Data & Research May 10, 2013

Student Loan Debt Could Affect Retirement

 

How people deal with their student debt could derail their efforts to save for retirement.

 

Reported by

The American Institute of CPAs (AICPA) recently released the results of a survey about how people are handling repayment of student loans and nearly half said they have postponed contributions to retirement plans because of it.

When asked if the student loan debt experience points out a need for good savings habits and maintaining a good level of financial literacy, both of which could positively or negatively impact saving for retirement down the line, Ernie Almonte, chair of the AICPA’s National CPA Financial Literacy Commission, told PLANADVISER, “One of the most startling statistics from our survey is that only four out of 10 people fully understood the burden that student debt would place on their futures. This really underscores the importance of financial education so that young adults realize how decisions they make early on will reverberate through the rest of their lives.”

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

Almonte added, “Make no mistake: a college degree can be a powerful investment. But the payoff is diminished if the debt takes decades to eliminate and slows progress toward future goals like retirement. Our survey showed that many people are making just that sacrifice. Forty-one percent of those surveyed said they have delayed contributions to retirement accounts because of student debt.” 

The findings also showed that due to student loan debt: 40% have delayed car purchases; 29% have put off buying a house; and 15% have postponed marriage. Almost 39 million U.S. adults had student loan debt at the end of 2012 – 70% more than in 2004, according to statistics from the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. During that same time, the total amount of student debt nearly tripled to $966 billion to become the biggest non-mortgage debt burden in America. The average student loan balance was $24,803.

With regards to student loan debt, Almonte advised, “It should be approached like any other investment—with a clear understanding of the risks, rewards and expected return.”

Since 2007, AICPA has conducted an annual survey of Americans to determine their top financial concerns and assess their financial well-being. Harris Interactive conducted this year’s telephone survey in March 2013 with 1,011 adults ages 18 and older.

Highlights of the AICPA survey can be found here.

Compliance May 10, 2013

Opinion Issued About NQDC Lump Sum and State Tax

 

The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance decided a lump-sum payment from the non-qualified retirement plans of a bankrupt plan sponsor was not subject to state income tax.

 

Reported by

In this case, the petitioner of the opinion worked as an executive vice president for Dime Savings Bank, a corporation headquartered in New York, New York. In January 2002, after Dime was acquired by Washington Mutual Bank, the petitioner accepted retirement. Between 2002 and 2003, the petitioner began to receive payments under two retirement plans–a non-qualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plan and a nonqualified SERP (supplemental employee retirement plan).

In 2008, Washington Mutual Bank filed for bankruptcy and its assets were sold to JPMorgan Chase, who took over certain obligations regarding the SERP and DC plan in question. In May 2012, JPMorgan Chase distributed a lump-sum payment to the petitioner that withheld an amount equal to the New York state and local estimated income tax. However, the petitioner was never a resident of New York State.

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

The opinion referenced Section 114 of Title 4 of the U.S. Code which says a state may not tax retirement income for an individual that does not reside in that state and payments from a NQDC plan are considered retirement income not subject to tax if they are made in periodic installments. The Department ruled the state may not impose personal income tax on the retirement income of the petitioner since he was not a resident, and that the lump sum was still retirement income because the bankruptcy was the cause of the lump-sum settlement. The opinion stated “the fact that the Washington Mutual Bank bankruptcy proceeding caused the petitioner to accept a lump-sum payment…does not change the tax characterization of the payment.”

A copy of the opinion can be found here.

«