Focus On Public Benefits
Public Benefits explained
Skip to content
  • Home
← The Differences Between Bundled and Unbundled Retirement Plan Servicing Arrangements
Take Your Pick – Employees Allowed to Choose Between Future 401(a) Plan Contributions and Future HRA Contributions →

Using a Plan Administration Expense Account as Part of An Agency’s 457(b) or 401(a) Plan

Posted on August 11, 2020 by Jeff Chang

By Jeff Chang

Not surprisingly, many cities and special districts no longer have monies available in their budgets to spend on things such as legal fees to analyze and correct plan administration problems and compliance issues. When it is not feasible for the plan sponsor to pay for certain expenses relating to the maintenance and administration of its defined contribution plans, it may be possible to have the affected plans pay such expenses.

Practically all defined contribution plan recordkeepers offer a “plan administration expense account” or “plan expense reimbursement account” feature as part of their services. This should be documented as part of a plan’s administrative services agreement and a plan document also must provide that reasonable plan administration expenses, as determined by the plan administrator, may be paid from the plan’s assets.

Depending on a recordkeeper’s systems and capabilities, it can either “collect” a specified percentage (e.g., 1 basis point) or a specified dollar amount (e.g., $5,000) from all participants’ accounts and hold that amount in a separate account for use by the plan administrator to pay or reimburse what it determines are reasonable and necessary plan administration expenses. Some recordkeepers can simply collect certain plan administration expenses from accounts on an ad hoc basis and pay them directly to vendors, when directed by the plan administrator. These might include fees for an independent financial audit of the plan, certain legal fees relating to plan administration matters, banking fees, mailing fees, etc. Because these payments are coming out of plan assets, it is important that they not be misused by the employer, or plan fiduciaries, either for general employer expenses (non-plan-related expenses) or for “settlor” expenses – expenses related to the design, adoption or termination of the plan. Violation of these restrictions are a violation of the basic fiduciary duties set forth in the California Constitution.

To have a plan pay a greater share of its plan administration fees and costs, there are a few things to bear in mind:

  • Reimbursements of plan expenses already paid by the employer need to be carefully documented and must be made soon after they have been paid – paid years ago can’t be reimbursed.
  • Amounts that are held in a separate account (unallocated) from participant accounts must be properly utilized or reallocated back to participant accounts by plan year-end.
  • Even though the category of expense (e.g., plan audit fees) may be clearly administrative, the amount of the payment or reimbursement must be reasonable and appropriate to the services provided.
  • Like any other fiduciary decision, procedural prudence dictates that each payment and reimbursement be carefully considered, by the right persons, and properly documented.

Serious legal consequences can result from the improper use of plan assets. Any questions should be discussed in advance with appropriate legal counsel.

Jeff Chang is a partner at Best Best & Krieger LLP. He has four decades of experience skillfully evaluating benefit and retirement plan compliance to achieve maximum outcomes for public agency clients throughout California. He can be reached at jeff.chang@bbklaw.com or (916) 329-3685.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email
This entry was posted in Income Fiduciary, Plan Administration, Plan Fees, record-keeping, Retirement Plan Fees and tagged expense reimbursement account, payment of legal fees by plan, plan administrative expense, settlor. Bookmark the permalink.
← The Differences Between Bundled and Unbundled Retirement Plan Servicing Arrangements
Take Your Pick – Employees Allowed to Choose Between Future 401(a) Plan Contributions and Future HRA Contributions →
  • Search

  • Subscribe

    Subscribe to receive emails regarding our latest blog posts.

  • Past Blog Posts

  • Categories

  • Popular Posts

    • Using a Section 115 Trust to Help Manage Pension Obligations 2.2k views | posted on September 13, 2017
    • Public Agency Board Members’ Worker Classification Matters for Tax Purposes 1.3k views | posted on July 22, 2019
    • If You Don’t Have a Section 218 Agreement, Watch Out for the Social Security “Gotcha” 1.2k views | posted on October 19, 2018
    • Chapter 13: Some Things Are Worth Repeating – Beware of PTO Cash-Outs! 1k views | posted on April 22, 2014
    • Using 457(b) Unforeseeable Emergency Distributions During the Coronavirus Crisis 1k views | posted on March 24, 2020
    • Chapter 28: Why Cashing Out PTO Next Year Doesn’t Work 1k views | posted on August 15, 2016
    • The CARES Act’s New Rules for Coronavirus-related Distributions from Governmental 457(b) Plans 893 views | posted on April 2, 2020
    • Take Care When Cost-Sharing Under CalPERS 853 views | posted on November 7, 2019
    • Why You Need to “Monitor” Full-time, Temporary Employees 852 views | posted on August 30, 2018
    • COVID-19 Pandemic May Force Some Cities to Reset Employee Benefits 837 views | posted on May 11, 2020
Focus On Public Benefits
Proudly powered by WordPress.
WP to LinkedIn Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com