IRA

Legislation Introduced to Allow Delay of 2020 Retirement Contributions into 2021, 2022

Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) has introduced S. 4539, legislation that includes coronavirus (COVID-19) liability protection for businesses and healthcare providers, a tax credit for employer COVID-19 testing programs, funds for safe schooling, as well as several retirement provisions.

The following retirement provisions are included in the Reinvigorating the Economy, Creating Opportunity for every Vocation, Employer, Retiree & Youth (RECOVERY) Act.

  • Permit “unused” 2020 IRA contribution and employer plan deferral limitations to be carried over and contributed in 2021 and/or 2022, without reducing otherwise-available 2021 and 2022 contribution or deferral limitations.
  • Allow a coronavirus-related distribution (CRD) from an employer-sponsored retirement plan that permits loans to be converted to a plan loan, which—assuming loan conditions were met—would make such CRDs non-taxable while they are maintained as a plan investment. (IRAs do not permit loans, so CRDs from IRAs could not be converted to loans.)
  • Permit the substitution of “indexed basis” for “adjusted basis” when determining gain or loss on an indexed retirement asset held for more than three years.
  1. 4539 has been referred to the Senate Finance Committee.

IRS Issues SECURE Act and Miners Act Guidance in Q&As

The IRS has issued Notice 2020-68, guidance in question-and-answer (Q&A) format on provisions of legislation enacted in December 2019 that made significant changes to retirement savings arrangements. These changes were found within the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement (SECURE) Act, and Bipartisan American Miners Act, both of which were contained within the Further Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2020.

SECURE Act topics addressed in the Notice 2020-68 Q&As include the following.

  • Small employer automatic enrollment tax credit (Sec. 105)
  • Repeal of maximum age for Traditional IRA contributions (Sec. 107)
  • Participation of long-term, part-time employees in 401(k) plans (Sec. 112)
  • Qualified birth or adoption distributions (Sec. 113)
  • Difficulty-of-care compensation eligible for IRA contributions (Sec. 116)

The Notice 2020-68 Q&As also addressed the reduced minimum age for certain retirement plan distributions, part of the Bipartisan American Miners Act (Sec. 104). In addition, it provides guidance on the timing for plans to amend for provisions of the SECURE Act and Bipartisan American Miners Act.


Washington Pulse: IRS Releases Guidance on Loan Offset Rollovers

As part of the Tax Cuts & Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA), Congress provided more time for plan participants to roll over certain types of plan loan offsets. The IRS has released proposed regulations—which can be relied on as of August 20, 2020—to align the IRS’s guidance with the statutory rules, while providing additional clarification and examples on how these rules work.

 

Background

A plan loan offset is generally described as the process by which a participant’s accrued benefit is reduced (offset) in order to repay an outstanding plan loan. The offset can occur only when the participant has a distributable event, such as a severance from employment. Often, plan loan policies require loan repayments to be made through payroll withholding, so former employees cannot continue previously scheduled loan payments. In this case, a loan default occurs when a participant leaves the employer. At that point, the participant can cure the default by paying off the loan balance.

More likely, however, the participant will request a distribution of the account, and the plan administrator will offset the loan amount, removing it as a plan asset. This cancelled loan amount—the offset amount—is not simply “forgiven.” It is considered an actual distribution and is taxable to the former employee for the year in which it is offset, unless it is rolled over. But often participants will not do this. It could be that they don’t have the out-of-pocket funds to roll over the offset amount. Or perhaps they don’t understand their options.

Before the TCJA was enacted, the 60-day rollover rule would require participants to complete the rollover within 60 days of the loan offset. But participants might not understand that the offset amount is included in income until they receive IRS Form 1099-R, Distributions From Pensions, Annuities, Retirement or Profit-Sharing Plans, IRAs, Insurance Contracts, etc., which may be well after the 60-day time frame. More fundamentally, 60 days doesn’t provide much time to come up with the money to roll over the offset amount. If a participant cannot repay the loan to the plan, it’s also unlikely that the participant can make up the offset amount by rolling over the loan amount into another eligible plan within 60 days. Under the TCJA, participants have a much longer time period to complete a rollover of certain loan offsets.

