DESCRIPTION OF THE CHAIRMAN'S MARK OF THE

“RETIREMENT SECURITY AND SAVINGS ACT OF 2000”

Scheduled for Markup

by the

SENATE COMMITTEE ON FINANCE

on September 7, 2000

Prepared by the Staff

of the

JOINT COMMITTEE ON TAXATION

September 5, 2000

JCX-89-00
(i)

CONTENTS

(Contents page numbers don’t necessarily correspond with PDF text. Please excuse the inconvenience)

Page

INTRODUCTION ..................................................... 1

I. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENTS (“IRAs”) ................ 2

II. PENSION PROVISIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

A. Expanding Coverage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

1. Increase in benefit and contribution limits .......................... 8

2. Plan loans for subchapter S shareholders, partners, and sole

proprietors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3. Modification of top-heavy rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

4. Elective deferrals not taken into account for purposes of deduction

limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

5. Repeal of coordination requirements for deferred compensation plans of

State and local governments and tax-exempt organizations . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

6. Eliminate IRS user fees for certain determination letter requests regarding

employer plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

7. Deduction limits . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18

8. Option to treat elective deferrals as after-tax contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

9. Reduce PBGC premiums for small and new plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22

10. Credit for low- and middle-income savers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

11. Small business tax credit for qualified retirement plan contributions . . . . . 25

12. Small business tax credit for new retirement plan expenses . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

B. Enhancing Fairness for Women . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

1. Additional salary reduction catch-up contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

2. Equitable treatment for contributions of employees to defined contribution

plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

3. Faster vesting of employer matching contributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32

4. Simplify and update the minimum distribution rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33

5. Clarification of tax treatment of division of section 457 plan benefits upon

divorce . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

6. Modifications relating to hardship withdrawals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36

7. Pension coverage for domestic and similar workers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

C. Increasing Portability for Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Page

(ii)

1. Rollovers of retirement plan and IRA distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

2. Waiver of 60-day rule . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

3. Treatment of forms of distribution . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42

4. Rationalization of restrictions on distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44

5. Purchase of service credit under governmental pension plans . . . . . . . . . . . 45

6. Employers may disregard rollovers for purposes of cash-out rules . . . . . . . 46

D. Strengthening Pension Security and Enforcement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

1. Phase in repeal of 155 percent of current liability funding limit; deduction

for contributions to fund termination liability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47

2. Excise tax relief for sound pension funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3. Notice of significant reduction in plan benefit accruals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50

4. Modifications to section 415 limits for multiemployer plans . . . . . . . . . . . 54

5. Investment of employee contributions in 401(k) plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

6. Periodic pension benefit statements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56

7. Extension of PBGC missing participants program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

8. Prohibited allocations of stock in an S corporation ESOP . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

E. Reducing Regulatory Burdens . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

1. Modification of timing of plan valuations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61

2. ESOP dividends may be reinvested without loss of dividend deduction . . . 62

3. Repeal transition rule relating to certain highly compensated employees . . 63

4. Employees of tax-exempt entities . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 63

5. Treatment of employer-provided retirement advice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 64

6. Reporting simplification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

7. Improvement to Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System . . . . . . . 66

8. Repeal of the multiple use test . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68

9. Flexibility in nondiscrimination and line of business rules . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69

10. Extension to all governmental plans of moratorium on application of

certain nondiscrimination rules applicable to State and local government

plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

11. Notice and consent period regarding distributions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

12. Rules for substantial owner benefits in terminated plans . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72

13. Annual report dissemination . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

F. Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73

III. COMPLIANCE WITH CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
1

 This document may be cited as follows: Joint Committee on Taxation, Description of

the Chairman's Mark of the “Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000” (JCX-89-00),

September 5, 2000.

-1-

INTRODUCTION

This document,1

 prepared by the staff of the Joint Committee on Taxation, provides a

description of the Chairman's mark of an original bill, the “Retirement Security and Savings Act

of 2000,” scheduled for markup by the Senate Committee on Finance on September 7, 2000. The

Retirement Security and Savings Act of 2000 provides for reconciliation pursuant to section

104(a)(2) of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2001.
-2-

I. INDIVIDUAL RETIREMENT ARRANGEMENTS (“IRAs”)

Present Law

In general

There are two general types of individual retirement arrangements (“IRAs”) under present

law: traditional IRAs, to which both deductible and nondeductible contributions may be made,

and Roth IRAs. The Federal income tax rules regarding each type of IRA (and IRA contribution)

differ.

Traditional IRAs

Under present law, an individual may make deductible contributions to an IRA up to the

lesser of $2,000 or the individual’s compensation if neither the individual nor the individual’s

spouse is an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan. In the case of a married

couple, deductible IRA contributions of up to $2,000 can be made for each spouse (including, for

example, a homemaker who does not work outside the home), if the combined compensation of

both spouses is at least equal to the contributed amount. If the individual (or the individual’s

spouse) is an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, the $2,000 deduction

limit is phased out for taxpayers with adjusted gross income (“AGI”) over certain levels for the

taxable year.

The AGI phase-out limits for taxpayers who are active participants in employersponsored plans are as follows.

Single Taxpayers

Taxable years beginning in: Phase-out range

2000 ................................................ 32,000-42,000

2001 ................................................ 33,000-43,000

2002 ................................................ 34,000-44,000

2003 ................................................ 40,000-50,000

2004 ................................................ 45,000-55,000

2005 and thereafter ..................................... 50,000-60,000
-3-

Joint Returns

Taxable years beginning in: Phase-out range

2000 ................................................ 52,000-62,000

2001 ................................................ 53,000-63,000

2002 ................................................ 54,000-64,000

2003 ................................................ 60,000-70,000

2004 ................................................ 65,000-75,000

2005 ................................................ 70,000-80,000

2006 ................................................ 75,000-85,000

2007 and thereafter ..................................... 80,000-100,000

The AGI phase-out range for married taxpayers filing a separate return is $0 to $10,000.

If the individual is not an active participant in an employer-sponsored retirement plan, but

the individual’s spouse is, the $2,000 deduction limit is phased out for taxpayers with AGI

between $150,000 and $160,000.

To the extent an individual cannot or does not make deductible contributions to an IRA or

contributions to a Roth IRA, the individual may make nondeductible contributions to a

traditional IRA.

Amounts held in a traditional IRA are includible in income when withdrawn (except to

the extent the withdrawal is a return of nondeductible contributions). Includible amounts

withdrawn prior to attainment of age 59-1/2 are subject to an additional 10-percent early

withdrawal tax, unless the withdrawal is due to death or disability, is made in the form of certain

periodic payments, is used to pay medical expenses in excess of 7.5 percent of AGI, is used to

purchase health insurance of an unemployed individual, is used for education expenses, or is

used for first-time homebuyer expenses of up to $10,000.

Roth IRAs

Individuals with AGI below certain levels may make nondeductible contributions to a

Roth IRA. The maximum annual contribution that may be made to a Roth IRA is the lesser of

$2,000 or the individual’s compensation for the year. The contribution limit is reduced to the

extent an individual makes contributions to any other IRA for the same taxable year. As under

the rules relating to IRAs generally, a contribution of up to $2,000 for each spouse may be made

to a Roth IRA provided the combined compensation of the spouses is at least equal to the

contributed amount. The maximum annual contribution that can be made to a Roth IRA is

phased out for single individuals with AGI between $95,000 and $110,000 and for joint filers

with AGI between $150,000 and $160,000.
2

 Early distribution of converted amounts may also accelerate income inclusion of

converted amounts that are taxable under the 4-year rule applicable to 1998 conversions.

-4-

Taxpayers with modified AGI of $100,000 or less generally may convert a traditional

IRA into an Roth IRA. The amount converted is includible in income as if a withdrawal had

been made, except that the 10-percent early withdrawal tax does not apply and, if the conversion

occurred in 1998, the income inclusion may be spread ratably over 4 years. Married taxpayers

who file separate returns cannot convert a traditional IRA into a Roth IRA.

Amounts held in a Roth IRA that are withdrawn as a qualified distribution are not

includible in income, nor subject to the additional 10-percent tax on early withdrawals. A

qualified distribution is a distribution that (1) is made after the 5-taxable year period beginning

with the first taxable year for which the individual made a contribution to a Roth IRA, and (2)

which is made after attainment of age 59-1/2, on account of death or disability, or is made for

first-time homebuyer expenses of up to $10,000.

Distributions from a Roth IRA that are not qualified distributions are includible in income

to the extent attributable to earnings, and subject to the 10-percent early withdrawal tax (unless

an exception applies).2

 The same exceptions to the early withdrawal tax that apply to IRAs apply

to Roth IRAs.

Taxation of charitable contributions

Generally, a taxpayer who itemizes deductions may deduct cash contributions to charity,

as well as the fair market value of contributions of property. The amount of the deduction

otherwise allowable for the taxable year with respect to a charitable contribution may be reduced,

depending on the type of property contributed, the type of charitable organization to which the

property is contributed, and the income of the taxpayer.

For donations of cash by individuals, total deductible contributions to public charities

may not exceed 50 percent of a taxpayer’s adjusted gross income (“AGI”) for a taxable year. To

the extent a taxpayer has not exceeded the 50-percent limitation, contributions of cash to private

foundations and certain other nonprofit organizations and contributions of capital gain property

to public charities generally may be deducted up to 30 percent of the taxpayer’s AGI. If a

taxpayer makes a contribution in one year which exceeds the applicable 50-percent or 30-percent

limitation, the excess amount of the contribution may be carried over and deducted during the

next five taxable years.

In addition to the percentage limitations imposed specifically on charitable contributions,

present law imposes a reduction on most itemized deductions, including charitable contribution

deductions, for taxpayers with adjusted gross income in excess of a threshold amount, which is

indexed annually for inflation. The threshold amount for 1999 is $126,600 ($63,300 for married

individuals filing separate returns). For those deductions that are subject to the limit, the total
-5-

amount of itemized deductions is reduced by 3 percent of AGI over the threshold amount, but not

by more than 80 percent of itemized deductions subject to the limit. The effect of this reduction

may be to limit a taxpayer’s ability to deduct some of his or her charitable contributions.

Description of Proposal

Increase in annual contribution limits

The proposal would increase the maximum annual dollar contribution limit for IRA

contributions from $2,000 to $3,000 in 2001, $4,000 in 2002, and $5,000 in 2003. The limit

would be indexed in $500 increments in 2004 and thereafter.

Increase in AGI limits for deductible IRA contributions

Under the proposal, the increases AGI phase-out limits for active participants in an

employer-sponsored plan would be evened out. In addition, the phase-out range for married

taxpayers filing separately would be conformed to the phase-out range for single filers. The AGI

phase-out limits under the proposal would be as follows.

All Returns Other Than Joint Returns

Taxable years beginning in: Phase-out range

2001 ................................................ $36,000-46,000

2002 ................................................ 40,000-50,000

2003 ................................................ 44,000-54,000

2004 ................................................ 48,000-58,000

2005 and thereafter ..................................... 50,000-60,000
-6-

Joint Returns

Taxable years beginning in: Phase-out range

2001 ................................................ $56,000-66,000

2002 ................................................ 60,000-70,000

2003 ................................................ 64,000-74,000

2004 ................................................ 68,000-78,000

2005 ................................................ 72,000-82,000

2006 ................................................ 76,000-86,000

2007 and thereafter ..................................... 80,000-100,000

The present-law income phase-out range for an individual who is not an active

participant, but whose spouse is, would remain at $150,000 to $160,000.

Additional catch-up contributions

The proposal would provide that individuals who have attained age 50 may make

additional catch-up IRA contributions. The otherwise maximum contribution limit (before

application of the AGI phase-out limits) for an individual who has attained age 50 before the end

of the taxable year would be increased by 50 percent.

Deemed IRAs under employer plans

The proposal would provide that, if a qualified retirement plan or a section 403(b) annuity

permits employees to make voluntary employee contributions to a separate account or annuity

that (1) is established under the qualified plan, section 403(b) annuity, or eligible deferred

compensation plan of a State or local government (a "governmental section 457 plan") and (2)

meets the requirements applicable to either traditional IRAs or Roth IRAs the separate account or

annuity would be deemed a traditional IRA or a Roth IRA for all purposes of the Code, as

applicable. The deemed IRA, and contributions thereto, would not be subject to the Code rules

pertaining to qualified plans, section 403(b) annuities, or governmental section 457 plans, as

applicable. In addition, the deemed IRA, and contributions thereto, would not be taken into

account in applying those rules to any other contributions under the qualified plan, section 403(b)

annuity, or governmental section 457 plan. The deemed IRA, and contributions thereto, would

be subject to the exclusive benefit and fiduciary rules of ERISA to the extent otherwise

applicable to the plan or annuity, but would not be subject to the ERISA reporting and disclosure,

participation, vesting, funding, and enforcement requirements that apply to pension plans.

Tax-free IRA withdrawals for charitable purposes

The proposal would provide an exclusion from gross income for qualified charitable
3

 It would be intended that, in the case of transfer to a trust, fund, or annuity, the full

amount distributed from an IRA will meet the definition of a qualified charitable distribution if

the charitable organization’s interest in the distribution would qualify as a charitable contribution

under section 170. 

-7-

distributions from an IRA: (1) to a charitable organization to which deductible contributions can

be made; (2) to a charitable remainder annuity trust or charitable remainder unitrust; (3) to a 

pooled income fund (as defined in sec. 642(c)(5)); or (4) for the issuance of a charitable gift

annuity. The exclusion would apply with respect to distributions described in (2), (3), or (4) only

if no person holds an income interest in the trust, fund, or annuity attributable to such

distributions other than the IRA owner, his or her spouse, or a charitable organization.

In determining the character of distributions from a charitable remainder annuity trust or a

charitable remainder unitrust to which a qualified charitable distribution from an IRA was made,

the charitable remainder trust would be required to treat as ordinary income the portion of the

distribution from the IRA to the trust which would have been includible in income but for the

provision, and as corpus any remaining portion of the distribution. Similarly, in determining the

amount includible in gross income by reason of a payment from a charitable gift annuity

purchased with a qualified charitable distribution from an IRA, the taxpayer would not be

permitted to treat the portion of the distribution from the IRA that would have been taxable but

for the provision and which is used to purchase the annuity as an investment in the annuity

contract.

A qualified charitable distribution would be any distribution from an IRA which is made

after age 70-1/2, which qualifies as a charitable contribution (within the meaning of sec. 170(c)),

and which is made directly to the charitable organization or to a charitable remainder annuity

trust, charitable remainder unitrust, pooled income fund, or charitable gift annuity (as described

above).3 A taxpayer would not be permitted to claim a charitable contribution deduction for

amounts transferred from his or her IRA to charity or to a trust, fund, or annuity that, because of

the provision, are excluded from the taxpayer’s income. Conversely, if the amounts transferred

would otherwise be nontaxable, e.g., a qualified distribution from a Roth IRA, the regularly

applicable deduction rules would apply.

Effective Date

The proposal would generally be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31,

2000. The provision relating to deemed IRAs under employer plans would be effective for plan

years beginning after December 31, 2001. The provision relating to tax-free withdrawals from

IRAs for charitable purposes would be effective for distributions after December 31, 2000.
-8-

II. PENSION PROVISIONS

A. Expanding Coverage

1. Increase in benefit and contribution limits

Present Law

In general

Under present law, limits apply to contributions and benefits under qualified plans (sec.

415), the amount of compensation that may be taken into account under a plan for determining

benefits (sec. 401(a)(17)), the maximum amount of elective deferrals that an individual may

make to a salary reduction plan or tax sheltered annuity (sec. 402(g)), and deferrals under an

eligible deferred compensation plan of a tax-exempt organization or a State or local government

(sec. 457).

Limitations on contributions and benefits

Under present law, the limits on contributions and benefits under qualified plans are

based on the type of plan. Under a defined contribution plan, the qualification rules limit the

annual additions to the plan with respect to each plan participant to the lesser of (1) 25 percent of

compensation or (2) $30,000 (for 2000). Annual additions are the sum of employer contributions,

employee contributions, and forfeitures with respect to an individual under all defined

contribution plans of the same employer. The $30,000 limit is indexed for cost-of-living

adjustments in $5,000 increments.

Under a defined benefit plan, the maximum annual benefit payable at retirement is

generally the lesser of (1) 100 percent of average compensation, or (2) $135,000 (for 2000). The

dollar limit is adjusted for cost-of-living increases in $5,000 increments.

Under present law, in general, the dollar limit on annual benefits is reduced if benefits

under the plan begin before the social security retirement age (currently, age 65) and increased if

benefits begin after social security retirement age.

Compensation limitation

Under present law, the annual compensation of each participant that may be taken into

account for purposes of determining contributions and benefits under a plan, applying the

deduction rules, and for nondiscrimination testing purposes is limited to $170,000 (for 2000).

The compensation limit is indexed for cost-of-living adjustments in $10,000 increments.
4

 The 25 percent of compensation limitation would be increased to 100 percent of

compensation under another provision of the proposal.

-9-

Elective deferral limitations

Under present law, under certain salary reduction arrangements, an employee may elect to

have the employer make payments as contributions to a plan on behalf of the employee, or to the

employee directly in cash. Contributions made at the election of the employee are called elective

deferrals.

The maximum annual amount of elective deferrals that an individual may make to a

qualified cash or deferred arrangement (a “section 401(k) plan”), a tax-sheltered annuity

(“section 403(b) annuity”) or a salary reduction simplified employee pension plan (“SEP”) is

$10,500 (for 2000). The maximum annual amount of elective deferrals that an individual may

make to a SIMPLE plan is $6,000. These limits are indexed for inflation in $500 increments.

Section 457 plans

The maximum annual deferral under a deferred compensation plan of a State or local

government or a tax-exempt organization (a “section 457 plan”) is the lesser of (1) $8,000 (for

2000) or (2) 33-1/3 percent of compensation. The $8,000 dollar limit is increased for inflation

in $500 increments. Under a special catch-up rule, the section 457 plan may provide that, for one

or more of the participant’s last 3 years before retirement, the otherwise applicable limit is

increased to the lesser of (1) $15,000 or (2) the sum of the otherwise applicable limit for the year

plus the amount by which the limit applicable in preceding years of participation exceeded the

deferrals for that year.

