moore counsels some of the world’s largest multinational companies on the design and implementation…

Amy Moore advises public and private companies and tax exempt organizations on a wide range of tax, ERISA, and employment law issues concerning all types of benefit programs.  Ms. Moore counsels some of the world’s largest multinational companies on the design and implementation of innovative benefit strategies, including the restructuring of retirement programs to meet the needs of the modern work force; the use of surplus pension and insurance assets to provide non-traditional benefits; and the establishment of funding and security arrangements for welfare plans and executive compensation.  She represents clients in connection with pension fund investments in private equity funds, hedge funds, group trusts, and derivatives.  She also advises on benefits and compensation issues in acquisitions and divestitures, debt finance, joint ventures, and other corporate transactions.  Ms. Moore represents companies in audits and contested agency proceedings involving benefit plans and advises clients on employee benefits issues that arise in connection with ERISA litigation and settlements.  She also counsels employers on issues of plan administration and the correction of operational problems under government-sponsored remedial programs.

Photo of Robert Newman Robert Newman

Robert Newman represents clients ranging from small employers to some of the nation’s largest employers, including for-profit and tax-exempt entities.  His practice includes designing, drafting, and amending a wide range of retirement plans (including 401(k) plans, ESOPs, and traditional and hybrid defined benefit…

Robert Newman represents clients ranging from small employers to some of the nation’s largest employers, including for-profit and tax-exempt entities.  His practice includes designing, drafting, and amending a wide range of retirement plans (including 401(k) plans, ESOPs, and traditional and hybrid defined benefit plans) and welfare plans (including health, severance, and cafeteria plans); creating executive compensation arrangements including nonqualified deferred compensation plans, stock option plans, and other incentive plans; representing clients before the IRS and the Department of Labor; assisting clients with legislative initiatives; providing benefits expertise in corporate transactions and ERISA litigation; counseling clients with respect to pension fund investments in private equity funds and hedge funds; and negotiating and writing employment agreements.