Proposed Hardship Withdrawal Amended Regulations Issued by IRS

Under the proposed regulations, 401(k) plan sponsors could choose to make additional accounts available for hardship withdrawals.

The IRS has issued a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking related to hardship distributions from 401(k) plans.

The proposed regulatory amendments reflect statutory changes affecting 401(k) plans, including recent changes made by the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018.

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

The proposed regulations modify the safe harbor list of expenses in current Internal Revenue Code Section 1.401(k)-1(d)(3)(iii)(B) for which distributions are deemed to be made on account of an immediate and heavy financial need by:

  • adding “primary beneficiary under the plan” as an individual for whom qualifying medical, educational, and funeral expenses may be incurred;
  • damage to a principal residence that would qualify for a casualty deduction under Section 165 does not have to be in a federally declared disaster area; and
  • adding a new type of expense to the list, relating to expenses incurred as a result of certain disasters.

The IRS says the latter is “intended to eliminate any delay or uncertainty concerning access to plan funds following a disaster that occurs in an area designated by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) for individual assistance.”

Separately, in the notice, the IRS extended relief relating to Hurricane Maria and California wildfires provided in Announcement 2017-15 to similarly situated victims of Hurricanes Florence and Michael, except that the “Incident Dates” (as defined in that announcement) are as specified by FEMA for these 2018 hurricanes. Relief is provided through March 15, 2019.

No more suspension of deferrals or requirement to take a loan

The proposed regulations modify the rules for determining whether a distribution is necessary to satisfy an immediate and heavy financial need by eliminating any requirement that an employee be prohibited from making elective contributions (this prohibition would only apply for a distribution that is made on or after January 1, 2020) and employee contributions after receipt of a hardship distribution and any requirement to take plan loans prior to obtaining a hardship distribution.  

In addition, the proposed regulations eliminate the rules under which the determination of whether a distribution is necessary to satisfy a financial need is based on all the relevant facts and circumstances and provide one general standard for determining whether a distribution is necessary. Under this general standard, a hardship distribution may not exceed the amount of an employee’s need (including any amounts necessary to pay any federal, state, or local income taxes or penalties reasonably anticipated to result from the distribution), the employee must have obtained other available distributions under the employer’s plans, and the employee must represent that he or she has insufficient cash or other liquid assets to satisfy the financial need.

The IRS says a plan administrator may rely on such a representation unless the plan administrator has actual knowledge to the contrary. The requirement to obtain this representation would only apply for a distribution that is made on or after January 1, 2020. 

More available sources of money (if the plan sponsor chooses)

The proposed regulations permit hardship distributions from 401(k) plans of elective contributions, qualified nonelective contributions (QNECs), qualified matching contributions (QMACs), and earnings on these amounts, regardless of when contributed or earned. However, plans may limit the type of contributions available for hardship distributions and whether earnings on those contributions are included. Safe harbor contributions made to a plan described in Section 401(k)(13) may also be distributed on account of an employee’s hardship(because these contributions are subject to the same distribution limitations applicable to QNECs and QMACs).

Some rules do not apply to 403(b) plans

The IRS explains that Section 1.403(b)-6(d)(2) provides that a hardship distribution of 403(b) elective deferrals is subject to the rules and restrictions set forth in §1.401(k)-1(d)(3); thus, the proposed new rules relating to a hardship distribution of elective contributions from a Section 401(k) plan generally apply to Section 403(b) plans. However, Code Section 403(b)(11) was not amended by Section 41114 of the Bipartisan Budget Act of 2018; therefore, income attributable to 403(b) elective deferrals continues to be ineligible for distribution on account of hardship.  

Amounts attributable to QNECs and QMACs may be distributed from a 403(b) plan on account of hardship only to the extent that hardship is a permitted distributable event for amounts that are not attributable to 403(b) elective deferrals. Thus, QNECs and QMACs in a 403(b) plan that are not in a custodial account may be distributed on account of hardship, but QNECs and QMACs in a 403(b) plan that are in a custodial account continue to be ineligible for distribution on account of hardship.

Plan amendments

The Treasury Department and the IRS expect that, if these regulations are finalized as they have been proposed, plan sponsors will need to amend their plans’ hardship distribution provisions. The deadline for amending a disqualifying provision is set forth in Revenue Procedure 2016-37. For example, with respect to an individually designed plan that is not a governmental plan, the deadline for amending the plan to reflect a change in qualification requirements is the end of the second calendar year that begins after the issuance of the Required Amendments List that includes the change.

The Notice of Proposed Rulemaking is scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on November 14, 2018, and comments are due within 60 days of that date. Text of the notice is here.

SEC Investor Advisory Committee Calls for Stronger Best Interest Regulations

The committee says the SEC should explicitly explain that Regulation Best Interest is a fiduciary duty shared equally by advisers and broker/dealer to act in their customers’ best interest.

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)’s Investor Advisory Committee (IAC) submitted its views on the SEC’s proposed Regulation Best Interest, Form CRS and proposed Investment Advisers Act fiduciary guidance.

The IAC says that “all personalized investment advice to retail customers [should] be governed by a fiduciary duty, regardless of whether that advice is provided by an investment adviser or broker/dealer, to ensure that financial professionals act in their customers’ best interests and do not place their own interests ahead of their customers’ interests.”

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

The IAC says there are some actions that the SEC should take to ensure that this goal is put into action, starting with clarifying that the standard for broker/dealers and investment advisers should always be to act in their customers’ best interests. The IAC would also like the SEC to expand the best interest obligation to dual registrant firms with respect to rollover and account recommendations.

Further, the IAC would like the SEC to explicitly characterize the best interest standard as a fiduciary duty, and says that that SEC should continue to test the feasibility of proposed Form CRS disclosures.

With respect to the best interest standard, the IAC says its meaning “should be clarified to require broker/dealers, investment advisers and their associated persons to recommend the investments, investment strategies, accounts or services that they reasonably believe represent the best available options for the investor. There will often not be a single best option. It would start with a careful review of the client’s financial situation, along the lines of the requirement  under FINRA’s know-you-customer rule.”

With regard to rollovers and account type recommendations, these decisions are often irrevocable, IAC says. “Both types of recommendations inherently have potential conflicts of interest, making it critical that advisers and brokers put their clients’ interests ahead of their own,” IAC says.

“A majority of the IAC believes that a best interest standard is a fiduciary standard,” IAC continues. “Adopting this standard for broker/dealers could go a long way toward creating an even playing field in which brokers and advisers alike are held to a fiduciary standard, regardless of their business model,” be it ongoing monitoring of a portfolio or a one-time sale. “A majority of the committee believes that enhancing the fiduciary standard under the Advisers Act, and making the best interest obligation implied under that standard explicit, is a critical investor protection initiative for the SEC to pursue.”

With regard to the brief relationship summary, or Form CRS, that the SEC proposes that broker/dealers and advisers present to prospective clients, the IAC says that the way that the SEC is proposing to format Form CRS “is unlikely to reduce investor confusion. That concern has been reflected in many of the comment letters submitted to the commission. The disclosures should be subjected to [further] usability testing in order to determine their effectiveness, and testing should include financially unsophisticated investors.”

The committee’s full recommendations can be viewed here.

«