Description of Proposal

Limits on contributions and benefits

The proposal would provide faster indexing of the $30,000 limit on annual additions to a

defined contribution plan. Under the proposal this limit amount would be indexed in $1,000

increments.4

The proposal would increase the $135,000 annual benefit limit under a defined benefit

plan to $160,000. The dollar limit would be reduced for benefit commencement before age 62

and increased for benefit commencement after age 65.

Compensation limitation

The proposal would increase the limit on compensation that may be taken into account

under a plan to $200,000. This amount would be indexed in $5,000 increments.
5

 Another proposal would increases the 33-1/3 percentage of compensation limit to 100

percent.

6

 Title I of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended

(“ERISA”), also contains prohibited transaction rules. The Code and ERISA proposals are

substantially similar, although not identical. 

-10-

Elective deferral limitations

In 2001, the proposal would increase the dollar limit on annual elective deferrals under

section 401(k) plans, section 403(b) annuities and salary reduction SEPs to $11,000. In 2002 and

thereafter, in limits would increase in $1,000 annual increments until the limits reach $15,000 in

2005, with indexing in $500 increments thereafter. Beginning in 2001, the proposal would

increase the maximum annual elective deferrals that may be made to a SIMPLE plan in $1,000

annual increments until the limit reaches $10,000 in 2004. Beginning after 2004, the $10,000

dollar limit would be indexed in $500 increments.

Section 457 plans

The proposal would increase the dollar limit on deferrals under a section 457 plan to

conform to the elective deferral limitation. Thus, the limit would be $11,000 in 2001, and would

be increased in $1,000 annual increments thereafter until the limit reaches $15,000 in 2005. The

limit would be indexed thereafter in $500 increments. The limit would be twice the otherwise

applicable dollar limit in the three years prior to retirement.5

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

2. Plan loans for subchapter S shareholders, partners, and sole proprietors

Present Law

The Internal Revenue Code prohibits certain transactions (“prohibited transactions”)

between a qualified plan and a disqualified person in order to prevent persons with a close

relationship to the qualified plan from using that relationship to the detriment of plan participants

and beneficiaries.6 Certain types of transactions are exempted from the prohibited transaction

rules, including loans from the plan to plan participants, if certain requirements are satisfied. In

addition, the Secretary of Labor can grant an administrative exemption from the prohibited

transaction rules if she finds the exemption is administratively feasible, in the interest of the plan

and plan participants and beneficiaries, and protective of the rights of participants and

beneficiaries of the plan. Pursuant to this exemption process, the Secretary of Labor grants

exemptions both with respect to specific transactions and classes of transactions.
7

 Certain transactions involving a plan and Subchapter S shareholders are permitted.

-11-

The statutory exemptions to the prohibited transaction rules do not apply to certain

transactions in which the plan makes a loan to an owner-employee.7 Loans to participants other

than owner-employees are permitted if loans are available to all participants on a reasonably

equivalent basis, are not made available to highly compensated employees in an amount greater

than made available to other employees, are made in accordance with specific provisions in the

plan, bear a reasonable rate of interest, and are adequately secured. In addition, the Code places

limits on the amount of loans and repayment terms.

For purposes of the prohibited transaction rules, an owner-employee means (1) a sole

proprietor, (2) a partner who owns more than 10 percent of either the capital interest or the

profits interest in the partnership, (3) an employee or officer of a Subchapter S corporation who

owns more than 5 percent of the outstanding stock of the corporation, and (4) the owner of an

individual retirement arrangement (“IRA”). The term owner-employee also includes certain

family members of an owner-employee and certain corporations owned by an owner-employee.

Under the Internal Revenue Code, a two-tier excise tax is imposed on disqualified

persons who engage in a prohibited transaction. The first level tax is equal to 15 percent of the

amount involved in the transaction. The second level tax is imposed if the prohibited transaction

is not corrected within a certain period, and is equal to 100 percent of the amount involved.

Description of Proposal

The proposal generally would eliminate the special present-law rules relating to plan

loans made to an owner-employee. Thus, the general statutory exemption would apply to such

transactions. Present law would continue to apply with respect to IRAs.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective with respect to periods after December 31, 2000.

3. Modification of top-heavy rules

Present Law

In general

Under present law, additional qualification requirements apply to plans that primarily

benefit an employer’s key employees (“top-heavy plans”). These additional requirements

provide (1) more rapid vesting for plan participants who are non-key employees and (2)

minimum nonintegrated employer contributions or benefits for plan participants who are non-key

employees.
-12-

Definition of top-heavy plan

In general, a top-heavy plan is a plan under which more than 60 percent of the

contributions or benefits are provided to key employees. More precisely, a defined benefit plan

is a top-heavy plan if more than 60 percent of the cumulative accrued benefits under the plan are

for key employees. A defined contribution plan is top heavy if the sum of the account balances

of key employees is more than 60 percent of the total account balances under the plan. For each

plan year, the determination of top-heavy status generally is made as of the last day of the

preceding plan year (“the determination date”).

For purposes of determining whether a plan is a top-heavy plan, benefits derived both

from employer and employee contributions, including employee elective contributions, are taken

into account. In addition, the accrued benefit of a participant in a defined benefit plan and the

account balance of a participant in a defined contribution plan includes any amount distributed

within the 5-year period ending on the determination date.

An individual’s accrued benefit or account balance is not taken into account in

determining whether a plan is top-heavy if the individual has not performed services for the

employer during the 5-year period ending on the determination date.

In some cases, two or more plans of a single employer must be aggregated for purposes of

determining whether the group of plans is top-heavy. The following plans must be aggregated:

(1) plans which cover a key employee (including collectively bargained plans); and (2) any plan

upon which a plan covering a key employee depends for purposes of satisfying the Code’s

nondiscrimination rules. The employer may be required to include terminated plans in the

required aggregation group. In some circumstances, an employer may elect to aggregate plans

for purposes of determining whether they are top heavy.

SIMPLE plans are not subject to the top-heavy rules.

Definition of key employee

A key employee is an employee who, during the plan year that ends on the determination

date or any of the 4 preceding plan years, is (1) an officer earning over one-half of the defined

benefit plan dollar limitation of section 415 ($67,500 for 2000), (2) a 5-percent owner of the

employer, (3) a 1-percent owner of the employer earning over $150,000, or (4) one of the 10

employees earning more than the defined contribution plan dollar limit ($30,000 for 2000) with

the largest ownership interests in the employer. A family ownership attribution rule applies to

the determination of 1-percent owner status, 5-percent owner status, and largest ownership

interest. Under this attribution rule, an individual is treated as owning stock owned by the

individual’s spouse, children, grandchildren, or parents.
8

 Tres. Reg. sec. 1.416-1 Q&A M-19.

9

 Benefits under a plan that is not top heavy must vest at least as rapidly as under one of

the following schedules: (1) 5-year cliff vesting; and (2) 3-7 year graded vesting, which provides

for 20 percent vesting after 3 years and 20 percent more each year thereafter so that a participant

is fully vested after 7 years of service.

-13-

Minimum benefit for non-key employees

A minimum benefit generally must be provided to all non-key employees in a top-heavy

plan. In general, a top-heavy defined benefit plan must provide a minimum benefit equal to the

lesser of (1) 2 percent of compensation multiplied by the employee’s years of service, or (2) 20

percent of compensation. A top-heavy defined contribution plan must provide a minimum

annual contribution equal to the lesser of (1) 3 percent of compensation, or (2) the percentage of

compensation at which contributions were made for key employees (including employee elective

contributions made by key employees and employer matching contributions).

For purposes of the minimum benefit rules, only benefits derived from employer

contributions (other than amounts employees have elected to defer) to the plan are taken into

account, and an employee’s social security benefits are disregarded (i.e., the minimum benefit is

nonintegrated). Employer matching contributions may be used to satisfy the minimum

contribution requirement; however, in such a case the contributions are not treated as matching

contributions for purposes of applying the special nondiscrimination requirements applicable to

employee elective contributions and matching contributions under sections 401(k) and (m). 

Thus, such contributions would have to meet the general nondiscrimination test of section

401(a)(4).8

Top-heavy vesting

Benefits under a top-heavy plan must vest at least as rapidly as under one of the following

schedules: (1) 3-year cliff vesting, which provides for 100 percent vesting after 3 years of

service; and (2) 2-6 year graduated vesting, which provides for 20 percent vesting after 2 years of

service, and 20 percent more each year thereafter so that a participant is fully vested after 6 years

of service.9

Qualified cash or deferred arrangements

Under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (a “section 401(k) plan”), an employee

may elect to have the employer make payments as contributions to a qualified plan on behalf of

the employee, or to the employee directly in cash. Contributions made at the election of the

employee are called elective deferrals. A special nondiscrimination test applies to elective

deferrals under cash or deferred arrangements, which compares the elective deferrals of highly

compensated employees with elective deferrals of nonhighly compensated employees. (This test
10 This proposal would not be intended to preclude the use of nonelective contributions

that are used to satisfy the safe harbor rules from being used to satisfy other qualified retirement

plan nondiscrimination rules, including those involving cross-testing.

-14-

is called the actual deferral percentage test or the “ADP” test). Employer matching contributions 

under qualified defined contribution plans are also subject to a similar nondiscrimination test. 

(This test is called the actual contribution percentage test or the “ACP” test.)

Under a design-based safe harbor, a cash or deferred arrangement is deemed to satisfy the

ADP test if the plan satisfies one of two contribution requirements and satisfies a notice

requirement. A plan satisfies the contribution requirement under the safe harbor rule for

qualified cash or deferred arrangements if the employer either (1) satisfies a matching

contribution requirement or (2) makes a nonelective contribution to a defined contribution plan

of at least 3 percent of an employee’s compensation on behalf of each nonhighly compensated

employee who is eligible to participate in the arrangement without regard to the permitted

disparity rules (sec. 401(1)). A plan satisfies the matching contribution requirement if, under the

arrangement: (1) the employer makes a matching contribution on behalf of each nonhighly

compensated employee that is equal to (a) 100 percent of the employee’s elective deferrals up to

3 percent of compensation and (b) 50 percent of the employee’s elective deferrals from 3 to 5

percent of compensation; and (2), the rate of match with respect to any elective contribution for

highly compensated employees is not greater than the rate of match for nonhighly compensated

employees. Matching contributions that satisfy the design-based safe harbor for cash or deferred

arrangements are deemed to satisfy the ACP test. Certain additional matching contributions are

also deemed to satisfy the ACP test.

Description of Proposal

Definition of top-heavy plan

The proposal would provide that a plan consisting of a cash-or-deferred arrangement that

satisfies the design-based safe harbor for such plans and matching contributions that satisfy the

safe harbor rule for such contributions is not a top-heavy plan. Matching or nonelective

contributions provided under such a plan could be taken into account in satisfying the minimum

contribution requirements applicable to top-heavy plans.10

In determining whether a plan is top-heavy, the proposal would provide that distributions

during the year ending on the date the top-heavy determination is being made are taken into

account. The present-law 5-year rule would apply with respect to in-service distributions. 

Similarly, the proposal would provide that an individual’s accrued benefit or account balance is

not taken into account if the individual has not performed services for the employer during the 1-

year period ending on the date the top-heavy determination is being made.
11 The compensation limit would be determined without regard to the top-paid group

election.

12 Thus, this proposal would override the provision in Treasury regulations that, if

matching contributions are used to satisfy the minimum benefit requirement, then they are not

treated as matching contributions for purposes of the section 401(m) nondiscrimination rules.

-15-

Definition of key employee

The proposal would (1) provide that an employee is not considered a key employee by

reason of officer status unless the employee earns more than the compensation limit for

determining whether an employee is highly compensated ($85,000 for 2000)11 and (2) repeal the

top-10 owner key employee category. The proposal would repeal the 4-year lookback rule for

determining key employee status and provide that an employee is a key employee only if he or

she is a key employee during the preceding plan year.

Thus, under the proposal, an employee would be considered a key employee if, during the

prior year, the employee was (1) an officer with compensation in excess of $85,000 (for 2000),

(2) a 5-percent owner, or (3) a 1-percent owner with compensation in excess of $150,000. The

present-law limits on the number of officers treated as key employees under (1) would continue

to apply.

The family ownership attribution rule no longer would apply in determining whether an

individual is a 5-percent owner of the employer for purposes of the top-heavy rules only.

Minimum benefit for nonkey employees

Under the proposal, matching contributions would be taken into account in determining

whether the minimum benefit requirement has been satisfied.12

The proposal would provide that, in determining the minimum benefit required under a

defined benefit plan, a year of service would not include any year in which no key employee

benefits under the plan (as determined under sec. 410).

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

4. Elective deferrals not taken into account for purposes of deduction limits

Present Law
-16-

Employer contributions to one or more qualified retirement plans are deductible subject

to certain limits. In general, the deduction limit depends on the kind of plan.

In the case of a defined benefit pension plan or a money purchase pension plan, the

employer generally may deduct the amount necessary to satisfy the minimum funding cost of the

plan for the year. If a defined benefit pension plan has more than 100 participants, the maximum

amount deductible is at least equal to the plan’s unfunded current liabilities.

In the case of a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, the employer generally may deduct an

amount equal to 15 percent of compensation of the employees covered by the plan for the year.

If an employer sponsors both a defined benefit pension plan and a defined contribution

plan that covers some of the same employees (or a money purchase pension plan and another

kind of defined contribution plan), the total deduction for all plans for a plan year generally is

limited to the greater of (1) 25 percent of compensation or (2) the contribution necessary to meet

the minimum funding requirements of the defined benefit pension plan for the year (or the

amount of the plan’s unfunded current liabilities, in the case of a plan with more than 100

participants).

For purposes of the deduction limits, employee elective deferral contributions to a section

401(k) plan are treated as employer contributions and, thus, are subject to the generally

applicable deduction limits.

Subject to certain exceptions, nondeductible contributions are subject to a 10-percent

excise tax.

Description of Proposal

Under the proposal, elective deferral contributions would not be subject to the deduction

limits, and the application of a deduction limitation to any other employer contribution to a

qualified retirement plan would not take into account elective deferral contributions.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

5. Repeal of coordination requirements for deferred compensation plans of State and local

governments and tax-exempt organizations

Present Law

Compensation deferred under an eligible deferred compensation plan of a tax-exempt or

State and local government employer (a “section 457 plan”) is not includible in gross income
13 The limits on deferrals under a section 457 plan would be modified under other

provisions of the proposal.

14 User fees are statutorily authorized; however, the IRS sets the dollar amount of the fee

applicable to any particular type of request.

-17-

until paid or made available. In general, the maximum permitted annual deferral under such a

plan is the lesser of (1) $8,000 (in 2000) or (2) 33-1/3 percent of compensation. The $8,000 limit

is increased for inflation in $500 increments. Under a special catch-up rule, a section 457 plan

may provide that, for one or more of the participant’s last 3 years before retirement, the otherwise

applicable limit is increased to the lesser of (1) $15,000 or (2) the sum of the otherwise

applicable limit for the year plus the amount by which the limit applicable in preceding years of

participation exceeded the deferrals for that year.

The $8,000 limit (as modified under the catch-up rule), applies to all deferrals under all

section 457 plans in which the individual participates. In addition, in applying the $8,000 limit,

contributions under a tax-sheltered annuity (“section 403(b) annuity”), elective deferrals under a

qualified cash or deferred arrangement (“section 401(k) plan”), salary reduction contributions

under a simplified employee pension plan (“SEP”), and contributions under a SIMPLE plan are

taken into account. Further, the amount deferred under a section 457 plan is taken into account

in applying a special catch-up rule for section 403(b) annuities.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would repeal the rules coordinating the section 457 dollar limit with

contributions under other types of plans.13

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

6. Eliminate IRS user fees for certain determination letter requests regarding employer

plans

Present Law

An employer that maintains a retirement plan for the benefit of its employees may request

from the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) a determination as to whether the form of the plan

satisfies the requirements applicable to tax-qualified plans (sec. 401(a)). In order to obtain from

the IRS a determination letter on the qualified status of the plan, the employer must pay a user

fee. The user fee may range from $125 to $1,250, depending upon the scope of the request and

the type and format of the plan.14
15 Rev. Proc. 2000-27, 2000-26 I.R.B. 1272.

-18-

Present law provides that plans that do not meet the qualification requirements will be

treated as meeting such requirements if appropriate retroactive plan amendments are made during

the remedial amendment period. In general, the remedial amendment period ends on the due date

for the employer's tax return (including extensions) for the taxable year in which the event giving

rise to the disqualifying provision occurred (e.g., a plan amendment or a change in the law). The

Secretary may provide for general extensions for the remedial amendment period or for

extensions in certain cases. For example, the remedial amendment period with respect to

amendments relating to the qualification requirements affected by the General Agreements on

Tariffs and Trade, the Uniformed Services Employment and Reemployment Rights Act of 1994,

the Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996, the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997, and the Internal

Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 generally ends the last day of the first

plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2001.15

Description of Proposal

A small employer (100 or fewer employees) would not be required to pay a user fee for a

determination letter request with respect to the qualified status of a retirement plan that the

employer maintains if the request is made before the later of (1) the last day of the fifth plan year

of the plan or (2) the end of any applicable remedial amendment period with respect to the plan

that begins before the end of the fifth plan year of the plan. The proposal would apply only to

requests by employers for determination letters concerning the qualified retirement plans they

maintain. Therefore, a sponsor of a prototype plan would be required to pay a user fee for a

request for a notification letter, opinion letter, or similar ruling. A small employer that adopts a

prototype plan, however, would not be required to pay a user fee for a determination letter

request with respect to the employer’s plan.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for determination letter requests made after December

31, 2000.

7. Deduction limits

Present Law

Employer contributions to one or more qualified retirement plans are deductible subject

to certain limits. In general, the deduction limit depends on the kind of plan. Subject to certain

exceptions, nondeductible contributions are subject to a 10-percent excise tax.

In the case of a defined benefit pension plan or a money purchase pension plan, the

employer generally may deduct the amount necessary to satisfy the minimum funding cost of the
16 Another proposal would provide that elective deferrals are not subject to the deduction

limits.

17 Rev. Rul. 65-295, 1965-2 C.B. 148.

18 Treas. Reg. sec. 1.410(b)-3.

-19-

plan for the year. If a defined benefit pension plan has more than 100 participants, the maximum

amount deductible is at least equal to the plan’s unfunded current liabilities.

