Experts Say Hardship Self-Certification Was Never Allowed

Some industry providers have suggested a recent Internal Revenue Service publication goes against prior guidance on documentation requirements for hardship loans and withdrawals, but others disagree with that assessment.

The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently issued a publication about appropriate documentation retirement plan sponsors should keep for participant hardship and loan requests.

For hardship withdrawals, the plan sponsor should retain the following records in paper or electronic format:

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

  • Documentation of the hardship request, review and approval;
  • Financial information and documentation that substantiates the employee’s immediate and heavy financial need;
  • Documentation to support that the hardship distribution was properly made in accordance with the applicable plan provisions and the Internal Revenue Code; and
  • Proof of the actual distribution made and related Forms 1099-R.

The agency says it is not sufficient for plan participants to keep their own records of hardship distributions, and electronic self-certification is not sufficient documentation of the nature of a participant’s hardship.

Speaking at the American Society of Pension Professionals and Actuaries’ (ASPPA’s) first-ever virtual conference, Bob Kaplan, ASPPA Government Affairs Committee co-chair and national training consultant with Voya Financial, noted that after the issuance of the publication, industry groups and providers, including the American Benefits Council and Fidelity, sent a letter to the IRS saying that prior guidance led them to believe they could rely on participant self-certification.

Ilene H. Ferenczy, managing partner at Ferencszy Benefits Law Center LLP, and Craig P. Hoffman, ASPPA general counsel, said that at different events, the IRS has consistently said there needs to be proper documentation of the nature of the financial hardship, and self-certification is not sufficient.

Kaplan speculated that some people in the retirement industry may have misconstrued guidance issued in 2008 in relation to Hurricane Katrina. At that time, the IRS said plan sponsors do not have to have documentation of the nature of the hardship to issue a distribution. However, he pointed out, the guidance said plan sponsors have to follow up to get the documentation after the distribution.

Kaplan said plan sponsors can rely on self-attestation that the participant has an immediate and heavy need for the assets to be distributed, unless the plan sponsors knows for sure otherwise.

He suggested that getting documentation of the nature of the hardship up front is a good idea because it may be harder to get documentation after a participant gets his money. Having documentation will protect plan sponsors in case of audits.

Because of the letters to the IRS, “there may be more to come,” Kaplan stated. “But, the publication shows how the IRS feels about appropriate documentation right now.”

GOP Senators Demand More Time for Fiduciary Feedback

A group of Republican senators led by Lamar Alexander urged the Department of Labor to give the public more time to weigh in on the fiduciary proposal.

Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tennessee), chairman of the Senate’s Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee, led a group of 36 Senate Republicans requesting the Department of Labor (DOL) extend the comment period for its proposed rule on the fiduciary definition.

Other groups have already expressed dissatisfaction with the 75-day timeline for comments; the Republican senators’ letter is urging the DOL to extend it to 120 days. Casting the proposed rule as potentially threatening to a wide swath of the investing public, the senators say that more time is needed for “thorough consideration of all issues and interests to make sure working and middle-income Americans are not harmed” by changes to the fiduciary standard prescribed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA).

Want the latest retirement plan adviser news and insights? Sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters.

Citing the number of pages and accompanying analysis, the senators called the 75-day comment period inappropriate. The proposed rule and its exemptions “would significantly alter the retirement landscape for countless Americans with retirement plans,” the senators write, and would also impact investors using individual retirement accounts (IRAs), because of the expansion of fiduciary duties for investment advisers. The senators also bring up the extension the DOL granted in 2010 for consumers and stakeholders to develop opinions and submit comments on the original fiduciary redefinition proposal. The 2010 fiduciary rule was significantly shorter in length, the letter notes.

Sen. Alexander sent a letter in March warning of the potential negative impact of approving the proposed rule if the current proposal has not changed significantly from the proposal DOL offered in 2010. A group of nine Senate Democrats also sent a letter last week asking for the comment period to be extended, which the Republicans believe is a sign that bipartisan support for an extension may be growing.

The text of the senators’ letter is here.

«