 

Existing Rules Pertaining to Offsets Still Apply

Many of the familiar rollover rules pertaining to offset amounts remain intact. For instance, the revised regulations still contain a definition of “plan loan offset amount,” which is eligible to roll over within 60 days. And Treasury Regulation (Treas. Reg.) 1.401(a)(31)-1 Q&A-16 still applies. This provision exempts offsets from the requirement that a plan administrator must offer a direct rollover option on all eligible rollover distributions. Although offset amounts are eligible for rollover treatment, they cannot be rolled over directly because the outstanding loan assets are no longer in an account that can be paid to another eligible plan. Instead, offset amounts can be indirectly rolled over.

Another rule, under Treas. Reg. 31.3405(c)-1, Q&A-11, provides that offset amounts alone are not subject to 20 percent mandatory federal withholding. But if the offset is processed along with a cash distribution that is also an eligible rollover distribution, the 20 percent that must be withheld is calculated on the sum of the cash distribution plus the offset amount.

Example: Participant A severs from employment and requests a lump-sum distribution of his entire individual account under the plan. This balance includes $7,000 in mutual funds and a $3,000 loan amount, which is offset immediately upon termination in accordance with the plan’s loan policy. The total distribution eligible for rollover is considered to be $10,000. Therefore, the plan administrator must withhold $2,000 on the lump-sum distribution, which is equal to 20 percent of the total $10,000 eligible rollover distribution. The plan administrator withholds $2,000 from the $7,000 cash portion of the distribution, leaving the participant with a $5,000 net cash amount.

 

Proposed Regulations Give More Clarity

While “regular” plan loan offset amounts still exist, the TCJA created a new term: qualified plan loan offset (QPLO). Available for 2018 and later tax years, a QPLO describes offsets that occur only upon plan termination or severance from employment. Here is the crux of the new rule under the TCJA and the proposed regulations: participants and spousal beneficiaries have until their tax filing deadline (including extensions) for the taxable year in which a QPLO occurs to indirectly roll over all or part of it to another eligible retirement plan or IRA. This rule applies to QPLOs from Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 401(a) plans (such as profit sharing plans, 401(k) plans, and defined benefit plans), 403(a) plans, 403(b) plans, and governmental 457(b) plans.

Two “Qualifying” Conditions

The proposed regulations define a qualified plan loan offset—a QPLO—as a plan loan offset amount that meets the following two conditions.

  • The loan amount is treated as distributed from an eligible employer plan to a participant or spousal beneficiary because
    • the eligible employer plan was terminated, or
    • the participant incurred a severance from employment that caused a failure to meet the loan repayment terms.
  • The loan offset amount must relate to a plan loan that met the requirements of IRC Sec. 72(p)(2) immediately before the plan termination or the participant’s severance from employment.

IRC Sec.72(p)(2) contains the plan loan conditions that must be met to avoid treating a loan as a distribution. Such conditions include the $50,000 limitation, the five-year term maximum, and the level repayment requirement. If these loan requirements are not met immediately before the loan offset occurs, the offset amount cannot be treated as a QPLO.

Example: Participant B and Participant C both take loans in 2019 from Plan X. Participant B’s loan meets all of the conditions of IRC. Sec. 72(p)(2), and she has not missed any payments on her loan when her plan was terminated on August 1, 2021. Any offset amount may be considered a QPLO because all loan requirements were satisfied immediately before plan termination. On January 1, 2021, Participant C defaulted on his loan payments. The employer provided a cure period until June 30, 2021, during which Participant C made no repayments. When the plan terminates on August 1, 2021, Participant C’s loan offset amount will not be a QPLO because the loan did not satisfy the level repayment requirement immediately before plan termination. It will, however, still be eligible to be rolled over within 60 days.