In some cases, the amount of deductible contributions is limited by compensation. In the

case of a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan, the employer generally may deduct an amount equal

to 15 percent of compensation of the employees covered by the plan for the year.

If an employer sponsors both a defined benefit pension plan and a defined contribution

plan that covers some of the same employees (or a money purchase pension plan and another

kind of defined contribution plan), the total deduction for all plans for a plan year generally is

limited to the greater of (1) 25 percent of compensation or (2) the contribution necessary to meet

the minimum funding requirements of the defined benefit pension plan for the year (or the

amount of the plan’s unfunded current liabilities, in the case of a plan with more than 100

participants).

In the case of an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”), principal payments on a loan

used to acquire qualifying employer securities are deductible up to 25 percent of compensation.

For purposes of the deduction limits, employee elective deferral contributions to a

qualified cash or deferred arrangement (“section 401(k) plan”) are treated as employer

contributions and, thus, are subject to the generally applicable deduction limits.16

For purposes of the deduction limits, compensation means the compensation otherwise

paid or accrued during the taxable year to the beneficiaries under the plan, and the beneficiaries

under a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan are the employees who benefit under the plan with

respect to the employer’s contribution.17 An employee who is eligible to make elective deferrals

under a section 401(k) plan is treated as benefitting under the arrangement even if the employee

elects not to defer.18

For purposes of the deduction rules, compensation generally includes only taxable

compensation, and thus does not include salary reduction amounts, such as elective deferrals

under a section 401(k) plan or a tax-sheltered annuity (“section 403(b) annuity”), elective

contributions under a deferred compensation plan of a tax-exempt organization or a State or local

government (“section 457 plan”), and salary reduction contributions under a section 125 cafeteria

plan. For purposes of the contribution limits under section 415, compensation does include such

salary reduction amounts.
19 Early distributions of converted amounts may also accelerate income inclusion of

converted amounts that are taxable under the 4-year rule applicable to 1998 conversions.

-20-

Description of Proposal

Under the proposal, the definition of compensation for purposes of the deduction rules

would include salary reduction amounts treated as compensation under section 415. In addition,

the annual limitation on the amount of deductible contributions to a profit-sharing or stock bonus

plan would be increased from 15 percent to 25 percent of compensation of the employees

covered by the plan for the year.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

8. Option to treat elective deferrals as after-tax contributions

Present Law

A qualified cash or deferred arrangement (“section 401(k) plan”) or a tax-sheltered

annuity (“section 403(b) annuity”) may permit a participant to elect to have the employer make

payments as contributions to the plan or to the participant directly in cash. Contributions made to

the plan at the election of a participant are elective deferrals. Elective deferrals must be

nonforfeitable and are subject to an annual dollar limitation (sec. 402(g)) and distribution

restrictions. In addition, elective deferrals under a section 401(k) plan are subject to special

nondiscrimination rules. Elective deferrals (and earnings attributable thereto) are not includible

in a participant’s gross income until distributed from the plan.

Individuals with adjusted gross income below certain levels generally may make

nondeductible contributions to a Roth IRA and may convert a deductible or nondeductible IRA

into a Roth IRA. Amounts held in a Roth IRA that are withdrawn as a qualified distribution are

not includible in income, nor subject to the additional 10-percent tax on early withdrawals. A

qualified distribution is a distribution that (1) is made after the 5-taxable year period beginning

with the first taxable year for which the individual made a contribution to a Roth IRA, and (2) is

made after attainment of age 59-1/2, is made on account of death or disability, or is a qualified

special purpose distribution (i.e., for first-time homebuyer expenses of up to $10,000). A

distribution from a Roth IRA that is not a qualified distribution is includible in income to the

extent attributable to earnings, and is subject to the 10-percent tax on early withdrawals (unless

an exception applies).19

Description of Proposal
20 A qualified special purpose distribution, as defined under the rules relating to Roth

IRAs, does not qualify as a tax-free distribution from a designated plus contributions account.

-21-

A section 401(k) plan or a section 403(b) annuity would be permitted to include a

“qualified plus contribution program” that permits a participant to elect to have all or a portion of

the participant’s elective deferrals under the plan treated as designated plus contributions. 

Designated plus contributions would be elective deferrals that the participant designates as not

excludable from the participant’s gross income.

The annual dollar limitation on a participant’s designated plus contributions would be the

section 402(g) annual limitation on elective deferrals, reduced by the participant’s elective

deferrals that the participant does not designate as designated plus contributions. Designated

plus contributions would be treated as any other elective deferral for purposes of nonforfeitability

requirements and distribution restrictions. Under a section 401(k) plan, designated plus

contributions also would be treated as any other elective deferral for purposes of the special

nondiscrimination requirements.

The plan would be required to establish a separate account, and maintain separate

recordkeeping, for a participant’s designated plus contributions (and earnings allocable thereto).

A qualified distribution from a participant’s designated plus contributions account would not be

includible in the participant’s gross income. A qualified distribution would be a distribution that

is made after the end of a specified nonexclusion period and that is (1) made on or after the date

on which the participant attains age 59-1/2, (2) made to a beneficiary (or to the estate of the

participant) on or after the death of the participant, or (3) attributable to the participant’s being

disabled.20 The nonexclusion period would be the 5-year-taxable period beginning with the

earlier of (1) the first taxable year for which the participant made a designated plus contribution

to any designated plus contribution account established for the participant under the plan, or (2)

if the participant has made a rollover contribution to the designated plus contribution account that

is the source of the distribution from a designated plus contribution account established for the

participant under another plan, the first taxable year for which the participant made a designated

plus contribution to the previously established account.

A distribution from a designated plus contributions account that is a corrective

distribution of an elective deferral (and income allocable thereto) that exceeds the section 402(g)

annual limit on elective deferrals would not be a qualified distribution.

A participant would be permitted to roll over a distribution from a designated plus

contributions account only to another designated plus contributions account or a Roth IRA of the

participant.

The Secretary of the Treasury would be directed to require the plan administrator of each

section 401(k) plan or section 403(b) annuity that permits participants to make designated plus
-22-

contributions to make such returns and reports regarding designated plus contributions to the

Secretary, plan participants and beneficiaries, and other persons that the Secretary may designate.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

9. Reduce PBGC premiums for small and new plans

Present Law

Under present law, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) provides 

insurance protection for participants and beneficiaries under certain defined benefit pension plans

by guaranteeing certain basic benefits under the plan in the event the plan is terminated with

insufficient assets to pay benefits promised under the plan. The guaranteed benefits are funded in

part by premium payments from employers who sponsor defined benefit plans. The amount of

the required annual PBGC premium for a single-employer plan is generally a flat rate premium of

$19 per participant and an additional variable rate premium based on a charge of $9 per $1,000

of unfunded vested benefits. Unfunded vested benefits under a plan generally means (1) the

unfunded current liability for vested benefits under the plan, over (2) the value of the plan’s

assets, reduced by any credit balance in the funding standard account. No variable rate premium

is imposed for a year if contributions to the plan were at least equal to the full funding limit.

The PBGC guarantee is phased in ratably in the case of plans that have been in effect for

less than 5 years, and with respect to benefit increases from a plan amendment that was in effect

for less than 5 years before termination of the plan.

Description of Proposal

Reduced flat-rate premiums for new plans of small employers

Under the proposal, for the first five plan years of a new single-employer plan of a small

employer, the flat-rate PBGC premium would be $5 per plan participant.

A small employer would be a contributing sponsor that, on the first day of the plan year,

has 100 or fewer employees. For this purpose, all employees of the members of the controlled

group of the contributing sponsor would be taken into account. In the case of a plan to which

more than one unrelated contributing sponsor contributes, employees of all contributing sponsors

(and their controlled group members) would be taken into account in determining whether the

plan is a plan of a small employer.

A new plan would mean a defined benefit plan maintained by a contributing sponsor if,

during the 36-month period ending on the date of adoption of the plan, such contributing sponsor 
21 In the case of after-tax employee contributions, only earnings are taxed upon

withdrawal.

-23-

(or controlled group member or a predecessor of either) has not established or maintained a plan

subject to PBGC coverage with respect to which benefits were accrued for substantially the same

employees as are in the new plan.

Reduced variable PBGC premium for new and small employer plans

The proposal would provide that the variable premium is phased in for “new defined

benefit plans” over a six-year period starting with the plan’s first plan year. The amount of the

variable premium would be a percentage of the variable premium otherwise due, as follows: 0

percent of the otherwise applicable variable premium in the first plan year; 20 percent in the

second plan year; 40 percent in the third plan year; 60 percent in the fourth plan year; 80 percent

in the fifth plan year; and 100 percent in the sixth plan year (and thereafter). 

A new defined benefit plan would be defined as under the flat-rate premium proposal

relating to new small employer plans.

Effective Date

The proposals relating to new plans would be effective for plans established after

December 31, 2000. The proposal reducing the PBGC variable premium for small plans would

be effective for years after December 31, 2000.

10. Credit for low- and middle-income savers

Present Law

Present law provides favorable tax treatment for a variety of retirement savings vehicles,

including employer-sponsored retirement plans and individual retirement arrangements (“IRAs”).

Several different types of tax-favored employer-sponsored retirement plans exist, such as

section 401(a) qualified plans (including plans with a section 401(k) qualified cash-or-deferred

arrangement), section 403(a) qualified annuity plans, section 403(b) annuities, section 408(k)

simplified employee pensions (“SEPs”), section 408(p) SIMPLE retirement accounts, and section

457(b) eligible deferred compensation plans. In general, an employer and, in certain cases,

employees, contribute to the plan. Taxation of the contributions and earnings thereon is

generally deferred until benefits are distributed from the plan to participants or their

beneficiaries.21 Contributions and benefits under tax-favored employer-sponsored retirement

plans are subject to specific limitations.
22 The AGI limits applicable to single taxpayers would apply to married taxpayers filing

separate returns.

-24-

Coverage and nondiscrimination rules also generally apply to tax-favored employersponsored retirement plans to ensure that plans do not disproportionately cover higher-paid

employees and that benefits provided to moderate- and lower-paid employees are generally

proportional to those provided to higher-paid employees.

IRAs include both traditional IRAs and Roth IRAs. In general, an individual makes

contributions to an IRA, and investment earnings on those contributions accumulate on a taxdeferred basis. Total annual IRA contributions per individual are limited to $2,000 (or the

compensation of the individual or the individual’s spouse, if smaller). Contributions to a

traditional IRA may be deducted from gross income if an individual’s adjusted gross income

("AGI") is below certain levels or the individual is not an active participant in certain employersponsored retirement plans. Contributions to a Roth IRA are not deductible from gross income,

regardless of adjusted gross income. A distribution from a traditional IRA is includible in the

individual’s gross income except to the extent of individual contributions made on a

nondeductible basis. A qualified distribution from a Roth IRA is excludable from gross income.

Taxable distributions made from employer retirement plans and IRAs before the

employee or individual has reached age 59-1/2 are subject to a 10-percent additional tax, unless

an exception applies.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would provide a temporary nonrefundable tax credit for contributions made

by eligible taxpayers to a qualified plan. The maximum annual contribution eligible for the

credit would be $2,000. The credit rate would depend on the adjusted gross income ("AGI") of

the taxpayer. Only joint returns with AGI of $50,000 or less, head of household returns of

$37,500 or less, and single returns of $25,000 or less would be eligible for the credit.22 The

credit would be in addition to any deduction or exclusion that would otherwise apply with respect

to the contribution. The credit would offset minimum tax liability as well as regular tax liability. 

The credit would be available to individuals 18 or over and have not attained age 60, other than

individuals who are full-time students or claimed as a dependent on another taxpayer's return.

The credit would be available with respect to elective contributions to a section 401(k)

plan, tax-sheltered annuity, or eligible deferred compensation arrangement of a State or local

government (a "sec. 457 plan"), SIMPLE, or SEP, contributions to a traditional or Roth IRA, and

voluntary after-tax employee contributions to a qualified retirement plan. The present-law rules

governing such contributions would continue to apply.

The amount of any contribution eligible for the credit would be reduced by taxable

distributions received by the taxpayer and his or her spouse from any savings arrangement
-25-

described above or any other qualified retirement plan during the taxable year for which the

credit is claimed, the two taxable years prior to the year the credit is claimed, and during the

period after the end of the taxable year and prior to the due date for filing the taxpayer's return for

the year. In the case of a distribution from a Roth IRA, this rule would apply to any such

distributions, whether or not taxable.

The credit rates based on AGI would be as follows.

Joint Filers Heads of

Households

All Other Filers Credit Rate

0-$30,000 $0-$22,500 $0-$15,000 50%

$30,001-$40,000 $22,501-$30,000 $15,000-$20,000 25%

$40,001-$50,000 $30,001-$37,500 $20,001-$25,000 5%

Over $50,000 Over $37,500 Over $25,000 0

The proposal would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to report annually to the Senate

Finance Committee and the House Committee on Ways and Means regarding the number of

individuals who claim the credit.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000,

and before January 1, 2006.

11. Small business tax credit for qualified retirement plan contributions

Present Law

The timing of an employer’s deduction for compensation paid to an employee generally

corresponds to the employee’s recognition of the compensation. However, an employer that

contributes to a qualified retirement plan is entitled to a deduction (within certain limits) for the

employer’s contribution to the plan on behalf of an employee even though the employee does not

recognize income with respect to the contribution until the amount is distributed to the employee.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would provide a nonrefundable income tax credit for small employers equal

to 50 percent of certain qualifying employer contributions made to qualified retirement plans on
23 The credit would not be available with respect to contributions to a SIMPLE IRA or

SEP. 

24 The top paid group election, which under present law permits an employer to classify

an employee as a nonhighly compensated employee if the employee had compensation in excess

of $80,000 during the preceding year but was not among the top 20 percent of employees of the

employer when ranked on the basis of compensation paid to employees during the preceding

year, would not be taken into account in determining nonhighly compensated employees for

purposes of the proposal.

25 The rules relating to distribution upon separation from service would be modified

under another provision of the proposal.

-26-

behalf of nonhighly compensated employees.23 For purposes of the proposal, a small employer

would mean an employer with no more than 50 employees who received at least $5,000 of

earnings in the preceding year. A nonhighly compensated employee would be defined as an

employee who neither (1) was a five-percent owner of the employer at any time during the

current year or the preceding year, or (2) for the preceding year, had compensation in excess of

$80,000 (indexed for inflation).24 The credit would be available for the first three plan years of

the plan.

The proposal would require a small employer to make nonelective contributions equal to

at least one percent of compensation to qualify for the credit. The credit would apply to both

qualifying nonelective employer contributions or qualifying employer matching contributions,

but only up to a total of three percent of the nonhighly compensated employee's compensation.

The credit would be available for 50 percent of qualifying benefit accruals under a nonintegrated

defined benefit plan if the benefits are equivalent, as defined in regulations, to a three-percent

nonelective contribution to a defined contribution plan.

To qualify for the credit, the nonelective and matching contributions to a defined

contribution plan and the benefit accruals under a defined benefit plan would be required to vest

at least as rapidly as under either a three-year cliff vesting schedule or a graded schedule that

provides 20-percent vesting per year for five years. In order to qualify for the credit,

contributions to plans other than pension plans would have to be subject to the same distribution

restrictions that apply to qualified nonelective employer contributions to a section 401(k) plan,

i.e., distribution only upon separation from service, death, disability, attainment of age 59-1/2,

plan termination without a successor plan, or acquisition of a subsidiary or substantially all the

assets of a trade or business that employs the participant.25 Qualifying contributions to pension

plans would be subject to the distribution restrictions applicable to such plans.

The plan to which the small employer makes the qualifying contributions (and any plan

aggregated with that plan for nondiscrimination testing purposes) would be required to allocate

any nonelective employer contributions proportionally to participants’ compensation from the
26 The credit could not be carried back to years before the effective date.

-27-

employer (or on a flat-dollar basis) and, accordingly, without the use of permitted disparity or

cross-testing.

Forfeited nonvested qualifying contributions or accruals for which the credit was claimed

generally would result in recapture of the credit at a rate of 35 percent. However, recapture

would not apply to the extent that forfeitures of contributions are reallocated to nonhighly

compensated employees or applied to future contributions on behalf of nonhighly compensated

employees. The Secretary of the Treasury would be authorized to issue administrative guidance,

including de minimis rules, to simplify or facilitate claiming and recapturing the credit.

The credit would be a general business credit.26 The 50 percent of qualifying

contributions that are effectively offset by the tax credit would not be deductible; the other 50

percent of the qualifying contributions (and other contributions) would be deductible to the

extent permitted under present law.

Effective Date

The credit would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000, with

respect to plans established after such date. 

12. Small business tax credit for new retirement plan expenses

Present Law

The costs incurred by an employer related to the establishment and maintenance of a

retirement plan (e.g., payroll system changes, investment vehicle set-up fees, consulting fees)

generally are deductible by the employer as ordinary and necessary expenses in carrying on a

trade or business.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would provide a nonrefundable income tax credit for 50 percent of the

administrative and retirement-education expenses for any small business that adopts a new

qualified defined benefit or defined contribution plan (including a section 401(k) plan), SIMPLE

plan, or simplified employee pension (“SEP”). The credit would apply to 50 percent of the first

$1,000 in administrative and retirement-education expenses for the plan for each of the first three

years of the plan.

The credit would be available to an employer that did not employ, in the preceding year,

more than 100 employees with compensation in excess of $5,000. In order for an employer to be

eligible for the credit, the plan would have to cover at least one nonhighly compensated
27 The credit could not be carried back to years before the effective date.

-28-

employee. In addition, if the credit is for the cost of a payroll deduction IRA arrangement, the

arrangement would have to be made available to all employees of the employer who have worked

with the employer for at least three months.

The credit would be a general business credit.27 The 50 percent of qualifying expenses

that are effectively offset by the tax credit would not be deductible; the other 50 percent of the

qualifying expenses (and other expenses) would be deductible to the extent permitted under

present law.

Effective Date

The credit would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000, with

respect to plans established after such date.

B. Enhancing Fairness for Women

1. Additional salary reduction catch-up contributions

Present Law

Elective deferral limitations

Under present law, under certain salary reduction arrangements, an employee may elect to

have the employer make payments as contributions to a plan on behalf of the employee, or to the

employee directly in cash. Contributions made at the election of the employee are called elective

deferrals.

