Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-dfsvx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-27T05:05:52.250Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Reform of the tax on reversions of excess pension assets

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  02 September 2008

GAOBO PANG
Affiliation:
Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 901 N. Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203, USA (e-mail: Gaobo.Pang@watsonwyatt.com)
MARK WARSHAWSKY
Affiliation:
Watson Wyatt Worldwide, 901 N. Glebe Road, Arlington, VA 22203, USA (e-mail: Mark.Warshawsky@watsonwyatt.com)

Abstract

This study quantifies the possible consequences to stakeholders of reforms to the excise tax on reversions of excess pension assets. Under the US Pension Protection Act (PPA) of 2006, funding in defined benefit (DB) plans is likely to improve significantly. Many plans may become overfunded over time, owing to the shortfall amortizations mandated by the PPA, as well as to precautionary contributions by sponsors and to plan investment returns. This analysis shows that a more moderate excise tax rate together with a reasonable funding threshold for asset reversions would not only enable sponsors to spend the excess funds on other corporate needs, thereby lowering the cost of sponsorship of DB plans, but also would open a considerable revenue source for the government, with only a small increase in bankruptcy cost for the PBGC. Plan participants could also gain in an alternative reform, which would require a partial transfer of excess assets to them along with a still-lower reversion tax rate. These findings also hold for plan sponsors with various degrees of risk tolerance or only making the PPA-required minimum contributions.

Type
Issues and Policy
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Epstein, L. G. and Zin, S. E. (1989) Substitution, risk aversion, and the temporal behavior of consumption and asset returns: a theoretical framework. Econometrica, 57(4): 937969.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sharpe, W. F. (1976) Corporate pension funding policy. Journal of Financial Economics, 3: 183193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ippolito, R. (2001) Reversion taxes, contingent benefits, and the decline in pension funding. Journal of Law and Economics, 44: 199232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
The Pension Rights Center (2007) Covering the Uncovered: Final Report of the Conversation on Coverage.Google Scholar
Rauh, J. (2007) Risk shifting versus risk management: investment policy in corporate pension Plans NBER Working Paper No. 13240.Google Scholar
US General Accounting Office (1989) Pension plan terminations: recapturing tax benefits contained in asset reversions GAO/HRD-90-51BR.Google Scholar
Warshawsky, M. (2007) The new pension law and defined benefit plans: a surprisingly good match. Journal of Pension Benefits, 14(3): 1427.Google Scholar
Watson Wyatt Worldwide (2004) Canadian pension plans after the monsanto decision: a discussion paper. Special Memorandum 04-03.Google Scholar