Timely Tax Filing Allows Automatic Six-Month Extension on Rollover

The relief granted under the TCJA allows those who request a tax filing extension to roll over QPLOs by the extended filing deadline: October 15. In the proposed regulations, the IRS has clarified that the automatic six-month extension under Treas. Reg. 301.9100-2(b) also applies to the deadline by which a QPLO must be rolled over, provided that

  • the taxpayer files a timely tax return, and
  • the taxpayer takes corrective action within the six-month period.

Example: On June 1, 2020, Participant D has a $10,000 QPLO amount that is distributed from her plan. She may roll over the $10,000 amount as late as October 15, 2021. The automatic six-month extension applies if Participant D timely files her tax return (by April 15, 2021, the due date of her return), rolls over the QPLO amount within the six-month period ending on October 15, 2021, and amends her tax return by October 15, 2021, if necessary, to reflect the rollover.

12-Month “Bright-Line” Test

The IRS provides a test in the proposed regulations that is designed to help plan administrators to identify QPLOs after a severance from employment. A plan loan offset amount will meet the severance from employment requirement if the plan loan offset

  • relates to a failure to meet the loan’s repayment terms, and
  • occurs within the period beginning on the date of the participant’s severance from employment and ending on the first anniversary of that date.

As a result, plan administrators must not report an offset as a QPLO if the offset occurs more than 12 months after the participant’s severance from employment. Offsets occurring after the 12-month period will be treated like regular loan offset amounts, which are subject to the 60-day indirect rollover deadline.

Form 1099-R reporting codes

Plan administrators must report whether a distribution is a regular offset amount or a QPLO on Form 1099-R. The 2020 Form 1099-R instructions provide that if a participant’s accrued benefit is offset to repay a loan (a regular offset amount), the plan administrator should report the distribution as an actual distribution (code 1 for an early distribution or code 7 for a normal distribution) in Box 7 and not use code “L,” which is used only for deemed distributions. But for a QPLO, the administrator should enter the special code “M” in Box 7, along with any other applicable code.

 

Next Steps

The proposed regulations contain helpful clarifications and numerous examples. Fortunately, the new rules are fairly straightforward. Nonetheless, the IRS is taking comments and requests for public hearing on the proposed regulations until October 5, 2020. The proposed rules are slated to apply to distributions on or after the date that the final regulations are published in the Federal Register. But taxpayers and plan administrators may rely on this guidance immediately.

 

Ascensus will continue to follow new developments as they arise. Visit ascensus.com for the latest information.

 

Click here for a printable version of this issue of the Washington Pulse.


DOL Announces Public Hearing on Proposed Investment Advice Prohibited Transaction Exemption

The Department of Labor’s Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has announced a September 3 public hearing on its proposed prohibited transaction exemption for investment advice fiduciaries, guidance officially known as the Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees exemption. The EBSA announcement notes that the guidance is intended to “provide relief that is broader and more flexible than the Department’s existing exemptions.” Also, EBSA states that the “proposed exemption would also provide regulatory certainty and streamline requirements as investment advice fiduciaries could comply with one exemption for a variety of different types of transactions.”

In consideration of the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, the public hearing will be virtual (conducted remotely), with no in-person presentations. Furthermore, testimony will be limited to those who submitted comments during the public comment period that began with the July 7, 2020, publication of the guidance in the Federal Register, and ended August 6, 2020. Requests to present testimony at the public hearing must be submitted to the agency by August 28, 2020.


SEC Proposes Rule to Modernize Shareholder Reports and Disclosure

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) has announced a proposal to modify and modernize the disclosure framework of mutual funds and exchange-traded funds that is intended to better serve the needs of retail investors. The SEC has identified in its press release several highlights of the proposal.