The maximum annual amount of elective deferrals that an individual may make to a

qualified cash or deferred arrangement (a “401(k) plan”), a tax-sheltered annuity (“section 403(b)

annuity”) or a salary reduction simplified employee pension plan (“SEP”) is $10,500 (for 2000). 

The maximum annual amount of elective deferrals that an individual may make to a SIMPLE

plan is $6,000. These limits are indexed for inflation in $500 increments.

Section 457 plans

The maximum annual deferral under a deferred compensation plan of a State or local

government or a tax-exempt organization (a “section 457 plan”) is the lesser of (1) $8,000 (for

2000) or (2) 33-1/3 percent of compensation. The $8,000 dollar limit is increased for inflation

in $500 increments. Under a special catch-up rule, the section 457 plan may provide that, for one

or more of the participant’s last 3 years before retirement, the otherwise applicable limit is

increased to the lesser of (1) $15,000 or (2) the sum of the otherwise applicable limit for the year
28 In the case of a section 457 plans, this catch-up rule would not apply during the

participant’s last 3 years before retirement (in those years, the regularly applicable dollar limit is

doubled).

29 Another provision in the proposal would provide that elective contributions are

deductible without regard to the otherwise applicable deduction limits.

-29-

plus the amount by which the limit applicable in preceding years of participation exceeded the

deferrals for that year.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would provide that individuals who have attained age 50 would be

permitted to make additional catch-up elective contributions to employer-sponsored retirement

plans and additional catch-up IRA contributions.

In the case of employer-sponsored retirement plans, the proposal would apply to elective

deferrals under a section 401(k) plan, section 403(b) annuity, SIMPLE, or deferrals under section

457 plan. Additional contributions could be made by an individual who has attained age 50

before the end of the plan year and with respect to whom no other elective deferrals may

otherwise be made to the plan for the year because of the application of any limitation of the

Code (e.g., the annual limit on elective deferrals) or of the plan. Under the proposal, the

additional amount of elective contributions that could be made by an eligible individual

participating in such a plan would be the lesser of (1) the applicable percent of the maximum

dollar amount of elective deferrals otherwise excludable from the gross income of the participant

for the year (under sec. 402(g))or (2) the participant’s compensation for the year reduced by any

other elective deferrals of the participant for the year.28 The applicable percent would be 10

percent in 2001, and would increase by 10 percentage points until the applicable percent is 50 in

2005 and thereafter.

Catch-up contributions made under the proposal would not be subject to any other

contribution limits and would not be taken into account in applying other contribution limits. In

addition, such contributions would not be subject to applicable nondiscrimination rules.29

An employer would be permitted to make matching contributions with respect to catch-up

contributions. Any such matching contributions would be subject to the normally applicable

rules.

The following examples illustrate the application of the proposal, after the catch-up is

fully phased in.

Example 1: Employee A is a highly compensated employee who is over 50 and who

participates in a section 401(k) plan sponsored by A’s employer. The maximum annual
-30-

deferral limit (without regard to the proposal) is $10,000. After application of the special

nondiscrimination rules applicable to section 401(k) plans, the maximum elective deferral

A may make for the year is $8,000. Under the proposal, A would be able to make

additional catch-up salary reduction contributions of $5,000.

Example 2: Employee B, who is over 50, is a participant in a section 401(k) plan. B’s

compensation for the year is $30,000. The maximum annual deferral limit (without

regard to the proposal) is $10,000. Under the terms of the plan, the maximum permitted

deferral is 10 percent of compensation or, in B’s case, $3,000. Under the proposal, B can

contribute up to $8,000 for the year ($3,000 under the normal operation of the plan, and

an additional $5,000 under the proposal).

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

2. Equitable treatment for contributions of employees to defined contribution plans

Present Law

Present law imposes limits on the contributions that may be made to tax-favored

retirement plans.

Defined contribution plans

In the case of a tax-qualified defined contribution plan, the limit on annual additions that

can be made to the plan on behalf of an employee is the lesser of $30,000 (for 2000) or 25

percent of the employee’s compensation (sec. 415(c)). Annual additions include employer

contributions, including contributions made at the election of the employee (i.e., employee

elective deferrals), after-tax employee contributions, and any forfeitures allocated to the

employee. For this purpose, compensation means taxable compensation of the employee, plus

elective deferrals, and similar salary reduction contributions. A separate limit applies to benefits

under a defined benefit plan.

For years before January 1, 2000, an overall limit applies if an employee is a participant

in both a defined contribution plan and a defined benefit plan of the same employer.

Tax-sheltered annuities

In the case of a tax-sheltered annuity (a “section 403(b) annuity”), the annual contribution

generally cannot exceed the lesser of the exclusion allowance or the section 415(c) defined

contribution limit. The exclusion allowance for a year is equal to 20 percent of the employee’s

includible compensation, multiplied by the employee’s years of service, minus excludable
-31-

contributions for prior years under qualified plans, tax-sheltered annuities or section 457 plans of

the employer.

In addition to this general rule, employees of nonprofit educational institutions, hospitals,

home health service agencies, health and welfare service agencies, and churches may elect

application of one of several special rules that increase the amount of the otherwise permitted

contributions. The election of a special rule is irrevocable; an employee may not elect to have

more than one special rule apply.

Under one special rule, in the year the employee separates from service, the employee

may elect to contribute up to the exclusion allowance, without regard to the 25 percent of

compensation limit under section 415. Under this rule, the exclusion allowance is determined by

taking into account no more than 10 years of service.

Under a second special rule, the employee may contribute up to the lesser of: (1) the

exclusion allowance; (2) 25 percent of the participant’s includible compensation; or (3) $15,000.

Under a third special rule, the employee may elect to contribute up to the section 415(c)

limit, without regard to the exclusion allowance. If this option is elected, then contributions to

other plans of the employer are also taken into account in applying the limit.

For purposes of determining the contribution limits applicable to section 403(b) annuities,

includible compensation means the amount of compensation received from the employer for the

most recent period which may be counted as a year of service under the exclusion allowance. In

addition, includible compensation includes elective deferrals and similar salary reduction

amounts.

Treasury regulations include provisions regarding application of the exclusion allowance

in cases where the employee participates in a section 403(b) annuity and a defined benefit plan. 

The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 directed the Secretary of the Treasury to revise these

regulations, effective for years beginning after December 31, 1999, to reflect the repeal of the

overall limit on contributions and benefits.

Section 457 plans

Compensation deferred under an eligible deferred compensation plan of a tax-exempt or

State and local governmental employer (a “section 457 plan”) is not includible in gross income

until paid or made available. In general, the maximum permitted annual deferral under such a

plan is the lesser of (1) $8,000 (in 2000) or (2) 33-1/3 percent of compensation. The $8,000 limit

is increased for inflation in $500 increments.

Description of Proposal
30 Another proposal would increase the defined contribution plan dollar limit.

-32-

Increase in defined contribution plan limit

The proposal would increase the 25 percent of compensation limitation on annual

additions under a defined contribution plan to 100 percent.30

Conforming limits on tax-sheltered annuities

The proposal would repeal the exclusion allowance applicable to contributions to taxsheltered annuities. Thus, such annuities would be subject to the limits applicable to taxqualified plans.

The proposal also would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to revise the regulations

relating to the exclusion allowance under section 403(b)(2) to render void the requirement that

contributions to a defined benefit plan be treated as previously excluded amounts for purposes of

the exclusion allowance. For taxable years beginning after December 31, 1999, the regulatory

provisions regarding the exclusion allowance would be applied as if the requirement that

contributions to a defined benefit plan be treated as previously excluded amounts for purposes of

the exclusion allowance were void.

Section 457 plans

The proposal would increase the 33-1/3 percent of compensation limitation on deferrals

under a section 457 plan to 100 percent of compensation.

Effective Date

The proposal generally would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000. 

The proposal regarding the regulations under section 403(b)(2) would be effective on the date of

enactment.

3. Faster vesting of employer matching contributions

Present Law

Under present law, a plan is not a qualified plan unless a participant’s employer-provided

benefit vests at least as rapidly as under one of two alternative minimum vesting schedules. A

plan satisfies the first schedule if a participant acquires a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of

the participant’s accrued benefit derived from employer contributions upon the completion of 5

years of service. A plan satisfies the second schedule if a participant has a nonforfeitable right to

at least 20 percent of the participant’s accrued benefit derived from employer contributions after
31 The minimum vesting requirements are also contained in Title I of the Employee

Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”).

-33-

3 years of service, 40 percent after 4 years of service, 60 percent after 5 years of service, 80

percent after 6 years of service, and 100 percent after 7 years of service.31

Description of Proposal

The proposal would apply faster vesting schedules to employer matching contributions.

Under the proposal, employer matching contributions would have to vest at least as rapidly as

under one of the following two alternative minimum vesting schedules. A plan would satisfy the

first schedule if a participant acquires a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of employer matching

contributions upon the completion of 3 years of service. A plan would satisfy the second

schedule if a participant has a nonforfeitable right to 20 percent of employer matching

contributions for each year of service beginning with the participant’s second year of service and

ending with 100 percent after 6 years of service.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000, with a

delayed effective date for plans maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining agreement. The

proposal would not apply to any employee until the employee has an hour of service after the

effective date. In applying the new vesting schedule, service before the effective date would be

taken into account.

4. Simplify and update the minimum distribution rules

Present Law

In general

Minimum distribution rules apply to all types of tax-favored retirement vehicles,

including qualified plans, individual retirement arrangements (“IRAs”), tax-sheltered annuities

(“section 403(b) annuities”), and eligible deferred compensation plans of tax-exempt and State

and local government employers (“section 457 plans”). In general, under these rules, distribution

of minimum benefits must begin no later than the required beginning date. Minimum

distribution rules also apply to benefits payable with respect to a plan participant who has died. 

Failure to comply with the minimum distribution rules results in an excise tax imposed on the

individual plan participant equal to 50 percent of the required minimum distribution not

distributed for the year. The excise tax can be waived if the individual establishes to the

satisfaction of the Secretary that the shortfall in the amount distributed was due to reasonable

error and reasonable steps are being taken to remedy the shortfall.
32 State and local government plans and church plans are not required to actuarially

increase benefits that begin after age 70-1/2.

-34-

Distributions prior to the death of the individual

In the case of distributions prior to the death of the plan participant, the minimum

distribution rules are satisfied if either (1) the participant’s entire interest in the plan is distributed

by the required beginning date, or (2) the participant’s interest in the plan is to be distributed (in

accordance with regulations), beginning not later than the required beginning date, over a

permissible period. The permissible periods are (1) the life of the participant, (2) the lives of the

participant and a designated beneficiary, (3) the life expectancy of the participant, or (4) the joint

life and last survivor expectancy of the participant and a designated beneficiary. In calculating

minimum required distributions, life expectancies of the participant and the participant’s spouse

may be recomputed annually.

In the case of qualified plans, tax-sheltered annuities, and section 457 plans, the required

beginning date is the April 1 of the calendar year following the later of (1) the calendar year in

which the employee attains age 70-1/2 or (2) the calendar year in which the employee retires.

However, in the case of a 5-percent owner of the employer, distributions are required to begin no

later than the April 1 of the calendar year following the year in which the 5-percent owner attains

age 70-1/2. If commencement of benefits is delayed beyond age 70-1/2 from a defined benefit

plan, then the accrued benefit of the employee must be actuarially increased to take into account

the period after age 70-1/2 in which the employee was not receiving benefits under the plan.32 In

the case of distributions from an IRA other than a Roth IRA, the required beginning date is the

April 1 following the calendar year in which the IRA owner attains age 70-1/2. The pre-death

minimum distribution rules do not apply to Roth IRAs.

In general, under proposed regulations, in order to satisfy the minimum distribution rules,

annuity payments under a defined benefit plan must be paid in period payments made at intervals

not longer than one year over a permissible period, and must be nonincreasing, or increase only

as a result of the following: (1) cost-of-living adjustments; (2) cash refunds of employee

contributions; (3) benefit increases under the plan; or (4) an adjustment due to death of the

employee’s beneficiary. In the case of a defined contribution plan, the minimum required

distribution is determined by dividing the employee’s benefit by the applicable life expectancy.

Distributions after the death of the plan participant

The minimum distribution rules also apply to distributions to beneficiaries of deceased

participants. In general, if the participant dies after minimum distributions have begun, the

remaining interest must be distributed at least as rapidly as under the minimum distribution

method being used as of the date of death. If the participant dies before minimum distributions

have begun, then the entire remaining interest must generally be distributed within 5 years of the

participant’s death. The 5-year rule does not apply if distributions begin within 1 year of the
-35-

participant’s death and are payable over the life of a designated beneficiary or over the life

expectancy of a designated beneficiary. A surviving spouse beneficiary is not required to begin

distribution until the date the deceased participant would have attained age 70-1/2. 

Special rules for section 457 plans

Eligible deferred compensation plans of State and local and tax-exempt employers

(“section 457 plans”) are subject to the minimum distribution rules described above. Such plans

are also subject to additional minimum distribution requirements (sec. 457(d)(2)(b)).

Description of Proposal

Modification of post-death distribution rules

The proposal would apply the present-law rules applicable if the participant dies before

distribution of minimum benefits has begun to all post-death distributions. Thus, in general, if

the employee dies before his or her entire interest has been distributed, distribution of the

remaining interest would be required to be made within 5 years of the date of death, or begin

within one year of the date of death and paid over the life or life expectancy of a designated

beneficiary. In the case of a surviving spouse, distributions would not be required to begin until

the surviving spouse attains age 70-1/2. Minimum distributions that have already begun would

be permitted to be recalculated under the new rule.

Reduction in excise tax

The proposal would reduce the excise tax on failures to satisfy the minimum distribution

rules to 10 percent of the amount that was required to be distributed but was not distributed.

Treasury regulations

The Treasury would be directed to update, simplify and finalize the regulations relating to

the minimum distribution rules by December 31, 2001. The Treasury would be directed to

reflect in the regulations current life expectancies and to revise the required distribution methods

so that, under reasonable assumptions, the amount of the required distribution does not decrease

over time. The regulations would permit recalculation of distributions for future years to reflect

the change in the regulations, and to permit the election of a new designated beneficiary and

method of calculating life expectancy. The regulations would apply regardless of whether

minimum distributions had begun.

Section 457 plans
-36-

The proposal would repeal the special minimum distribution rules applicable to section

457 plans. Thus, such plans would be subject to the same minimum distribution rules applicable

to other types of tax-favored arrangements.

Effective Date

In general, the proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000. 

The provision regarding Treasury regulations would be effective on the date of enactment.

5. Clarification of tax treatment of division of section 457 plan benefits upon divorce

Present Law

Under present law, benefits provided under a qualified retirement plan for a participant

may not be assigned or alienated to creditors of the participant, except in very limited

circumstances. One exception to the prohibition on assignment or alienation rule is a qualified

domestic relations order (“QDRO”). A QDRO is a domestic relations order that creates or

recognizes a right of an alternate payee to any plan benefit payable with respect to a participant,

and that meets certain procedural requirements.

Under present law, a distribution from a governmental plan or a church plan is treated as

made pursuant to a QDRO if it is made pursuant to a domestic relations order that creates or

recognizes a right of an alternate payee to any plan benefit payable with respect to a participant. 

Such distributions are not required to meet the procedural requirements that apply with respect to

distributions from qualified plans.

Under present law, amounts distributed from a qualified plan generally are taxable to the

participant in the year of distribution. However, if amounts are distributed to the spouse (or

former spouse) of the participant by reason of a QDRO, the benefits are taxable to the spouse (or

former spouse). Amounts distributed pursuant to a QDRO to an alternate payee other than the

spouse (or former spouse) are taxable to the plan participant.

Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code provides rules for deferral of compensation by

an individual participating in an eligible deferred compensation plan (“section 457 plan”) of a

tax-exempt or State and local government employer. The QDRO rules do not apply to section

457 plans. 

Description of Proposal

The proposal would apply the taxation rules for qualified plan distributions pursuant to a

QDRO to distributions made pursuant to a domestic relations order from a section 457 plan. In

addition, a section 457 plan would not be treated as violating the restrictions on distributions

from such plans due to payments to an alternate payee under a QDRO. The special rule
33 Treas. Reg. sec. 1.401(k)-1.

-37-

applicable to governmental plans and church plans would apply for purposes of determining

whether a distribution is pursuant to a QDRO.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for transfers, distributions, and payments made after

December 31, 2000. 

6. Modifications relating to hardship withdrawals

Present Law

Elective deferrals under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (a “section 401(k)

plan”) may not be distributable prior to the occurrence of one or more specified events. One

event upon which distribution is permitted is the financial hardship of the employee. Applicable

Treasury regulations33 provide that a distribution is made on account of hardship only if the

distribution is made on account of an immediate and heavy financial need of the employee and is

necessary to satisfy the heavy need.

The Treasury regulations provide a safe harbor under which a distribution may be deemed

necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need. One requirement of this safe harbor

is that the employee be prohibited from making elective contributions and employee

contributions to the plan and all other plans maintained by the employer for at least 12 months

after receipt of the hardship distribution.

Under present law, hardship withdrawals of elective deferrals from a qualified cash or

deferred arrangement (or 403(b) annuity) are not eligible rollover distributions. Other types of

hardship distributions, e.g., employer matching contributions distributed on account of hardship,

are eligible rollover distributions. Eligible rollover distributions that are not directly rolled over

are subject to withholding at a flat rate of 20-percent.

Description of Proposal

The Secretary of the Treasury would be directed to revise the applicable regulations to

reduce from 12 months to 6 months the period during which an employee must be prohibited

from making elective contributions and employee contributions in order for a distribution to be

deemed necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need.

The proposal would also provide that any hardship distribution made pursuant to the

terms of a plan is not an eligible rollover distribution. The proposal would not modify the rules

under which hardship distributions may be made. For example, as under present law, hardship
-38-

distributions of qualified employer matching contributions may only be made under the rules

applicable to elective deferrals.

Effective Date

The proposal relating to safe harbor hardship distributions would be effective for years

beginning after December 31, 2000.

The proposal providing that hardship distributions are not eligible rollover distributions

would be effective for distributions made after December 31, 2000. The Secretary would have

the authority to issue transitional guidance with respect to this proposal to provide sufficient time

for plans to implement the new rule.

7. Pension coverage for domestic and similar workers

Present Law

Under present law, within limits, employers may make deductible contributions to

qualified retirement plans for employees. Subject to certain exception, a 10-percent excise tax

applies to nondeductible contributions to such plans.

