Close Close
Popular Financial Topics Discover relevant content from across the suite of ALM legal publications From the Industry More content from ThinkAdvisor and select sponsors Investment Advisor Issue Gallery Read digital editions of Investment Advisor Magazine Tax Facts Get clear, current, and reliable answers to pressing tax questions
Luminaries Awards
ThinkAdvisor
Thumbs up, thumbs down

Retirement Planning > Saving for Retirement

Debate: Has IRS Guidance Helped Make the Case for Emergency Savings Accounts?

X
Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

The Internal Revenue Service and Department of Labor have issued initial guidance for employers who are considering offering employees the ability to participate in pension-linked emergency savings accounts under Secure 2.0 Act.

Such accounts are treated as Roth accounts, and participants must be entitled to make withdrawals at least once a month. The IRS notes that employers may wish to limit withdrawals to a maximum of once per month to reduce the potential for abusing the matching contribution rules. 

If an employer makes matching contributions to the related defined contribution plan, the employer must make matching contributions on behalf of eligible participants based on their contributions to the emergency accounts at the same rate as any other matching contributions made based on the participants’ elective contributions. The matching contributions — which will be made to the individual’s retirement account, not the emergency accounts — cannot exceed the maximum account balance under Section 402A(e)(3)(A).

We asked two professors and authors of ALM’s Tax Facts with opposing political viewpoints to share their opinions about whether the newly issued guidance on the emergency accounts will have a positive impact when it comes to encouraging employers to offer the savings option.

Below is a summary of the debate that ensued between the two professors.

Their Votes:

thumbs up Bloink
Byrnes

Their Reasons:

Bloink: This is exactly the type of detailed guidance that we need to encourage plan sponsors to start offering these valuable emergency savings accounts. Yes, the guidance is lengthy. But it gives employers a clear and comprehensive picture of what they must do and what they are permitted to do with respect to these accounts. Offering these emergency savings accounts will go a long way toward stopping employees from tapping retirement plans when they encounter unexpected costs.

Byrnes: The complex guidance only shows employers that these “sidecar” emergency savings accounts are complex and should be avoided. Once again, the IRS has overcomplicated an issue to the point where employers will have to learn a new set of rules to avoid running afoul — and many employers simply aren’t going to bother with it, especially small business owners who are already dealing with enough complication in administering retirement plans themselves.

Bloink: Complexity alone is no reason to assume that employers will shy away from offering these valuable new employment benefits. Because the accounts are related to defined contribution plans already maintained by the employer, offering the additional benefit doesn’t really create much added complexity in the end, at least from the employer’s perspective. Besides, the guidance is clear and addresses the important issues that employers must understand when implementing these accounts.

Byrnes: From a more substantive perspective, nothing in this guidance would actually encourage employers to start offering these accounts — and the participants who might use them as “supplemental” Roth accounts are likely those who have the ability to independently fund their own savings plans.

Bloink: We’re talking about a wholly new type of savings vehicle. Employers and employees have absolutely no experience with these emergency savings accounts. The program is also slightly experimental — it seems that the provision is designed to limit account balances to $2,500 initially. If the program is successful, it’s entirely possible that the agencies could expand the rules to allow for larger contributions. However, we do also have to remember that these accounts are designed primarily to benefit the lower- and middle-income taxpayers and to put the issue of emergency saving on their radar. That alone could have a positive impact when it comes to employee savings.

Byrnes: Yes, encouraging employees to start saving for emergency situations is admirable and may help to stop retirement account “leakage.” However, any impact is going to be miniscule because these account balances are limited to $2,500. Further, the accounts have no real tax advantage because contributions are made with after-tax dollars and employers have the option of forever capping any participant’s balance at $2,500 — so the benefit of tax-free growth is minimal. 

  • Learn more with Tax Facts, the go-to resource that answers critical tax questions with the latest tax developments. Online subscribers get access to exclusive e-newsletters.
  • Discover more resources on finance and taxes on the NU Resource Center.
  • Follow Tax Facts on LinkedIn and join the conversation on financial planning and targeted tax topics.
  • Get 10% off any Tax Facts product just for being a ThinkAdvisor reader! Complete the free trial form or call 859-692-2205 to learn more or get started today.

NOT FOR REPRINT

© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.