 

Shareholder Reports Tailored to Retail Shareholders

The proposal encourages the use of graphic or text features to promote effective communication. It would also provide flexibility for open-end funds to make electronic versions more user-friendly and interactive.

 

Availability of Additional Information

Information that is currently included in an open-end fund’s annual and semi-annual reports may be less relevant to retail shareholders but of more interest to financial professionals. This information would be filed on a semi-annual basis with the SEC on Form N-CSR, and would also be available online or delivered free of charge upon request.

 

Required Disclosures Tailored to New and Ongoing Fund Investors

Under the new proposal, annual prospectus updates would no longer be delivered to shareholders once the first prospectus is provided upon initial investment. Rather, shareholders would receive information from the fund through the shareholder report and timely notifications of material changes. The fund’s prospectus would remain available online and could be delivered upon request.

 

Improvements to Prospectus Disclosure of Fees and Risks

The proposal would tailor disclosures using a layered approach that would replace existing fee tables in the summary section of the prospectus with a simplified fee summary and replace certain terms in the fee table with terms that may be clearer to investors. The proposal would also improve risk disclosures in open-end funds by promoting the disclosure of principal risks and disclosing how these risks are assessed.

 

Fee and Expense Information in Advertisements

Advertisements and sales literature would be required to contain presentations of investment company fees and expenses that are consistent with relevant prospectus fee tables and are reasonably current and free of misleading representations.

Much of the framework for the SEC’s proposal is in response to a 2018 request for comments regarding retail investors’ experience with fund disclosures. There is a 60-day comment period upon publication in the Federal Register.


Deadline Relief for Storm and Earthquake Victims Includes Making IRA Contributions

The IRS has issued two news releases that grant extensions of time for completion of certain time-sensitive tax-related acts, to victims of severe storms in Michigan, and an earthquake and after-shocks in Utah.

The extensions in both cases include the completion of numerous time-sensitive tax-related acts described in Treasury Regulation 301.7508A-1(c)(1) and IRS Revenue Procedure 2018-58. Among them are completion of rollovers, correction of certain excess contributions, making plan loan payments, filing Form 5500, and certain other acts under this regulation.

In both cases—though the timeframes differ—the news releases confirm that the extensions apply to the filing of individual and business tax returns, and to making 2019 IRA contributions (deadlines for which were previously extended to July 15, 2020).

 

Michigan Relief

Relief for the state of Michigan applies to the counties of Arenac, Gladwin, Iosco, Midland, and Saginaw. Deadlines for covered actions that fall on or after May 16, 2020, and before October 15, 2020, are extended to October 15, 2020.

 

Utah Relief

Relief for the state of Utah applies to the counties of Davis and Salt Lake. Deadlines for covered actions that fall on or after March 18, 2020, and before July 31, 2020, are extended to July 31, 2020.


House Bill Would Extend, Expand Tax Benefits for CRDs

Rep. Sean Maloney (D-NY) has introduced H.R. 7645, legislation that would extend the time period for taxpayers to withdraw coronavirus-related distributions (CRDs) from retirement savings arrangements and receive the special tax benefits that CRDs provide. Certain withdrawals could be tax-free under the legislation.

CRDs, as defined in the Coronavirus Aid, Relief and Economic Security (CARES) Act, are eligible for the following tax benefits for withdrawn amounts up to $100,000 (currently, only for withdrawals in 2020).

  • Three-year taxation on amounts withdrawn
  • Exemption from the 10 percent excise tax for early (pre-59½) distributions
  • The option to repay such withdrawn amounts within three years

Included in the bill is expected to be a provision that would make CRDs tax-free if the taxpayer qualifies as a first-time home buyer. “Expected,” because neither bill text nor a summary is available at this time. Details of legislative intent are being inferred from the bill’s description at the official congressional web site:

To extend the time period for making coronavirus-related distributions from retirement plans and to provide an exclusion from gross income of coronavirus-related distributions which are first-time homebuyer distributions.”