Employers of household workers may establish a pension plan for their employees. 

Contributions to such plans are not deductible and therefore are subject to the excise tax on

nondeductible contributions.

Description of Proposal

Under the proposal, the 10-percent excise tax on nondeductible contributions would not

apply to contributions to a SIMPLE plan or a SIMPLE individual retirement account which are

nondeductible solely because the contributions are not a trade or business expense under section

162. Thus, for example, employers of household workers would be able to make contributions to

such plans without imposition of the excise tax. As under present law, the contributions would

not be deductible. The present-law rules applicable to such plans, e.g., contribution limits and

nondiscrimination rules, would continue to apply. The proposal would not apply with respect to

contributions on behalf of the individual and members of his or her family.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

C. Increasing Portability for Participants

1. Rollovers of retirement plan and IRA distributions
34 A “traditional” IRA refers to IRAs other than Roth IRAs or SIMPLE IRAs. All

references to IRAs refers only to traditional IRAs.

35 An eligible rollover distribution may either be rolled over by the distributee within 60

days of the date of the distribution or, as described below, directly rolled over by the distributing

plan.

-39-

Present Law

In general

Present law permits the rollover of funds from a tax-favored retirement plan to another

tax-favored retirement plan. The rules that apply depend on the type of plan involved. Similarly,

the rules regarding the tax treatment of amounts that are not rolled over depend on the type of

plan involved.

Distributions from qualified plans

Under present law, an “eligible rollover distribution” from a tax-qualified employersponsored retirement plan may be rolled over tax free to a traditional individual retirement

arrangement (“IRA”)34 or another qualified plan.35 An “eligible rollover distribution” means any

distribution to an employee of all or any portion of the balance to the credit of the employee in a

qualified plan, except the term does not include (1) any distribution which is one of a series of

substantially equal periodic payments made (a) for the life (or life expectancy) of the employee or

the joint lives (or joint life expectancies) of the employee and the employee’s designated

beneficiary, or (b) for a specified period of 10 years or more, (2) any distribution to the extent

such distribution is required under the minimum distribution rules, and (3) certain hardship

distributions. The maximum amount that can be rolled over is the amount of the distribution

includible in income, i.e., after-tax employee contributions cannot be rolled over. Qualified 

plans are not required to accept rollovers.

Distributions from tax-sheltered annuities

Eligible rollover distributions from a tax-sheltered annuity (“section 403(b) annuity”)

may be rolled over into an IRA or another section 403(b) annuity. Distributions from a section

403(b) annuity cannot be rolled over into a tax-qualified plan. Section 403(b) annuities are not

required to accept rollovers.

IRA distributions

Distributions from a traditional IRA, other than minimum required distributions, can be

rolled over into another IRA. In general, distributions from an IRA cannot be rolled over into a

qualified plan or section 403(b) annuity. An exception to this rule applies in the case of so-called
-40-

“conduit IRAs.” Under the conduit IRA rule, amounts can be rolled from a qualified plan into an

IRA and then subsequently rolled back to another qualified plan if the amounts in the IRA are

attributable solely to rollovers from a qualified plan. Similarly, an amount may be rolled over

from a section 403(b) annuity to an IRA and subsequently rolled back into a section 403(b)

annuity if the amounts in the IRA are attributable solely to rollovers from a section 403(b)

annuity.

Distributions from section 457 plans

A “section 457 plan” is an eligible deferred compensation plan of a State or local

government or tax-exempt employer that meets certain requirements. In some cases, different

rules apply under section 457 to governmental plans and plans of tax-exempt employers. For

example, governmental section 457 plans are like qualified plans in that plan assets are required

to be held in a trust for the exclusive benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries. In contrast,

benefits under a section 457 plan of a tax-exempt employer are unfunded, like nonqualified

deferred compensation plans of private employers.

Section 457 benefits can be transferred to another section 457 plan. Distributions from a

section 457 plan cannot be rolled over to another section 457 plan, a qualified plan, a section

403(b) annuity, or an IRA.

Rollovers by surviving spouses

A surviving spouse that receives an eligible rollover distribution may roll over the

distribution into an IRA, but not a qualified plan or section 403(b) annuity.

Direct rollovers and withholding requirements

Qualified plans and section 403(b) annuities are required to provide that a plan participant

has the right to elect that an eligible rollover distribution be directly rolled over to another

eligible retirement plan. If the plan participant does not elect the direct rollover option, then

withholding is required on the distribution at a 20-percent rate.

Notice of eligible rollover distribution

The plan administrator of a qualified plan or a section 403(b) annuity is required to

provide a written explanation of rollover rules to individuals who receive a distribution eligible

for rollover. In general, the notice is to be provided within a reasonable period of time before

making the distribution and is to include an explanation of (1) the provisions under which the

individual may have the distribution directly rolled over to another eligible retirement plan, (2)

the provision that requires withholding if the distribution is not directly rolled over, (3) the

provision under which the distribution may be rolled over within 60 days of receipt, and (4) if
36 Hardship distributions from governmental section 457 plans would be considered

eligible rollover distributions.

-41-

applicable, certain other rules that may apply to the distribution. The Treasury Department has

provided more specific guidance regarding timing and content of the notice.

Taxation of distributions

As is the case with the rollover rules, different rules regarding taxation of benefits apply

to different types of tax-favored arrangements. In general, distributions from a qualified plan,

section 403(b) annuity, or IRA are includible in income in the year received. In certain cases,

distributions from qualified plans are eligible for capital gains treatment and averaging. These

rules do not apply to distributions from another type of plan. Distributions from a qualified plan,

IRA, and section 403(b) annuity generally are subject to an additional 10-percent early

withdrawal tax if made before age 59-1/2. There are a number of exceptions to the early

withdrawal tax. Some of the exceptions apply to all three types of plans, and others apply only to

certain types of plans. For example, the 10-percent early withdrawal tax does not apply to IRA

distributions for educational expenses, but does apply to similar distributions from qualified

plans and section 403(b) annuities. Benefits under a section 457 plan are generally includible in

income when paid or made available. The 10-percent early withdrawal tax does not apply to

section 457 plans.

Description of Proposal

In general

The proposal would provide that eligible rollover distributions from qualified retirement

plans, section 403(b) annuities, and governmental section 457 plans generally could be rolled

over to any of such plans or arrangements.36 Similarly, distributions from an IRA generally

would be permitted to be rolled over into a qualified plan, section 403(b) annuity, or

governmental section 457 plan. The direct rollover and withholding rules would be extended to

distributions from a governmental section 457 plan, and such plans would be required to provide

the written notification regarding eligible rollover distributions. The rollover notice (with respect

to all plans) would be required to include a description of the provisions under which

distributions from the plan to which the distribution is rolled over may be subject to restrictions

and tax consequences different than those applicable to distributions from the distributing plan. 

Qualified plans, section 403(b) annuities, and section 457 plans would not be required to accept

rollovers.

Some special rules would apply in certain cases. A distribution from a qualified plan

would not be eligible for capital gains or averaging treatment if there was a rollover to the plan

that would not have been permitted under present law. Thus, in order to preserve capital gains

and averaging treatment for a qualified plan distribution that is rolled over, the rollover would
-42-

have to be made to a “conduit IRA” as under present law, and then rolled back into a qualified

plan. Amounts distributed from a section 457 plan would be subject to the early withdrawal tax

to the extent the distribution consists of amounts attributable to rollovers from another type of

plan. Section 457 plans would be required to separately account for such amounts.

Rollover of after-tax contributions

The proposal would provide that employee after-tax contributions may be rolled over into

another qualified plan or a traditional IRA. In the case of a rollover from a qualified plan to

another qualified plan, the rollover would be permitted to be accomplished only through a direct

rollover. In addition, a qualified plan would not be permitted to accept rollovers of after-tax

contributions unless the plan provides separate accounting for such contributions (and earnings

thereon). After-tax contributions (including nondeductible contributions to an IRA) would not

be permitted to be rolled over from an IRA into a qualified plan, tax-sheltered annuity, or section

457 plan.

In the case of a distribution from a traditional IRA that is rolled over into an eligible

rollover plan that is not an IRA, the distribution would be attributed first to amounts other than

after-tax contributions.

Expansion of spousal rollovers

The proposal would provide that surviving spouses may roll over distributions to a

qualified plan, section 403(b) annuity, or governmental section 457 plan in which the spouse

participates.

Treasury regulations

The Secretary would be directed to prescribe rules necessary to carry out the proposals. 

Such rules may include, for example, reporting requirements and mechanisms to address

mistakes relating to rollovers. It would be anticipated that the IRS would develop forms to assist

individuals who roll over after-tax contributions to an IRA in keeping track of such

contributions. Such forms could, for example, expand Form 8606 - Nondeductible IRAs, to

include information regarding after-tax contributions.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for distributions made after December 31, 2001.

2. Waiver of 60-day rule

Present Law
37 A similar provision is contained in Title I of ERISA.

38 Treas. Reg. sec. 1.411(d)-4, Q&A-2(a)(3)(i).

-43-

Under present law, amounts received from an IRA or qualified plan may be rolled over

tax free if the rollover is made within 60 days of the date of the distribution. The Secretary does

not have the authority to waive the 60-day requirement.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would provide that the Secretary may waive the 60-day rollover period if

the failure to waive such requirement would be against equity or good conscience, including

cases of casualty, disaster, or other events beyond the reasonable control of the individual subject

to such requirement.

Effective Date

The proposal would apply to distributions made after December 31, 2000.

3. Treatment of forms of distribution

Present Law

An amendment of a qualified retirement plan may not decrease the accrued benefit of a

plan participant. An amendment is treated as reducing an accrued benefit if, with respect to

benefits accrued before the amendment is adopted, the amendment has the effect of either (1)

eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement-type subsidy, or (2) except as

provided by Treasury regulations, eliminating an optional form of benefit (sec. 411(d)(6)).37

The prohibition against the elimination of an optional form of benefit applies to plan

mergers, spinoffs, transfers, and transactions amending or having the effect of amending a plan

or plans to transfer plan benefits. For example, if Plan A, a profit-sharing plan that provides for

distribution of benefits in annual installments over ten or twenty years, is merged with Plan B, a

profit-sharing plan that provides for distribution of benefits in annual installments over life

expectancy at the time of retirement, the merged plan must preserve the ten- or twenty-year

installment option with respect to benefits accrued under Plan A as of the date of the merger and

the installments over life expectancy with respect to benefits accrued under Plan B as of the date

of the merger. Similarly, for example, if a participant’s benefit under a defined contribution plan

is transferred to another defined contribution plan maintained by the same or a different

employer, the optional forms of benefit available with respect to the participant’s accrued benefit

under the transferor plan must be preserved.38

Description of Proposal
39 Another provision of the proposal would provide that rollover amounts are not taken

into account for purposes of the cash-out rules.

-44-

A defined contribution plan to which benefits are transferred would not be treated as

reducing a participant’s or beneficiary’s accrued benefit even though it does not provide all of the

forms of distribution previously available under the transferor plan if (1) the plan receives from

another defined contribution plan a direct transfer of the participant’s or beneficiary’s benefit

accrued under the transferor plan, or the plan results from a merger or other transaction that has

the effect of a direct transfer (including consolidations of benefits attributable to different

employers within a multiple employer plan), (2) the terms of both the transferor plan and the

transferee plan authorize the transfer, (3) the transfer occurs pursuant to a voluntary election by

the participant or beneficiary that is made after the participant or beneficiary received a notice

describing the consequences of making the election, (4) if the transferor plan provides for an

annuity as the normal form of distribution in accordance with the joint and survivor annuity rules

(sec. 417), the participant’s spouse (if any) consents to the transfer in a manner similar to the

consent required by section 417, and (5) the transferee plan allows the participant or beneficiary

to receive distribution of his or her benefit under the transferee plan in the form of a single sum

distribution.

Furthermore, the proposal would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to provide by

regulations that the prohibitions against eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit, a

retirement-type subsidy, or an optional form of benefit do not apply to plan amendments that

eliminate or reduce early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional forms of

benefit that create significant burdens and complexities for a plan and its participants, but only if

such an amendment does not adversely affect the rights of any participant in more than a de

minimis manner.

It would be intended that the factors to be considered in determining whether an

amendment has more than a de minimis adverse effect on any participant would include (1) all of

the participant’s early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional forms of

benefits that are reduced or eliminated by the amendment, (2) the extent to which early

retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and optional forms of benefit in effect with respect

to a participant after the amendment effective date provide rights that are comparable to the

rights that are reduced or eliminated by the plan amendment, (3) the number of years before the

participant attains normal retirement age under the plan (or early retirement age, as applicable),

(4) the size of the participant’s benefit that is affected by the plan amendment, in relation to the

amount of the participant’s compensation, and (5) the number of years before the plan

amendment is effective.

This provision of the proposal would not affect the rules relating to involuntary cash outs

(sec. 411(a)(11))39 or survivor annuity requirements (sec. 417).
40 Rev. Rul. 79-336, 1979-2 C.B. 187.

-45-

The Secretary would be directed to issue, not later than December 31, 2001, final

regulations under section 411(d)(6), including regulations required under the proposal.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000, except that

the direction to the Secretary would be effective on the date of enactment.

4. Rationalization of restrictions on distributions

Present Law

Elective deferrals under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (“section 401(k) plan”),

tax-sheltered annuity (“section 403(b) annuity”), or an eligible deferred compensation plan of a

tax-exempt organization or State or local government (“section 457 plan”), may not be

distributable prior to the occurrence of one or more specified events. These permissible

distributable events include “separation from service.”

A separation from service occurs only upon a participant’s death, retirement, resignation

or discharge, and not when the employee continues on the same job for a different employer as a

result of the liquidation, merger, consolidation or other similar corporate transaction. A

severance from employment occurs when a participant ceases to be employed by the employer

that maintains the plan. Under a so-called “same desk rule,” a participant’s severance from

employment does not necessarily result in a separation from service.40

In addition to separation from service and other events, a section 401(k) plan that is

maintained by a corporation may permit distributions to certain employees who experience a

severance from employment with the corporation that maintains the plan but does not experience

a separation from service because the employee continues on the same job for a different

employer as a result of a corporate transaction. If the corporation disposes of substantially all of

the assets used by the corporation in a trade or business, a distributable event occurs with respect

to the accounts of the employees who continue employment with the corporation that acquires

the assets. If the corporation disposes of its interest in a subsidiary, a distributable event occurs

with respect to the accounts of the employees who continue employment with the subsidiary.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would modify the distribution restrictions applicable to section 401(k)

plans, section 403(b) annuities, and section 457 plans to provide that distribution may occur upon

severance from employment rather than separation from service. In addition, the provisions for
-46-

distribution from a section 401(k) plan based upon a corporation’s disposition of its assets or a

subsidiary would be repealed; this special rule would no longer be necessary under the proposal.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for distributions after December 31, 2000, regardless of

when the severance of employment occurred.

5. Purchase of service credit under governmental pension plans

Present Law

A qualified retirement plan maintained by a State or local government employer may

provide that a participant may make after-tax employee contributions in order to purchase

permissive service credit, subject to certain limits (sec. 415). Permissive service credit means

credit for a period of service recognized by the governmental plan only if the employee

voluntarily contributes to the plan an amount (as determined by the plan) that does not exceed the

amount necessary to fund the benefit attributable to the period of service and that is in addition to

the regular employee contributions, if any, under the plan.

In the case of any repayment of contributions and earnings to a governmental plan with

respect to an amount previously refunded upon a forfeiture of service credit under the plan (or

another plan maintained by a State or local government employer within the same State), any

such repayment is not taken into account for purposes of the section 415 limits on contributions

and benefits. Also, service credit obtained as a result of such a repayment is not considered

permissive service credit for purposes of the section 415 limits.

A participant may not use a rollover or direct transfer of benefits from a tax-sheltered

annuity (“section 403(b) annuity”) or an eligible deferred compensation plan of a tax-exempt

organization of a State or local government (“section 457 plan”) to purchase permissive service

credits or repay contributions and earnings with respect to a forfeiture of service credit.

Description of Proposal

A participant in a State or local governmental plan would not be required to include in

gross income a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to a governmental defined benefit plan from a

section 403(b) annuity or a section 457 plan if the transferred amount is used (1) to purchase

permissive service credits under the plan, or (2) to repay contributions and earnings with respect

to an amount previously refunded under a forfeiture of service credit under the plan (or another

plan maintained by a State or local government employer within the same State).

Effective Date
41 A similar provision is contained in Title I of ERISA.

42 Other proposals expand the kinds of plans to which benefits may be rolled over.

-47-

The proposal would be effective for transfers after December 31, 2000.

6. Employers may disregard rollovers for purposes of cash-out rules

Present Law

If an qualified retirement plan participant ceases to be employed by the employer that

maintains the plan, the plan may distribute the participant’s nonforfeitable accrued benefit

without the consent of the participant and, if applicable, the participant’s spouse, if the present

value of the benefit does not exceed $5,000. If such an involuntary distribution occurs and the

participant subsequently returns to employment covered by the plan, then service taken into

account in computing benefits payable under the plan after the return need not include service

with respect to which a benefit was involuntarily distributed unless the employee repays the

benefit.41

Generally, a participant may roll over an involuntary distribution from a qualified plan to

an IRA or to another qualified plan.42

Description of Proposal

A plan would be permitted to provide that the present value of a participant’s

nonforfeitable accrued benefit is determined without regard to the portion of such benefit that is

attributable to rollover contributions (and any earnings allocable thereto).

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for distributions after December 31, 2000.

D. Strengthening Pension Security and Enforcement

1. Phase in repeal of 155 percent of current liability funding limit; deduction for

contributions to fund termination liability

Present Law

Under present law, defined benefit pension plans are subject to minimum funding

requirements designed to ensure that pension plans have sufficient assets to pay benefits. A

defined benefit pension plan is funded using one of a number of acceptable actuarial cost

methods.
43 The minimum funding requirements, including the full funding limit, are also

contained in title I of ERISA.

44 As originally enacted in the Pension Protection Act of 1997, the current liability full

funding limit was 150 percent of current liability. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 increased the

current liability full funding limit to 155 percent in 1999 and 2000, and adopted the scheduled

increases described in the text.

