Another “whipsaw” cash balance plan case to add to your reading list–West v. AK Steel Corporation Retirement Accumulation Plan, USDC So Ohio, 1:02cv0001. (No link available.) The issue presented in the case was whether the lump sum payments to plaintiffs complied with ERISA. The plan was paying out lump sum distributions equal to the hypothetical account balance. Plaintiffs contended that they should have been paid a higher amount equal to the actuarial equivalent of the annual benefit to which plaintiffs would have been entitled if they had remained in the plan until age 65.
The court held that the plan’s payment of lump sum distributions did not comply with ERISA and reiterated the positions espoused in other cases, upholding the resulting “whipsaw” effect. (The Treasury Department has defined this whole “whipsaw” problem in its recent cash balance plan proposals, issued in February of this year:
Three federal appellate courts have addressed the calculation of lump sum distributions under cash balance plans. Berger v. Xerox Corp. Retirement Income Guarantee Plan, 338 F.3d 755 (7th Cir. 2003); Esden v. Bank of Boston, 229 F.3d 154 (2d Cir. 2000), cert. dismissed, 531 U.S. 1061 (2001); Lyons v. Georgia-Pacific Salaried Employees Retirement Plan, 221 F.3d 1235 (11th Cir. 2000), cert. denied, 532 U.S. 967 (2001). All three courts held that a participant’s hypothetical account balance must be projected to normal retirement age using the plan’s interest crediting rate, converted to an annuity, and then discounted to a lump sum using the section 417(e) interest rate. If the plan’s interest crediting rate is the section 417(e) rate, the present value of the normal retirement age annuity will be the same as the hypothetical account balance. However, if the plan’s interest crediting rate is higher than the section 417(e) rate, the present value of the normal retirement age annuity – and the amount of any lump sum distribution – will be greater than the hypothetical account balance. This result is sometimes referred to as “whipsaw.”These federal court decisions have followed an analysis set out in IRS Notice 96-8. Many plan sponsors have responded to whipsaw by limiting the interest crediting rate to the section 417(e) rate (or a deemed equivalent). This response effectively makes the section 417(e) rate a ceiling on plan interest credits.
While the West case is not a court of appeals decision, arguments which were rejected in the case are particularly noteworthy. (At one point in the opinion, the court goes so far as to call the defendant’s arguments as “creative.”) Of interest is the fact that the defendants in the case tried to argue that the “accrued benefit” under the plan was the hypothetical account balance, but the court noted that the plan document clearly defined it as a “single life annuity commencing at normal retirement age.” The court did indicate in dicta, however, that “[i]f the plan drafters had intended otherwise. . . they could have indicated that intent in the language of the Plan.”
The court went on to reject the defendant’s argument that, when projecting the benefit forward to an annuity at age 65 (for purposes of discounting back for the lump sum amount) the interest to be utilized should be governed by section 204(c)(3) of ERISA. Instead, the court held that the rate which should be utilized for projecting the benefit forward to an annuity at age 65 was the rate at which future interest credits would be calculated under the terms of the plan.
As far as the discount rate to be utilized in determining the lump sum benefit, the court relied on IRS Notice 96-8, Regulation section 1.411(a)-11(d), and previous cases which had upheld the Notice and Regulation, and rejected the defendant’s argument that Regulation section 1.411(a)-11(d) was invalidated when ERISA section 203(e) of ERISA was amended in 1994.
Please note that under the Bush administration’s cash balance plan proposals, whipsaw would be eliminated prospectively, as indicated in the 2004 Blue Book entitled “General Explanations of the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2005 Revenue Proposals.” :
The proposal would eliminate whipsaw, providing that a cash balance plan may distribute a participant’s account balance as a lump sum distribution as long as the plan does not credit interest in excess of a market rate of return. The Secretary would be authorized to provide safe harbors for what constitutes a market rate of return and to prescribe appropriate conditions regarding the calculation of plan distributions. This would permit plan sponsors to give higher interest credits to participants, resulting in larger retirement accumulations.
More cash balance plan reading:
An article by Dallas L. Salisbury, president and CEO of the Employee Benefit Research Institute from BenefitNews.com–“Will cash balance plans survive?“