H.R. 7645 has been referred to the House Ways and Means Committee.


Washington Pulse: The DOL’s New Proposal to Regulate Investment Advice

Few aspects of retirement plan governance have been as controversial as regulating investment advice. Exactly what obligation—if any—does an investment professional have to provide impartial, conflict-free advice to savers and retirees?  When do financial professionals step over the boundary that can make them a fiduciary, with the ethical and legal obligations that come with this duty?

The answers have been inconsistent, stretching over many years. Department of Labor (DOL) fiduciary investment advice regulations date back to the 1970s. Those regulations needed revision in order to better align with today’s investment products and participant-directed retirement plans. Changes were proposed in 2010, withdrawn in response to public comments, revised again in 2015, and made final in 2016.

The DOL delayed implementing the 2016 final investment fiduciary regulations and accompanying guidance. These regulations were ultimately struck down in 2018 as “regulatory overreach” by the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.

The DOL later issued Field Assistance Bulletin (FAB) 2018-02, which states that the DOL will not pursue prohibited transaction claims against fiduciaries who make good-faith efforts to comply with the Impartial Conduct Standards (discussed later). FAB 2018-02 remains in effect.

The DOL has again issued investment advice guidance, this time to replace the guidance struck down by the appellate court. This latest guidance package includes a proposed prohibited transaction class exemption entitled Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees, and a technical amendment to DOL Regulations (Regs.) 2509 and 2510 that implements the appellate court’s order by

  • reinstating the original version of DOL. Reg. 2510.3-21 (including the five-part test);
  • removing prohibited transaction exemptions (PTEs) 2016-01 (the Best Interest Contract Exemption) and 2016-02 (the Class Exemption for Principal Transactions);
  • returning PTEs 75-1, 77-4, 80-83, 83-1, 84-24, and 86-128 to their original form; and
  • reinstating Interpretive Bulletin (IB) 96-1, which is intended to help investment providers, financial institutions, and retirement investors determine the difference between investment education and investment advice. Investment providers and financial institutions may rely on the safe harbors in IB-96-1 in order to avoid providing information that could be construed as investment advice.

The technical amendment became effective on July 7, 2020.

 

What is the five-part test?

The original version of DOL Reg. 2510.3-21 (which the technical amendment reinstates) contains a five-part test that is used to determine fiduciary status for investment advice purposes. Under the test, an investment provider or a financial institution that receives a fee or other compensation is considered a fiduciary if it meets all of the following standards (i.e., prongs) of the test.

  • The provider or institution gives advice on investing in, purchasing, or selling securities, or other property.
  • The provider or institution gives investment advice to the retirement investor on a regular basis.
  • Investment advice is given pursuant to a mutual agreement or understanding with a retirement plan or its fiduciaries.
  • The retirement investor uses the advice as a primary basis for investment decisions.
  • The provider or institution provides individualized advice, taking into account the plan’s demographics, needs, goals, etc.

 

Has the DOL’s opinion changed on rollover recommendations?

In the preamble of the proposed PTE, the DOL clarified that it no longer agrees with the guidance originally provided in Advisory Opinion 2005-23A (better known as the Deseret Letter). In the Deseret Letter, the DOL indicated that a recommendation to distribute and roll over retirement plan assets would not generally constitute investment advice because it would not meet the first prong of the five-part test. But because it is common for the investments, fees, and services to change when the decision to roll over assets is made, the DOL now believes that a recommendation to distribute assets from an IRA or an ERISA-covered plan would be considered investment advice with respect to the first prong of the five-part test.

The DOL acknowledges that advice encouraging an individual to roll over retirement plan assets may be an isolated and independent transaction that would fail to meet the second “regular basis” prong. But determining whether advice to roll over assets meets the “regular basis” prong depends on the facts and circumstances.  So the DOL could view a rollover recommendation that begins an ongoing advisory relationship as meeting the “regular basis” prong.