-48-

No contribution is required under the minimum funding rules in excess of the full funding

limit. The full funding limit is generally defined as the excess, if any, of (1) the lesser of (a) the

accrued liability under the plan (including normal cost) or (b) 155 percent of the plan’s current

liability, over (2) the value of the plan’s assets (sec. 412(c)(7)).43 In general, current liability is

all liabilities to plan participants and beneficiaries accrued to date, whereas the accrued liability

full funding limit is based on projected benefits. The current liability full funding limit is

scheduled to increase as follows: 160 percent for plan years beginning in 2001 or 2002, 165

percent for plan years beginning in 2003 and 2004, and 170 percent for plan years beginning in

2005 and thereafter.44 In no event is a plan’s full funding limit less than 90 percent of the plan’s

current liability over the value of the plan’s assets.

An employer sponsoring a defined benefit pension plan generally may deduct amounts

contributed to satisfy the minimum funding standard for the plan year. Contributions in excess

of the full funding limit generally are not deductible. Under a special rule, an employer that

sponsors a defined benefit pension plan (other than a multiemployer plan) which has more than

100 participants for the plan year may deduct amounts contributed of up to 100 percent of the

plan’s unfunded current liability.

Description of Proposal

Current liability full funding limit

The proposal would gradually increase and then repeal the current liability full funding

limit. The current liability full funding limit would be 160 percent of current liability for plan

years beginning in 2001, 165 percent for plan years beginning in 2002, and 170 percent for plan

years beginning in 2003. The current liability full funding limit would be repealed for plan years

beginning in 2004 and thereafter. Thus, in 2004 and thereafter, the full funding limit would be

the excess, if any, of (1) the accrued liability under the plan (including normal cost), over (2) the

value of the plan’s assets.

Deduction for contributions to fund termination liability

The special rule allowing a deduction for unfunded current liability generally would be

extended to all defined benefit pension plans, i.e., the proposal would apply to multiemployer
45 The PBGC termination insurance program does not cover plans of professional service

employers that have fewer than 25 participants.

46 As originally enacted in the Pension Protection Act of 1997, the current liability full

funding limit was 150 percent of current liability. The Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 increased the

current liability full funding limit to 155 percent in 1999 and 2000, and adopted the scheduled

increases described in the text. Another proposal would gradually increase and then repeal the

current liability full funding limit.

-49-

plans and plans with 100 or fewer participants. The special rule would not apply to plans not

covered by the PBGC termination insurance program.45

The proposal also would modify the rule by providing that the deduction is for up to 100

percent of unfunded termination liability, determined as if the plan terminated at the end of the

plan year. In the case of a plan with less than 100 participants for the plan year, termination

liability would not include the liability attributable to benefit increases for highly compensated

employees resulting from a plan amendment which was made or became effective, whichever is

later, within the last two years.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.

2. Excise tax relief for sound pension funding

Present Law

Under present law, defined benefit pension plans are subject to minimum funding

requirements designed to ensure that pension plans have sufficient assets to pay benefits. A

defined benefit pension plan is funded using one of a number of acceptable actuarial cost

methods.

No contribution is required under the minimum funding rules in excess of the full funding

limit. The full funding limit is generally defined as the excess, if any, of (1) the lesser of (a) the

accrued liability under the plan (including normal cost) or (b) 155 percent of the plan’s current

liability, over (2) the value of the plan’s assets (sec. 412(c)(7)). In general, current liability is all

liabilities to plan participants and beneficiaries accrued to date, whereas the accrued liability full

funding limit is based on projected benefits. The current liability full funding limit is scheduled

to increase as follows: 160 percent for plan years beginning in 2001 or 2002, 165 percent for plan

years beginning in 2003 and 2004, and 170 percent for plan years beginning in 2005 and

thereafter.46 In no event is a plan’s full funding limit less than 90 percent of the plan’s current

liability over the value of the plan’s assets.
-50-

An employer sponsoring a defined benefit pension plan generally may deduct amounts

contributed to satisfy the minimum funding standard for the plan year. Contributions in excess

of the full funding limit generally are not deductible. Under a special rule, an employer that

sponsors a defined benefit pension plan (other than a multiemployer plan) which has more than

100 participants for the plan year may deduct amounts contributed of up to 100 percent of the

plan’s unfunded current liability.

Present law also provides that contributions to defined contribution plans are deductible,

subject to certain limitations.

Subject to certain exceptions, an employer that makes nondeductible contributions to a

plan is subject to an excise tax equal to 10 percent of the amount of the nondeductible

contributions for the year. The 10-percent excise tax does not apply to contributions to certain

terminating defined benefit plans. The 10-percent excise tax also does not apply to contributions 

of up to 6 percent of compensation to a defined contribution plan for employer matching and

employee elective deferrals.

Description of Proposal

In determining the amount of nondeductible contributions, the employer would be

permitted to elect not to take into account contributions to a defined benefit pension plan except

to the extent they exceed the accrued liability full funding limit. Thus, if an employer elects,

contributions in excess of the current liability full funding limit would not be subject to the

excise tax on nondeductible contributions. An employer making such an election for a year

would not be permitted to take advantage of the present-law exceptions for certain terminating

plans and certain contributions to defined contribution plans.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

3. Notice of significant reduction in plan benefit accruals

Present Law

Section 204(h) of Title I of ERISA provides that a defined benefit pension plan or a

money purchase pension plan may not be amended so as to provide for a significant reduction in

the rate of future benefit accrual, unless, after adoption of the plan amendment and not less than

15 days before the effective date of the plan amendment, the plan administrator provides a

written notice (“section 204(h) notice”), setting forth the plan amendment (or a summary of the

amendment written in a manner calculated to be understood by the average plan participant) and

its effective date. The plan administrator must provide the section 204(h) notice to each plan

participant, each alternate payee under an applicable qualified domestic relations order
47 Treas. Reg. sec. 1.411(d)-6.

48 The proposal also would modify the present-law notice requirement contained in

section 204(h) of Title I of ERISA to provide that an applicable pension plan may not be

amended to provide for a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual in the event of

an egregious failure by the plan administrator to comply with a notice requirement similar to the

notice requirement that the provision adds to the Internal Revenue Code. In addition, the

proposal would expand the current ERISA notice requirement regarding significant reductions in

normal retirement benefit accrual rates to early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidies, and

ancillary benefits.

-51-

(“QDRO”), and each employee organization representing participants in the plan. The applicable

Treasury regulations47 provide, however, that a plan administrator need not provide the section

204(h) notice to any participant or alternate payee whose rate of future benefit accrual is

reasonably expected not to be reduced by the amendment, nor to an employee organization that

does not represent a participant to whom the section 204(h) notice must be provided. In addition,

the regulations provide that the rate of future benefit accrual is determined without regard to

optional forms of benefit, early retirement benefits, retirement-type subsidiaries, ancillary

benefits, and certain other rights and features.

A covered amendment generally will not become effective with respect to any

participants and alternate payees whose rate of future benefit accrual is reasonably expected to be

reduced by the amendment but who do not receive a section 204(h) notice. An amendment will

become effective with respect to all participants and alternate payees to whom the section 204(h)

notice was required to be provided if the plan administrator (1) has made a good faith effort to

comply with the section 204(h) notice requirements, (2) has provided a section 204(h) notice to

each employee organization that represents any participant to whom a section 204(h) notice was

required to be provided, (3) has failed to provide a section 204(h) notice to no more than a de

minimis percentage of participants and alternate payees to whom a section 204(h) notice was

required to be provided, and (4) promptly upon discovering the oversight, provides a section

204(h) notice to each omitted participant and alternate payee.

The Internal Revenue Code does not require any notice concerning a plan amendment that

provides for a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would add to the Internal Revenue Code a requirement that the plan

administrator of a defined benefit pension plan furnish a written notice concerning a plan

amendment that provides for a significant reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual,

including any elimination or reduction of an early retirement benefit or retirement-type subsidy.48

The notice would be required to set forth: (1) the effective date of the amendment; (2) a

statement that the amendment is expected to significantly reduce the rate of future benefit
-52-

accrual; (3) a description of the classes of employees reasonably expected to be affected by the

reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual; (4) examples illustrating the plan changes for these

classes of employees; (5) in the event of an amendment that results in a conversion of a

traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan (described below), a notice that the plan

administrator will provide, generally no later than 15 days prior to the effective date of the

amendment, a “benefit estimation tool kit” (described below) that will enable employees who

have completed at least 1 year of participation to personalize the illustrative examples; and (6)

notice of each affected participant’s right to request, and of the procedures for requesting, an

annual benefit statement as provided under present law. The plan administrator would be

required to provide the notice not less than 45 days before the effective date of the plan

amendment.

The notice requirement would not apply to governmental plans or church plans with

respect to which an election to have the qualified plan participation, vesting, and funding rules

apply has not been made (sec. 410(d)).

The plan administrator would be required to provide this generalized notice to each

affected participant and each affected alternate payee. For purposes of the proposal, an affected

participant or alternate payee would be a participant or alternate payee to whom the significant

reduction in the rate of future benefit accrual is reasonably expected to apply.

As noted above, the proposal would require the plan administrator to provide a benefit

estimation tool kit, no later than 15 days prior to the amendment effective date, to a participant

for whom the amendment may reasonably be expected to produce a significant reduction in the

rate of future benefit accrual if the amendment has the effect of converting a traditional defined

benefit plan to a cash balance plan. The plan administrator would not be required to provide this

benefit estimation tool kit to any participant who has less than 1 year of participation in the plan. 

For purposes of the proposal, a “cash balance plan” would mean a defined benefit plan under

which the accrued benefit is expressed in terms of an accumulation account, and any defined

benefit plan, or portion of such a plan, that reaches results similar to a defined benefit plan under

which the accrued benefit is expressed in terms of an accumulation account (as determined under

Treasury regulations). If the benefits of 2 or more defined benefit plans established or

maintained by an employer are coordinated in such a manner as to have the effect of a conversion

to a cash balance plan, the proposal would treat the sponsor of the plan or plans providing for

such coordination as having adopted such a conversion as of the date such coordination begins. 

If a plan sponsor represents in communications to participants and beneficiaries that a plan

amendment has an effect equivalent to a cash balance conversion, such amendment would (to the

extent provided in Treasury regulations) be treated as a cash balance conversion. In addition, the

proposal would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations under which a series of

amendments would be treated as a single amendment to the extent necessary to prevent

avoidance of the requirements of the proposal.
-53-

The benefit estimation tool kit would be designed to enable participants to estimate

benefits under the old and new plan provisions. The proposal would permit the tool kit to be in

the form of software (for use at home, at a workplace kiosk, or on a company intranet),

worksheets, or calculation instructions, or other formats to be determined by the Secretary of the

Treasury. The tool kit would be required to include any necessary actuarial assumptions and

formulas and to permit the participant to estimate both a single life annuity at appropriate ages

and, when available, a lump sum distribution. The tool kit would be required to disclose the

interest rate used to compute a lump sum distribution and whether the value of early retirement

benefits is included in the lump sum distribution.

The proposal would require the benefit estimation tool kit to accommodate employeeprovided variables with respect to age, years of service, retirement age, covered compensation,

and interest rate (when variable rates apply). The tool kit would be required to permit employees

to recalculate estimated benefits by changing the values of these variables. The proposal would

not require the tool kit to accommodate employee variables with respect to qualified domestic

relations orders, factors that result in unusual patterns of credited service (such as extended time

away from the job), special benefit formulas for unusual situations, offsets from other plans, and

forms of annuity distributions.

In the case of a cash balance conversion that occurs in connection with a business

disposition or acquisition transaction and within 1 year following the date of the transaction, the

proposal would require the plan administrator to provide the benefit estimation tool kit prior to

the end of the 2-year period following the date of the transaction to the affected participants who

become participants as a result of the transaction.

The proposal would permit a plan administrator to provide any notice required under the

proposal to a person designated in writing by the individual to whom it would otherwise be

provided. In addition, the proposal would authorize the Secretary of the Treasury to allow any

notice required under the proposal to be provided by using new technologies.

The proposal would impose on a plan administrator that fails to comply with the notice

requirement an excise tax equal to $100 per day per omitted participant and alternate payee. For

failures due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the total excise tax imposed during a

taxable year of the employer would not exceed $500,000. Furthermore, in the case of a failure

due to reasonable cause and not to willful neglect, the Secretary of the Treasury would be

authorized to waive the excise tax to the extent that the payment of the tax would be excessive

relative to the failure involved.

The proposal would add to the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA requirements designed

to prevent the use of “wear away” provisions under which participants earn no additional benefits

for a period of time after a conversion of a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan. 

These requirements are in addition to the provisions of the Internal Revenue Code that prohibit

the reduction of a participant’s accrued benefit by plan amendment (sec. 411(d)(6)). In the event
-54-

of a conversion of a traditional defined benefit plan to a cash balance plan, the proposal would

apply a minimum benefit requirement. This minimum benefit requirement would require a

participant’s accrued benefit under the cash balance plan to equal not less than (1) the benefit

accrued for years of service prior to the conversion under the traditional defined benefit plan

formula (not taking into account any early retirement benefit or retirement-type subsidy), plus (2)

any benefit accrued for years of service after the conversion under the cash balance plan benefit

formula. If the amendment provides that the accrued benefit initially credited to a participant’s

accumulation account (or its equivalent) on the effective date of the amendment is equal to the

benefit accrued for years of service prior to the conversion under the traditional defined benefit

plan formula (not taking into account any early retirement benefit or retirement-type subsidy), the

plan would be treated as providing to the participant an accrued benefit that includes such preconversion accrued benefit at all times after the effective date of the amendment. The proposal

would not apply the minimum benefit requirement designed to prevent “wear away” to a cash

balance conversion amendment to the extent that the amendment permits a participant to

continue to accrue benefits in the same manner as under the terms of the plan in effect prior to

the amendment.

Under the proposal, a plan would be treated as satisfying the minimum benefit

requirement designed to prevent “wear away” if a plan amendment provides that the present

value of a participant’s benefit accrued under a traditional defined benefit plan formula prior to a

cash balance conversion is equal to the greater of the present value determined, as of the effective

date of the amendment, either by (1) using the applicable mortality table and the applicable

interest rate in effect under the plan on the effective date of the cash balance conversion, or (2)

using the mortality and interest rate assumptions which, under the terms of the plan as in effect

immediately before such effective date, are used for purposes of determining a lump sum

distribution.

Except as provided in regulations, the proposal generally would require the present value

of the accrued benefit of any participant under a cash balance plan to be equal to the balance in

the participant’s accumulation account (or its equivalent) as of the time of the present value

determination.

Failure to comply with the requirements of the proposal designed to prevent “wear away”

would result in the disqualification of the plan.

The proposal would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to define in regulations, within

12 months after the date of enactment, the terms “early retirement benefit” and “retirement-type

subsidy.” In addition, with respect to a participant who is eligible to accrue benefits under the

terms of a defined benefit plan as in effect either before or after an amendment that results in a

conversion to a cash balance plan, the proposal would direct the Secretary of the Treasury to

prescribe regulations under which (1) the plan would be treated as meeting the requirements of

sec. 411(b)(1) if such requirements are met separately with respect to both of such methods of

accruing benefits, and (2) the plan would not be treated as failing to meet the requirements of sec.
49 Another provision of the proposal would provide that rollover amounts are not taken

into account for purposes of the cash-out rules.

-55-

401(a)(4) merely because only participants as of the effective date of the amendment are so

eligible, if the plan met the requirements of sec. 401(a)(4) under the terms of the plan as in effect

before the amendment.

Under the proposal, no inference would be intended with respect to the law in effect prior

to the effective date of the proposal. In addition, the proposal would not be intended to result in

the treatment of a cash balance plan as a defined contribution plan, or to affect the rules relating

to involuntary cash outs (sec. 411(a)(11))49 or survivor annuity requirements (sec. 417).

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan amendments taking effect on or after the date of

enactment, with a delayed effective date for plans maintained pursuant to a collective bargaining

agreement. The period for providing any notice required under the proposal would not end

before the last day of the 3-month period following the date of enactment. The notice

requirements under the proposal would not apply to any plan amendment taking effect on or after

the date or enactment if, before September 5, 2000, notice is provided to participants and

beneficiaries adversely affected by the plan amendment (or their representatives) that is

reasonably expected to notify them of the nature and effective date of the plan amendment.

4. Modifications to section 415 limits for multiemployer plans

Present Law

Under present law, limits apply to contributions and benefits under qualified plans (sec.

415). The limits on contributions and benefits under qualified plans are based on the type of

plan.

Under a defined benefit plan, the maximum annual benefit payable at retirement is

generally the lesser of (1) 100 percent of average compensation for the highest three years, or (2)

$135,000 (for 2000). The dollar limit is adjusted for cost-of-living increases in $5,000

increments. The dollar limit is reduced in the case of retirement before the social security

retirement age and increases in the case of retirement after the social security retirement age.

A special rule applies to governmental defined benefit plans. In the case of such plans,

the defined benefit dollar limit is reduced in the case of retirement before age 62 and increased in

the case of retirement after age 65. In addition, there is a floor on early retirement benefits. 

Pursuant to this floor, the minimum benefit payable at age 55 is $75,000.
50 Another proposal increases this limit to 100 percent of compensation.

-56-

In the case of a defined contribution plan, the limit on annual is additions if the lesser of

(1) 25 percent of compensation50 or (2) $30,000 (for 2000). In applying the limits on

contributions and benefits, plans of the same employer are aggregated.

Description of Proposal

Under the proposal, the 100 percent of compensation defined benefit plan limit would not

apply to multiemployer plans. In addition, multiemployer plans would not be aggregated with

single-employer defined benefit plans maintained by an employer contributing to the

multiemployer plan for purposes of applying the 100 percent of compensation limit to such other

plans.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

5. Investment of employee contributions in 401(k) plans

Present Law

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”) prohibits

certain employee benefit plans from acquiring securities or real property of the employer who

sponsors the plan if, after the acquisition, the fair market value of such securities and property

exceeds 10 percent of the fair market value of plan assets. The 10-percent limitation does not

apply to any “eligible individual account plans” that specifically authorize such investments.

Generally, eligible individual account plans are defined contribution plans, including plans

containing a cash or deferred arrangement (“401(k) plans”).

The term “eligible individual account plan” does not include the portion of a plan that

consists of elective deferrals (and earnings on the elective deferrals) made under section 401(k) if

elective deferrals equal to more than 1 percent of any employee's eligible compensation are

required to be invested in employer securities and employer real property. Eligible compensation

is compensation that is eligible to be deferred under the plan. The portion of the plan that consists

of elective deferrals (and earnings thereon) is still treated as an individual account plan, and the

10-percent limitation does not apply, as long as elective deferrals (and earnings thereon) are not

required to be invested in employer securities or employer real property.

The rule excluding elective deferrals (and earnings thereon) from the definition of

individual account plan does not apply if individual account plans are a small part of the

employer's retirement plans. In particular, that rule does not apply to an individual account plan

for a plan year if the value of the assets of all individual account plans maintained by the
-57-

employer do not exceed 10 percent of the value of the assets of all pension plans maintained by

the employer (determined as of the last day of the preceding plan year). Multiemployer plans are

not taken into account in determining whether the value of the assets of all individual account

plans maintained by the employer exceed 10 percent of the value of the assets of all pension

plans maintained by the employer. The rule excluding elective deferrals (and earnings thereon)

from the definition of individual account plan does not apply to an employee stock ownership

plan as defined in section 4975(e)(7) of the Internal Revenue Code.

The rule excluding elective deferrals (and earnings thereon) from the definition of

individual account plan applies to elective deferrals for plan years beginning after December 31,

1998 (and earnings thereon). It does not apply with respect to earnings on elective deferrals for

plan years beginning before January 1, 1999.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would modify the effective date of the rule excluding certain elective

deferrals (and earnings thereon) from the definition of individual account plan by providing that

the rule does not apply to any elective deferral used to acquire an interest in the income or gain

from employer securities or employer real property acquired (1) before January 1, 1999, or (2)

after such date pursuant to a written contract which was binding on such date and at all times

thereafter.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective as if included in the section of the Taxpayer Relief Act

of 1997 that contained the rule excluding certain elective deferrals (and earnings thereon).

6. Periodic pension benefit statements

Present Law

Title I of ERISA provides that a pension plan administrator must furnish a benefit

statement to any participant or beneficiary who makes a written request for such a statement. 

This statement must indicate, on the basis of the latest available information, (1) the participant’s

or beneficiary’s total accrued benefit, and (2) the participant’s or beneficiary’s vested accrued

benefit or the earliest date on which the accrued benefit will become vested. A participant or

beneficiary is not entitled to receive more than 1 benefit statement during any 12-month period. 

The plan administrator must furnish the benefit statement no later than 60 days after receipt of

the request or, if later, 120 days after the close of the immediately preceding plan year.

In addition, the plan administrator must furnish a benefit statement to each participant

whose employment terminates or who has a 1-year break in service. For purposes of this benefit

statement requirement, a “1-year break in service” is a calendar year, plan year, or other 12-
51 A multiple employer plan is a plan that is maintained by 2 or more unrelated employers

but that is not maintained pursuant to a collective-bargaining agreement (sec. 413(c)).

-58-

month period designated by the plan during which the participant does not complete more than

500 hours of service for the employer. A participant is not entitled to receive more than 1 benefit

statement with respect to consecutive breaks in service. The plan administrator must provide a

benefit statement required upon termination of employment or a break in service no later than

180 days after the end of the plan year in which the termination of employment or break in

service occurs.

Description of Proposal

A plan administrator of a defined contribution plan generally would be required to furnish

a benefit statement to each participant at least once annually and to a beneficiary upon written

request.

In addition to providing a benefit statement to a beneficiary upon written request, the plan

administrator of a defined benefit plan generally would be required either (1) to furnish a benefit

statement at least once every 3 years to each participant who has a vested accrued benefit and

who is employed by the employer at the time the plan administrator furnishes the benefit

statements to participants, or (2) to annually furnish written, electronic, telephonic, or other

appropriate notice to each participant of the availability of and the manner in which the

participant may obtain the benefit statement.

The plan administrator of a multiemployer plan or a multiple employer plan would be

required to furnish a benefit statement only upon written request of a participant or beneficiary.51

The plan administrator would be required to write the benefit statement in a manner

calculated to be understood by the average plan participant and would be permitted to furnish the

statement in written, electronic, telephonic, or other appropriate form.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.

7. Extension of PBGC missing participants program

Present Law

The plan administrator of a defined benefit pension plan that is subject to Title IV of

ERISA, is maintained by a single employer, and terminates under a standard termination is

required to distribute the assets of the plan. With respect to a participant whom the plan

administrator cannot locate after a diligent search, the plan administrator satisfies the distribution
-59-

requirement only by purchasing irrevocable commitments from an insurer to provide all benefit

liabilities under the plan or transferring the participant’s designated benefit to the Pension Benefit

Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”), which holds the benefit of the missing participant as trustee

until the PBGC locates the missing participant and distributes the benefit.

The PBGC missing participant program is not available to multiemployer plans or

defined contribution plans and other plans not covered by Title IV of ERISA.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would direct the PBGC to prescribe for terminating multiemployer plans

rules similar to the present-law missing participant rules applicable to terminating single

employer plans that are subject to Title IV of ERISA.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for distributions from terminating plans that occur after

the PBGC has adopted final regulations implementing the proposal.

8. Prohibited allocations of stock in an S corporation ESOP

Present Law

The Small Business Job Protection Act of 1996 allowed qualified retirement plan trusts

described in section 401(a) to own stock in an S corporation. That Act treated the plan’s share of

the S corporation’s income (and gain on the disposition of the stock) as includible in full in the

trust’s unrelated business taxable income (“UBTI”).

The Tax Relief Act of 1997 repealed the provision treating items of income or loss of an

S corporation as UBTI in the case of an employee stock ownership plan (“ESOP”). Thus, the

income of an S corporation allocable to an ESOP is not subject to current taxation.

Present law provides a deferral of income on the sales of certain employer securities to an

ESOP (sec. 1042). A 50-percent excise tax is imposed on certain prohibited allocations of

securities acquired by an ESOP in a transaction to which section 1042 applies. In addition, such

allocations are currently includible in the gross income of the individual receiving the prohibited

allocation.

Explanation of Provision

In general
52 The plan would not be disqualified merely because an excise tax is imposed under the

provision.

53 A family member of a member of a “deemed 20-percent shareholder group” with

deemed owned shares would also be treated as a disqualified person.

54 These attribution rules also apply to stock treated as owned by reason of the ownership

of synthetic equity.

-60-

Under the proposal, if there is a nonallocation year with respect to an ESOP maintained

by an S corporation: (1) the amount allocated in a prohibited allocation to an individual who is a

disqualified person would be treated as distributed to such individual (i.e., the value of the

prohibited allocation is includible in the gross income of the individual receiving the prohibited

allocation); (2) an excise tax would be imposed on the S corporation equal to 50 percent of the

amount involved in a prohibited allocation; and (3) an excise tax would be imposed on the S

corporation with respect to any synthetic equity owned by a disqualified person.52

It is intended that the provision will limit the establishment of ESOPs by S corporations

to those that provide broad-based employee coverage and that benefit rank-and-file employees as

well as highly compensated employees and historical owners.

Definition of nonallocation year

A nonallocation year would mean any plan year of an ESOP holding shares in an S

corporation if, at any time during the plan year, disqualified persons own at least 50 percent of

the number of outstanding shares of the S corporation.

A person would be a disqualified person if the person is either (1) a member of a “deemed

20-percent shareholder group” or (2) a “deemed 10-percent shareholder.” A person would be a

member of a “deemed 20-percent shareholder group” if the aggregate number of deemed-owned

shares of the person and his or her family members is at least 20 percent of the number of

deemed-owned shares of stock in the S corporation.53 A person would be a deemed 10-percent

shareholder if the person is not a member of a deemed 20-percent shareholder group and the

number of the person’s deemed-owned shares is at least 10 percent of the number of deemedowned shares of stock of the corporation.

In general, “deemed-owned shares” would mean: (1) stock allocated to the account of an

individual under the ESOP, and (2) an individual’s share of unallocated stock held by the ESOP. 

An individual’s share of unallocated stock held by an ESOP would be determined in the same

manner as the most recent allocation of stock under the terms of the plan.

For purposes of determining whether there is a nonallocation year, ownership of stock

generally would be attributed under the rules of section 318,54 except that: (1) the family
55 As under section 318, an individual’s spouse is not treated as a member of the

individual’s family if the spouses are legally separated.

56 The provisions relating to synthetic equity would not modify the rules relating to S

corporations, e.g., the circumstances in which options or similar interests are treated as creating a

second class of stock.

-61-

attribution rules would be modified to include certain other family members, as described below,

(2) option attribution would not apply (but instead special rules relating to synthetic equity

described below would apply), and (3) “deemed-owned shares” held by the ESOP would be

treated as held by the individual with respect to whom they are deemed owned.

Under the proposal, family members of an individual would include (1) the spouse55 of

the individual, (2) an ancestor or lineal descendant of the individual or his or her spouse, (3) a

sibling of the individual (or the individual’s spouse) and any lineal descendant of the brother or

sister, and (4) the spouse of any person described in (2) or (3).

The proposal contains special rules applicable to synthetic equity interests. Except to the

extent provided in regulations, the stock on which a synthetic equity interest is based would be

treated as outstanding stock of the S corporation and as deemed-owned shares of the person

holding the synthetic equity interest if such treatment would result in the treatment of any person

as a disqualified person or the treatment of any year as a nonallocation year. Thus, for example,

disqualified persons for a year would include those individuals who are disqualified persons

under the general rule (i.e., treating only those shares held by the ESOP as deemed-owned shares)

and those individuals who are disqualified individuals if synthetic equity interests are treated as

deemed-owned shares.

“Synthetic equity” would mean any stock option, warrant, restricted stock, deferred

issuance stock right, or similar interest that gives the holder the right to acquire or receive stock

of the S corporation in the future. Except to the extent provided in regulations, synthetic equity

also would include a stock appreciation right, phantom stock unit, or similar right to a future cash

payment based on the value of such stock or appreciation in such value.56

Ownership of synthetic equity would be attributed in the same manner as stock would be

attributed under the proposal (as described above). In addition, ownership of synthetic equity

would be attributed under the rules of section 318(a)(2) and (3) in the same manner as stock.

Definition of prohibited allocation

An ESOP of an S corporation would be required to provide that no portion of the assets

of the plan attributable to (or allocable in lieu of) S corporation stock may, during a nonallocation

year, accrue (or be allocated directly or indirectly under any qualified plan of the S corporation)

for the benefit of a disqualified person. A “prohibited allocation” would refer to violations of
-62-

this provision. A prohibited allocation would occur, for example, if income on S corporation

stock held by an ESOP is allocated to the account of an individual who is a disqualified person.

Application of excise tax

In the case of a prohibited allocation, the S corporation would be liable for an excise tax

equal to 50 percent of the amount of the allocation. For example, if S corporation stock is

allocated in a prohibited allocation, the excise tax would equal to 50 percent of the fair market

value of such stock.

A special rule would apply in the case of the first nonallocation year, regardless of

whether there is a prohibited allocation. In that year, the excise tax also would apply to the fair

market value of the deemed-owned shares of any disqualified person held by the ESOP, even

though those shares are not allocated to the disqualified person in that year.

As mentioned above, the S corporation also would be liable for an excise tax with respect

to any synthetic equity interest owned by any disqualified person in a nonallocation year. The

excise tax would be 50 percent of the value of the shares on which synthetic equity is based.

Treasury regulations

The Treasury Department would be given the authority to prescribe such regulations as

may be necessary to carry out the purposes of the provision.

Effective Date

The proposal generally would be effective with respect to plan years beginning after

December 31, 2001. In the case of an ESOP established after July 11, 2000, or an ESOP

established on or before such date if the employer maintaining the plan was not an S corporation

on such date, the proposal would be effective with respect to plan years ending after July 11,

2000.

E. Reducing Regulatory Burdens

1. Modification of timing of plan valuations

Present Law

Under present law, plan valuations are generally required annually for plans subject to the

minimum funding rules. Under proposed Treasury regulations, except as provided by the
57 Prop. reg. sec. 1.412(c)(9)-1(b)(1).

-63-

Commissioner, the valuation must be as of a date within the plan year to which the valuation

refers or within the month prior to the beginning of that year.57

Description of Proposal

The proposal would incorporate into the statute the proposed regulation regarding the

date of valuations. The proposal would also provide, as an exception to this general rule, that the

valuation date with respect to a plan year may be any date within the immediately preceding plan

year if, as of such date, plan assets are not less than 125 percent of the plan's current liability. 

Information determined as of such date would be required to be adjusted actuarially, in

accordance with Treasury regulations, to reflect significant differences in plan participants. An

election to use a prior plan year valuation date, once made, could only be revoked with the

consent of the Secretary.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.

2. ESOP dividends may be reinvested without loss of dividend deduction

Present Law

An employer is entitled to deduct certain dividends paid in cash during the employer’s

taxable year with respect to stock of the employer that is held by an employee stock ownership

plan (“ESOP”). The deduction is allowed with respect to dividends that, in accordance with plan

provisions, are (1) paid in cash directly to the plan participants or their beneficiaries, (2) paid to

the plan and subsequently distributed to the participants or beneficiaries in cash no later than 90

days after the close of the plan year in which the dividends are paid to the plan, or (3) used to

make payments on loans (including payments of interest as well as principal) that were used to

acquire the employer securities (whether or not allocated to participants) with respect to which

the dividend is paid.

The Secretary may disallow the deduction for any ESOP dividend if he determines that

the dividend constitutes, in substance, an evasion of taxation (sec. 404(k)(5)).

Description of Proposal

In addition to the deductions permitted under present law for dividends paid with respect

to employer securities that are held by an ESOP, an employer would be entitled to deduct

dividends that, at the election of plan participants or their beneficiaries, are (1) payable in cash

directly to plan participants or beneficiaries, (2) paid to the plan and subsequently distributed to
58 An employee includes a self-employed individual.

-64-

the participants or beneficiaries in cash no later than 90 days after the close of the plan year in

which the dividends are paid to the plan, or (3) paid to the plan and reinvested in qualifying

employer securities.

As under present law, the Secretary could disallow the deduction for any ESOP dividend

if he determines that the dividend constitutes, in substance, an evasion of taxation (sec.

404(k)(5)).

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for taxable years beginning after December 31, 2000.

3. Repeal transition rule relating to certain highly compensated employees

Present Law

Under present law, for purposes of the rules relating to qualified plans, a highly

compensated employee is generally defined as an employee58 who (1) was a 5-percent owner of

the employer at any time during the year or the preceding year or (2) either (a) had compensation

for the preceding year in excess of $85,000 (for 2000) or (b) at the election of the employer, had

compensation in excess of $85,000 for the preceding year and was in the top 20 percent of

employees by compensation for such year.

Under a rule enacted in the Tax Reform Act of 1986, a special definition of highly

compensated employee applies for purposes of the nondiscrimination rules relating to qualified

cash or deferred arrangements (“section 401(k) plans”) and matching contributions. This special

definition applies to an employer incorporated on December 15, 1924, that meets certain specific

requirements.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would repeal the special definition of highly compensated employee under

the Tax Reform Act of 1986. Thus, the present-law definition would apply.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.

4. Employees of tax-exempt entities

Present Law
59 Treas. Reg. sec. 1.410(b)-6(g).

-65-

The Tax Reform Act of 1986 provided that nongovernmental tax-exempt employers were

not permitted to maintain a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (“section 401(k) plan”). This

prohibition was repealed, effective for years beginning after December 31, 1996, by the Small

Business Job Protection Act of 1996.

Treasury regulations provide that, in applying the nondiscrimination rules to a section

401(k) plan (or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the same general arrangement as the

section 401(k) plan), the employer may treat as excludable those employees of a tax-exempt

entity who could not participate in the arrangement due to the prohibition on maintenance of a

section 401(k) plan by such entities. Such employees may be disregarded only if more than 95

percent of the employees who could participate in the section 401(k) plan benefit under the plan

for the plan year.59

Tax-exempt charitable organizations may maintain a tax-sheltered annuity (a “section

403(b) annuity”) that allows employees to make salary reduction contributions.

Description of Proposal

The Treasury Department would be directed to revise its regulations under section 410(b)

to provide that employees of a tax-exempt charitable organization who are eligible to make salary

reduction contributions under a section 403(b) annuity may be treated as excludable employees

for purposes of testing a section 401(k) plan, or a section 401(m) plan that is provided under the

same general arrangement as the section 401(k) plan of the employer if (1) no employee of such

tax-exempt entity is eligible to participate in the section 401(k) or 401(m) plan and (2) at least 95

percent of the employees who are not employees of the charitable employer are eligible to

participate in such section 401(k) plan or section 401(m) plan.

The revised regulations would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 1996.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment.

5. Treatment of employer-provided retirement advice

Present Law

Under present law, certain employer-provided fringe benefits are excludable from gross

income (sec. 132) and wages for employment tax purposes. These excludable fringe benefits

include working condition fringe benefits and de minimis fringes. In general, a working

condition fringe benefit is any property or services provided by an employer to an employee to
60 The exclusion does not apply with respect to graduate-level courses.

-66-

the extent that, if the employee paid for such property or services, such payment would be

allowable as a deduction as a business expense. A de minimis fringe benefit is any property or

services provided by the employer the value of which, after taking into account the frequency

with which similar fringes are provided, is so small as to make accounting for it unreasonable or

administratively impracticable.

In addition, if certain requirements are satisfied, up to $5,250 annually of employerprovided educational assistance is excludable from gross income (sec. 127) and wages. This

exclusion expires with respect to courses beginning after December 31, 2001.60 Education not

excludable under section 127 may be excludable as a working condition fringe.

There is no specific exclusion under present law for employer-provided retirement

planning services. However, such services may be excludable as employer-provided educational

assistance or a fringe benefit.

Description of Proposal

Qualified retirement planning services provided to an employee and his or her spouse by

an employer maintaining a qualified plan would be excludable from income and wages. The

exclusion would not apply with respect to highly compensated employees unless the services are

available on substantially the same terms to each member of the group of employees normally

provided education and information regarding the employer’s qualified plan. The exclusion

would be intended to allow employers to provide advice and information regarding retirement

planning. The exclusion would not be limited to information regarding the qualified plan, and,

thus, for example, would apply to advice and information regarding retirement income planning

for an individual and his or her spouse and how the employer’s plan fits into the individual’s

overall retirement income plan. On the other hand, the exclusion would not be intended to apply

to services that may be related to retirement planning, such as tax preparation, accounting, legal

or brokerage services.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective with respect to taxable years beginning after December

31, 2000.