As discussed above, the proposed PTE would allow investment professionals to receive compensation for advising a retirement investor to take a distribution from a retirement plan or to roll over the assets to an IRA. The investment professional could also receive compensation for providing advice on other similar transactions, such as conducting rollovers between different retirement plans, between different IRAs, or between different types of accounts (e.g., from a commission-based account to a fee-based account).

Under the proposed PTE, financial institutions would need to document why the rollover advice was in the retirement investor’s best interest. Documentation would need to

  • explain whether there were other alternatives available (e.g., to leave the assets in the plan or IRA and select different investment options);
  • describe any applicable fees and expenses;
  • indicate whether the employer paid for some or all of the plan’s administrative expenses; and
  • show the different levels of services and investments available.

In addition, investment providers or financial institutions that recommend rolling over assets from another IRA or changing account types should consider and document the services that would be provided under the new arrangement.

 

Who is covered under the proposed PTE?

The proposed PTE would apply to registered investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies (financial institutions), and their employees, agents, and representatives (investment professionals) that provide fiduciary investment advice to retirement investors. The proposed PTE would also apply to any affiliates or related entitites.

“Retirement investors” include

  • IRA and plan fiduciaries (regardless of plan size),
  • IRA owners or beneficiaries, and
  • plan participants or beneficiaries with authority to direct their accounts or take distributions.

The proposed PTE defines a “plan” as including 401(a) plans (e.g., 401(k) plans), 403(a) plans, 403(b) plans, defined benefit plans, owner-only plans, simplified employee pension (SEP) plans, and savings incentive match plan for employees of small employers (SIMPLE) plans. The proposed PTE would also apply to employee welfare benefit plans that have established a trust (e.g., VEBAs).

The proposed PTE, defines an “IRA” as an individual retirement account, an individual retirement annuity, a health savings account (HSA), an Archer medical savings account (MSA), and a Coverdell education savings account (ESA).

 

What protection does the proposed PTE offer?

The Internal Revenue Code and ERISA generally prohibit fiduciaries from receiving compensation from third parties and compensation that varies based on investment advice provided to retirement plans and IRAs. Fiduciaries are also prohibited from selling or purchasing their own products to retirement plans and IRAs (known as principal transactions).

Under the proposed PTE, financial institutions and investment professionals providing fiduciary investment advice could receive payments (e.g., commissions, 12b-1 fees, and revenue sharing payments) that would otherwise violate the prohibited transaction rules mentioned above. For example, the exemption would provide relief from prohibited transactions that could occur if a financial institution or investment professional

  • advises a client to take a distribution or roll over assets to an IRA or retirement plan;
  • provides recommendations to acquire, hold, dispose of, or exchange securities or other investments; or
  • recommends using a particular investment manager or investment advice provider.

In addition, the proposed PTE would cover riskless principal transactions  (e.g., when a broker-dealer purchases a security for their own account knowing that it will be sold to a retirement investor at a certain price) as well as principal transactions involving certain specific types of investments (e.g., municipal bonds).

The following transactions would not be covered by the PTE.

  • Transactions where advice is provided solely through a computer model without any personal interaction (i.e., robo-advice arrangements).
  • Transactions in which the investment professional is acting in a fiduciary capacity other than as an investment advice fiduciary under the five-part test, as described below (e.g., a 3(38) investment manager with authority to make discretionary investment decisions).
  • Transactions involving investment providers, financial institutions, and their affiliates if they are the employer of employees covered by the plan; or are a named fiduciary, plan administrator, or affiliate who was chosen to provide advice by a fiduciary who is not independent of the investment professional, financial institution, or their affiliates.

Certain individuals and institutions (and all members within the institution’s controlled group) would be ineligible to rely on the exemption—including those who have been convicted of a crime associated with providing investment advice to a retirement investor, or those who have a history of failing to comply with the exemption. The period of ineligibility would generally be 10 years, but a financial institution with a conviction may petition the DOL for continued reliance on the exemption.