6. Reporting simplification

Present Law

A plan administrator of a pension, annuity, stock bonus, profit-sharing or other funded

plan of deferred compensation generally must file with the Secretary of the Treasury an annual
61 Treas. Reg. sec. 301.6058-1(a).

-67-

return for each plan year containing certain information with respect to the qualification,

financial condition, and operation of the plan. Title I of ERISA also may require the plan

administrator to file annual reports concerning the plan with the Department of Labor and the

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”). The plan administrator must use the Form

5500 series as the format for the required annual return.61 The Form 5500 series annual

return/report, which consists of a primary form and various schedules, includes the information

required to be filed with all three agencies. The plan administrator satisfies the reporting

requirement with respect to each agency by filing the Form 5500 series annual return/report with

the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”), which forwards the form to the Department of Labor and

the PBGC.

The Form 5500 series consists of 3 different forms: Form 5500, Form 5500-C/R, and

Form 5500-EZ. Form 5500 is the most comprehensive of the forms and requires the most

detailed financial information. Form 5500-C/R requires less information than Form 5500, and

Form 5500-EZ, which consists of only 1 page, is the simplest of the forms.

The size of the plan determines which form a plan administrator must file. If the plan has

more than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan year, the plan administrator generally

must file Form 5500. If the plan has fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the plan

year, the plan administrator generally may file Form 5500-C/R. A plan administrator generally

may file Form 5500-EZ if (1) the only participants in the plan are the sole owner of a business

that maintains the plan (and such owner’s spouse), or partners in a partnership that maintains the

plan (and such partners’ spouses), (2) the plan is not aggregated with another plan in order to

satisfy the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b), (3) the employer is not a member

of a related group of employers, and (4) the employer does not receive the services of leased

employees. If the plan satisfies the eligibility requirements for Form 5500-EZ and the total value

of the plan assets as of the end of the plan year and all prior plan years does not exceed $100,000,

the plan administrator is not required to file a return.

Description of Proposal

The Secretary of the Treasury would be directed to modify the annual return filing

requirements with respect to plans that satisfy the eligibility requirements for Form 5500-EZ to

provide that if the total value of the plan assets of such a plan as of the end of the plan year and

all prior plan years does not exceed $250,000, the plan administrator is not required to file a

return.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment.
62 Rev. Proc. 98-22, 1998-12 I.R.B. 11, as modified by Rev. Proc. 99-13, 1999-5, I.R.B.

52.

-68-

7. Improvement to Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System

Present Law

A retirement plan that is intended to be a tax-qualified plan provides retirement benefits

on a tax-favored basis if the plan satisfies all of the requirements of section 401(a). Similarly, an

annuity that is intended to be a tax-sheltered annuity provides retirement benefits on a taxfavored basis if the program satisfies all of the requirements of section 403(b). Failure to satisfy

all of the applicable requirements of section 401(a) or section 403(b) may disqualify a plan or

annuity for the intended tax-favored treatment.

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has established the Employee Plans Compliance

Resolution System (“EPCRS”), which is a comprehensive system of correction programs for

sponsors of retirement plans and annuities that are intended, but have failed, to satisfy the

requirements of section 401(a) and section 403(b), as applicable.62 EPCRS permits employers to

correct compliance failures and continue to provide their employees with retirement benefits on a

tax-favored basis.

The IRS has designed EPCRS to (1) encourage operational and formal compliance, (2)

promote voluntary and timely correction of compliance failures, (3) provide sanctions for

compliance failures identified on audit that are reasonable in light of the nature, extent, and

severity of the violation, (4) provide consistent and uniform administration of the correction

programs, and (5) permit employers to rely on the availability of EPCRS in taking corrective

actions to maintain the tax-favored status of their retirement plans and annuities.

The basic elements of the programs that comprise EPCRS are self-correction, voluntary

correction with IRS approval, and correction on audit. The Administrative Policy Regarding

Self-Correction (“APRSC”) permits a plan sponsor that has established compliance practices to

correct certain insignificant failures at any time (including during an audit), and certain

significant failures within a 2-year period, without payment of any fee or sanction. The

Voluntary Compliance Resolution (“VCR”) program, the Walk-In Closing Agreement Program

(“Walk-In CAP”), and the Tax-Sheltered Annuity Voluntary Correction (“TVC”) program permit

an employer, at any time before an audit, to pay a limited fee and receive IRS approval of a

correction. For a failure that is discovered on audit and corrected, the Audit Closing Agreement

Program (“Audit CAP”) provides for a sanction that bears a reasonable relationship to the nature,

extent, and severity of the failure and that takes into account the extent to which correction

occurred before audit.

The IRS has expressed its intent that EPCRS will be updated and improved periodically

in light of experience and comments from those who use it.
-69-

Description of Proposal

The Secretary of the Treasury would be directed to continue to update and improve

EPCRS, giving special attention to (1) increasing the awareness and knowledge of small

employers concerning the availability and use of EPCRS, (2) taking into account special

concerns and circumstances that small employers face with respect to compliance and correction

of compliance failures, (3) extending the duration of the self-correction period under APRSC for

significant compliance failures, (4) expanding the availability to correct insignificant compliance

failures under APRSC during audit, and (5) assuring that any tax, penalty, or sanction that is

imposed by reason of a compliance failure is not excessive and bears a reasonable relationship to

the nature, extent, and severity of the failure.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment.

8. Repeal of the multiple use test

Present Law

Elective deferrals under a qualified cash or deferred arrangement (“section 401(k) plan”)

are subject to a special annual nondiscrimination test (“ADP test”). The ADP test compares the

actual deferral percentages (“ADPs”) of the highly compensated employee group and the

nonhighly compensated employee group. The ADP for each group generally is the average of the

deferral percentages separately calculated for the employees in the group who are eligible to

make elective deferrals for all or a portion of the relevant plan year. Each eligible employee’s

deferral percentage generally is the employee’s elective deferrals for the year divided by the

employee’s compensation for the year.

The plan generally satisfies the ADP test if the ADP of the highly compensated employee

group for the current plan year is either (1) not more than 125 percent of the ADP of the

nonhighly compensated employee group for the prior plan year, or (2) not more than 200 percent

of the ADP of the nonhighly compensated employee group for the prior plan year and not more

than 2 percentage points greater than the ADP of the nonhighly compensated employee group for

the prior plan year.

Employer matching contributions and after-tax employee contributions under a defined

contribution plan also are subject to a special annual nondiscrimination test (“ACP test”). The

ACP test compares the actual deferral percentages (“ACPs”) of the highly compensated

employee group and the nonhighly compensated employee group. The ACP for each group

generally is the average of the contribution percentages separately calculated for the employees in

the group who are eligible to make after-tax employee contributions or who are eligible for an

allocation of matching contributions for all or a portion of the relevant plan year. Each eligible
-70-

employee’s contribution percentage generally is the employee’s aggregate after-tax employee

contributions and matching contributions for the year divided by the employee’s compensation

for the year.

The plan generally satisfies the ACP test if the ACP of the highly compensated employee

group for the current plan year is either (1) not more than 125 percent of the ACP of the

nonhighly compensated employee group for the prior plan year, or (2) not more than 200 percent

of the ACP of the nonhighly compensated employee group for the prior plan year and not more

than 2 percentage points greater than the ACP of the nonhighly compensated employee group for

the prior plan year.

For any year in which (1) at least one highly compensated employee is eligible to

participate in an employer’s plan or plans that are subject to both the ADP test and the ACP test,

(2) the plan subject to the ADP test satisfies the ADP test but the ADP of the highly compensated

employee group exceeds 125 percent of the ADP of the nonhighly compensated employee group,

and (3) the plan subject to the ACP test satisfies the ACP test but the ACP of the highly

compensated employee group exceeds 125 percent of the ACP of the nonhighly compensated

employee group, an additional special nondiscrimination test (“multiple use test”) applies to the

elective deferrals, employer matching contributions, and after-tax employee contributions. The

plan or plans generally satisfy the multiple use test if the sum of the ADP and the ACP of the

highly compensated employee group does not exceed the greater of (1) the sum of (A) 1.25 times

the greater of the ADP or the ACP of the nonhighly compensated employee group, and (B) 2

percentage points plus (but not more than 2 times) the lesser of the ADP or the ACP of the

nonhighly compensated employee group, or (2) the sum of (A) 1.25 times the lesser of the ADP

or the ACP of the nonhighly compensated employee group, and (B) 2 percentage points plus (but

not more than 2 times) the greater of the ADP or the ACP of the nonhighly compensated

employee group.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would repeal the multiple use test.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

9. Flexibility in nondiscrimination and line of business rules

Present Law

A plan is not a qualified retirement plan if the contributions or benefits provided under

the plan discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees (sec. 401(a)(4)). The applicable

Treasury regulations set forth the exclusive rules for determining whether a plan satisfies the
-71-

nondiscrimination requirement. These regulations state that the form of the plan and the effect of

the plan in operation determine whether the plan is nondiscriminatory and that intent is

irrelevant.

Similarly, a plan is not a qualified retirement plan if the plan does not benefit a minimum

number of employees (sec. 410(b)). A plan satisfies this minimum coverage requirement if and

only if it satisfies one of the tests specified in the applicable Treasury regulations. If an employer

is treated as operating separate lines of business, the employer may apply the minimum coverage

requirements to a plan separately with respect to the employees in each separate line of business

(sec. 414(r)). Under a so-called “gateway” requirement, however, the plan must benefit a

classification of employees that does not discriminate in favor of highly compensated employees

in order for the employer to apply the minimum coverage requirements separately for the

employees in each separate line of business. A plan satisfies this gateway requirement only if it

satisfies one of the tests specified in the applicable Treasury regulations.

Description of Proposal

The Secretary of the Treasury would be directed to modify, on or before December 31,

2000, the existing regulations issued under section 414(r) in order to expand (to the extent that

the Secretary may determine to be appropriate) the ability of a plan to demonstrate compliance

with the line of business requirements based upon the facts and circumstances surrounding the

design and operation of the plan, even though the plan is unable to satisfy the mechanical tests

currently used to determine compliance.

The Secretary of the Treasury would be directed to provide by regulation applicable to

years beginning after December 31, 2000, that a plan is deemed to satisfy the nondiscrimination

requirements of section 401(a)(4) if the plan satisfies the pre-1994 facts and circumstances test,

satisfies the conditions prescribed by the Secretary to appropriately limit the availability of such

test, and is submitted to the Secretary for a determination of whether it satisfies such test (to the

extent provided by the Secretary).

Similarly, a plan would comply with the minimum coverage requirement of section

410(b) if the plan satisfies the pre-1989 coverage rules, is submitted to the Secretary for a

determination of whether it satisfies the pre-1989 coverage rules (to the extent provided by the

Secretary), and satisfies conditions prescribed by the Secretary by regulation that appropriately

limit the availability of the pre-1989 coverage rules.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment.

10. Extension to all governmental plans of moratorium on application of certain

nondiscrimination rules applicable to State and local government plans
63 Similar provisions are contained in Title I of ERISA.

-72-

Present Law

A qualified retirement plan maintained by a State or local government is exempt from the

rules concerning nondiscrimination (sec. 401(a)(4)) and minimum participation (sec. 401(a)(26)). 

All other governmental plans are not exempt from the nondiscrimination and minimum

participation rules.

Description of Proposal

The proposal would exempt all governmental plans (as defined in sec. 414(d)) from the

nondiscrimination and minimum participation rules.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan years beginning after December 31, 2000.

11. Notice and consent period regarding distributions

Present Law

Notice and consent requirements apply to certain distributions from qualified retirement

plans. These requirements relate to the content and timing of information that a plan must

provide to a participant prior to a distribution, and to whether the plan must obtain the

participant’s consent to the distribution. The nature and extent of the notice and consent

requirements applicable to a distribution depend upon the value of the participant’s vested

accrued benefit and whether the joint and survivor annuity requirements (sec. 417) apply to the

participant.63

If the present value of the participant’s vested accrued benefit exceeds $5,000, the plan

may not distribute the participant’s benefit without the written consent of the participant. The

participant’s consent to a distribution is not valid unless the participant has received from the

plan a notice that contains a written explanation of (1) the material features and the relative

values of the optional forms of benefit available under the plan, (2) the participant’s right, if any,

to have the distribution directly transferred to another retirement plan or IRA, and (3) the rules

concerning the taxation of a distribution. If the joint and survivor annuity requirements apply to

the participant, this notice also must contain a written explanation of (1) the terms and conditions

of the qualified joint and survivor annuity (“QJSA”), (2) the participant’s right to make, and the

effect of, an election to waive the QJSA, (3) the rights of the participant’s spouse with respect to

a participant’s waiver of the QJSA, and (4) the right to make, and the effect of, a revocation of a

waiver of the QJSA. The plan generally must provide this notice to the participant no less than

30 and no more than 90 days before the date distribution commences.
-73-

If the participant’s vested accrued benefit does not exceed $5,000, the terms of the plan

may provide for distribution without the participant’s consent. The plan generally is required,

however, to provide to the participant a notice that contains a written explanation of (1) the

participant’s right, if any, to have the distribution directly transferred to another retirement plan

or IRA, and (2) the rules concerning the taxation of a distribution. The plan generally must

provide this notice to the participant no less than 30 and no more than 90 days before the date

distribution commences.

Description of Proposal

A qualified retirement plan would be required to provide the applicable distribution

notice no less than 30 days and no more than 180 days before the date distribution commences. 

The Secretary of the Treasury would be directed to modify the applicable regulations to reflect

the extension of the notice period to 180 days and to provide that the description of a

participant’s right, if any, to defer receipt of a distribution shall also describe the consequences of

failing to defer such receipt.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for years beginning after December 31, 2000.

12. Rules for substantial owner benefits in terminated plans

Present Law

Under present law, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (“PBGC”) provides

participants and beneficiaries in a defined benefit pension plan with certain minimal guarantees

as to the receipt of benefits under the plan in case of plan termination. The employer sponsoring

the defined benefit pension plan is required to pay premiums to the PBGC to provide insurance

for the guaranteed benefits. In general, the PBGC will guarantee all basic benefits which are

payable in periodic installments for the life (or lives) of the participant and his or her

beneficiaries and are non-forfeitable at the time of plan termination. The amount of the

guaranteed benefit is subject to certain limitations. One limitation is that the plan (or an

amendment to the plan which increases benefits) must be in effect for 60 months before

termination for the PBGC to guarantee the full amount of basic benefits for a plan participant,

other than a substantial owner. In the case of a substantial owner, the guaranteed basic benefit is

phased in over 30 years beginning with participation in the plan. A substantial owner is one who

owns, directly or indirectly, more than 10 percent of the voting stock of a corporation or all the

stock of a corporation. Special rules restricting the amount of benefit guaranteed and the

allocation of assets also apply to substantial owners.

Description of Proposal
-74-

The proposal would provide that the 60 month phase-in of guaranteed benefits would

apply to a substantial owner with less than 50 percent ownership interest. For a substantial owner

with a 50 percent or more ownership interest (“majority owner”), the phase-in would depend on

the number of years the plan has been in effect. The majority owner’s guaranteed benefit would

be limited so that it could not be more than the amount phased in over 60 months for other

participants. The rules regarding allocation of assets would apply to substantial owners, other

than majority owners, in the same manner as other participants.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for plan terminations with respect to which notices of

intent to terminate are provided, or for which proceedings for termination are instituted by the

PBGC after December 31, 2000.

13. Annual report dissemination

Present Law

Title I of ERISA generally requires the plan administrator of each employee pension

benefit plan and each employee welfare benefit plan to file an annual report concerning the plan

with the Secretary of Labor within seven months after the end of the plan year. Within nine

months after the end of the plan year, the plan administrator generally must provide to each

participant and to each beneficiary receiving benefits under the plan a summary of the annual

report filed with the Secretary of Labor for the plan year.

Description of Proposal

Within nine months after the end of each plan year, the plan administrator would be

required to make available for examination a summary of the annual report filed with the

Secretary of Labor for the plan year. In addition, the plan administrator would be required to

furnish the summary to a participant, or to a beneficiary receiving benefits under the plan, upon

request.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective for reports for years beginning after December 31, 1999.

F. Provisions Relating to Plan Amendments

Present Law
-75-

Plan amendments to reflect amendments to the law generally must be made by the time

prescribed by law for filing the income tax return of the employer for the employer’s taxable year

in which the change in law occurs.

Description of Proposal

Any amendments to a plan or annuity contract required to be made by the proposal would

not be required to be made before the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after

January 1, 2003. In the case of a governmental plan, the date for amendments would be extended

to the last day of the first plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2005. The delayed

amendment date would not apply to any amendment required or permitted by the proposal unless,

during the period beginning on the date the applicable section of the proposal takes effect and

ending on the delayed amendment date, (1) the plan or annuity contract is operated as if such

amendment were in effect, and (2) such amendment applies retroactively for such period.

Effective Date

The proposal would be effective on the date of enactment.
-76-

III. COMPLIANCE WITH CONGRESSIONAL BUDGET ACT

Present Law

Reconciliation is a procedure under the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (the "Budget

Act") by which the Congress implements spending and tax policies contained in a budget

resolution. The Budget Act contains numerous rules enforcing the scope of items permitted to be

considered under the budget reconciliation process. One such rule, the so-called "Byrd rule," was

incorporated into the Budget Act in 1990. The Byrd rule, named after its principal sponsor,

Senator Robert C. Byrd, is contained in section 313 of the Budget Act. The Byrd rule is

generally interpreted to permit members to make a motion to strike extraneous provisions (those

which are unrelated to the deficit reduction goals of the reconciliation process) from either a

budget reconciliation bill or a conference report on such bill.

Under the Byrd rule, a provision is considered to be extraneous if it:

(1) does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

(2) produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not

in compliance with its instructions;

(3) is outside of the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for

inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

(4) produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the nonbudgetary components of the provision; 

(5) would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the revenue

measure; or 

(6) recommends a change in Social Security.

Description of Proposal

To ensure compliance with the Budget Act, all provisions of, and amendments made by,

the proposal would cease to apply for years beginning after December 31, 2004.

Effective Date

The provision would be effective on the date of enactment.