 

What does the proposed PTE require?

To take advantage of the relief provided under the proposed PTE, investment professionals and financial institutions must provide advice in accordance with the Impartial Conduct Standards. The Impartial Conduct Standards contain three components—a reasonable compensation standard, a best interest standard, and a requirement that prohibits investment providers or financial institutions from giving misleading statements about investment transactions or other related matters.  The Impartial Conduct Standards also requires financial professionals and financial institutions to provide the best execution possible when completing security transactions (e.g., completing the transaction timely).

Under the best interest standard, investment professionals and financial institutions are not required to identify the best investment for the retirement investor, but any investment advice given must put the retirement investor’s interests ahead of the interests of the investment professional, financial institution, or their affiliates. This is consistent with the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest.

Investment providers and financial institutions cannot waive or disclaim compliance with any of the proposed PTE’s conditions. Likewise, retirement investors cannot agree to waive any of the conditions. In addition, the proposed PTE would require a financial institution to

  • provide the retirement investor—before the transaction takes place—with an acknowledgment of the institution’s fiduciary status in writing, and a written description of the service to be provided and any material conflicts of interest;
  • adopt and enforce policies and procedures designed to discourage incentives that are not in the retirement investor’s best interests and to ensure compliance with the Impartial Conduct Standards;
  • maintain records that prove compliance with the PTE for six years; and
  • conduct a review at least annually to determine whether the institution complied with the Impartial Conduct Standards and the policies and procedures created to ensure compliance with the exemption. Although an independent party does not need to conduct the review, the financial institution’s chief executive officer (or the most senior executive) must certify the review.

Note that the proposed PTE would not give retirement investors new legal claims (e.g., through contract or warranty provisions) but rather would affect the DOL’s enforcement approach.

 

Next Steps

Many investment advisers, broker-dealers, banks, and insurance companies that will be affected by the proposed PTE currently operate under similar standards found in various state laws and in the SEC’s Regulation Best Interest.  The DOL’s temporary enforcement policy discussed in FAB 2018-02 also remains in effect, as do other more narrowly tailored PTEs.

Each type of investment provider and financial institution is likely affected differently, whether in steps to comply or costs involved. Financial institutions and investment providers may want to review the proposed PTE and start taking steps to comply with it. This may involve creating and maintaining any policies and procedures they don’t already have in place as a result of state law or the Regulation Best Interest.

In the meantime, a 30-day comment period for the proposed PTE starts on July 7, 2020. Comments may be submitted at www.regulations.gov. The Docket ID number is EBSA-2020-0003.

 

 

Click here for a printable version of this issue of the Washington Pulse.

 


DOL Investment Advice Guidance Published in Federal Register

Today’s Federal Register contains the Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) proposed guidance announced by the agency on June 29, 2020, entitled Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees Exemption.

This guidance is meant to replace the DOL’s 2016 final regulations and accompanying exemptions regarding fiduciary investment advice, which—after several implementation delays—were vacated (struck down) as “regulatory overreach” by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018. Written comments or requests for a public hearing on this new EBSA guidance must be submitted by August 6, 2020.

Accompanying this EBSA proposed exemption is a second “vacatur” document that officially implements the Court’s vacating of the 2016 EBSA guidance, and reinstates earlier guidance that had been superseded by it.


DOL Issues Guidance on Investment Advice for Workers, Retirees to Replace Vacated 2016 Regulations and Exemptions

The Department of Labor’s (DOL’s) Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) has released a guidance package entitled Improving Investment Advice for Workers and Retirees Exemption. The guidance package includes a News Release, Fact Sheet, Proposed Class Exemption, and a Technical Amendment.

This guidance, to a greater or lesser degree, is meant to replace the DOL’s 2016 final regulations and accompanying exemptions on fiduciary investment advice. After several implementation delays, that 2016 guidance was struck down as “regulatory overreach” by the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals in 2018.