U.S., Denmark Are Not a Good Retirement Saving Comparison

At a time when the U.S. retirement savings structure is a potential target for generating new tax revenues to balance the federal budget, the last thing  the industry needs is high-profile, big-name research that undercuts its value.  That is just what seems to have happened, with the release of a study authored by Raj Chetty and John Friedman of Harvard University, and several Danish counterparts.  Their study evaluated the effects of recent Danish tax changes that reduced retirement saving incentives for some workers.

Chetty and his fellow researchers drew the following conclusions. 

1.       The vast majority of workers are “passive savers,” meaning they do not respond to tax incentives.    

2.       Those who do respond to retirement tax incentives (the study determined it to be 15 percent) would still save without incentives, just in a different kind of savings vehicle.

3.       The net result is that for every dollar’s worth of tax incentives or subsidies provided to workers, total savings increased by only one (1) cent;

To their credit, Chetty and his fellows did also conclude that automatic contribution arrangements were likely to be the best answer to increasing U.S. savings rates, essentially forcing saving behavior on those who are unlikely to act on their own.

Before pointing out some very important differences between the Danish tax and social environments and those of the U.S., it is worth noting that this study has already been seized upon by some as a pat answer to the question of whether incentives increase real saving, or are worth the cost.  Perhaps worse, some are repeating the same inaccurate characterizations of the tax treatment of U.S. retirement saving.

For example, Boston College economist, professor and retirement researcher Alicia Munnell was quoted in her Encore blog, printed in the February 8^th Wall Street Journal Market Watch, as saying that “The federal government provides generous tax subsidies for retirement saving.  These subsidies cost the Treasury more than $100 billion annually in foregone tax revenues.”

It is one thing to question how effective the current system of employer tax deductions and employee tax deferral is in increasing saving.  It is quite another to say that their cost is $100 billion annually, and that the Treasury forgoes these revenues.  The impression left by such statements is that these are truly lost revenues.  This is hardly the case.  Using data from the IRS Statistics of Income compilations, in 2010 alone (the latest year available), some $753 billion—that’s with a “b”—in retirement assets were distributed from employer plans and IRAs and included in taxable income.  So, in most cases, taxation is delayed until a future date, not lost.  Delayed use is the whole point of retirement saving!

Those entrusted with making our laws and shaping and guiding our economy and social policy should be made aware, and take the time to inform themselves, that most amounts saved for retirement on a tax-advantaged basis do eventually generate taxes, and do not result in a permanent tax loss.  It is a peculiarity of the federal legislative scoring and budgeting process that revenue credits and debits are usually calculated over a very limited five-year window.  I believe this is an unrealistic snapshot of the net effect of retirement saving incentives on the federal budget.  But it has led far too many people to conclude—or to propose policy—on the premise that deferred taxation equals lost taxation.

The Employee Benefit Research Institute (EBRI), a well-respected industry analytics group, thoughtfully questioned the Harvard study’s conclusions about the importance of tax incentives in Denmark versus the U.S.  Here are just two EBRI observations.

Non-governmental retirement plans in Denmark are primarily established by worker unions, not by individual employers, as is the case in the U.S.  A reduction in tax incentives is unlikely to prompt widespread plan termination there, whereas American employers have repeatedly declared that meaningful tax incentives are central to their continuing to sponsor retirement plans.  Without a meaningful business tax deduction, and the opportunity for business owners themselves to save substantially in a tax-advantaged fashion, many employers are likely to conclude that the effort, expense and potential liability are not worth the trouble.  If this happens, few should doubt that a much smaller number of U.S. workers will be financially prepared for retirement.

EBRI indicated that a large and growing share of accumulated U.S. retirement assets will be spent on health care, whether it is in insurance premiums, co-pays, or out-of-pocket expenditures.  It is estimated that a 65-year-old U.S. couple retiring today will need roughly a quarter of a million dollars for health-related expenses over typical life expectancies.  This is over and above their living expenses, and that RV they envision purchasing to travel and enjoy their supposedly golden years.  As EBRI points out in its analysis of the Harvard study, Danish citizens have taxpayer-funded universal health care, so this potentially huge additional retirement expenditure is absent there.  The absence of this cost would seem to lead to a lesser sense of urgency when it comes to retirement savings.  As such, we believe that comparing the experience in that environment to the US is a comparison of apples to oranges.

Ms. Munnell and others are correct in suggesting that workers’ lack of responsiveness to saving opportunities argues for greater use of automatic enrollment in retirement plans, as well as automatic increases over time.  But without employer tax incentives to establish and maintain plans in the first place, the best guess is that there would simply be fewer plans in which to auto-enroll or to auto-escalate, and fewer employees prepared for retirement. 

Retirement Industry Hopes to Avoid Another “1986”

Consistent with the behavior in Washington D.C. these days, lawmakers labored into the final hours of 2012, and early hours of 2013, to complete legislation to avert the so-called “fiscal cliff.”  That legislation, the American Taxpayer Relief Act (ATRA), temporarily avoided mandatory cutbacks in federal spending, preserved lower income tax rates for most Americans, and addressed a multiplicity of other things, including provisions that have a direct impact on IRAs, Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, and designated Roth accounts in employer plans.

But ATRA did not solve the nation’s debt crisis.   Nor did it address the need to find a long-term solution to the imbalance between federal expenditures and tax revenues.  These tasks remain ahead for the 113^th Congress and President Obama.  Unfortunately, there are few signs that the sometimes bitter partisanship that ruled the 2012 congressional session and general election cycle are going away anytime soon. 

Regardless of how the politics of 2013 play out, and however long it takes to resolve, there is virtually no escaping the need to restore some semblance of balance between federal revenues and expenditures.  How that will be done could affect any of a number of taxpayers, and niches in the U.S. economy. 

Among them are retirement and other tax-advantaged savings vehicles, and the American workers and taxpayers who contribute to them.  Some lawmakers and independent policy “wonks” have suggested tax reforms that eliminate or cap itemized tax deductions, including those for IRA and employer sponsored retirement plan contributions.  Others have suggested reducing annual contribution limits; for example, limiting annual retirement plan benefits to the lesser of 20 percent of income, or $20,000.  It’s not unreasonable to expect still other “creative” solutions to find their way into the budget balancing dialogue.

As worthy an ambition as balancing the federal budget is, that goal must be weighed against the long-term, big picture priority of a U.S. workforce able to retire with reasonable financial security.  This is not a selfish goal that benefits only retirees.  Their financial needs and preparedness directly impact the nation as a whole.  It is a matter of their ability to support themselves without dependence on government assistance, and to help drive the U.S. economy through their participation as consumers.  To hinder workers ability to save for their retirement now almost assures that there will be unfavorable economic and fiscal consequences for the nation in the future.

While some seem to believe that Americans will still save without the tax incentives now present in the Internal Revenue Code, those of us who were around in 1986 can point to the Tax Reform Act of 1986 (TRA-86) as an example of what occurs without tax incentives.  Following the significant reduction in IRA deductibility that was the result of TRA-86, the volume of IRA contributions fell dramatically.  From 1986, when the IRA deduction was universal and fully deductible, to 1987 and later years, when deductibility was limited by household income for those participating in an employer plan, we saw regular IRA contributions drop almost immediately by half.  This seems to be a fairly clear-cut example demonstrating that tax incentives do encourage saving, and that without them saving will not occur in many cases.

A big difference between 1986 and 2013 is that the retirement industry is mobilized to defend the presence of retirement saving incentives in the Code.  Many industry voices have already been heard, delivering what I consider to be among the most effective and accurate  arguments, this being that retirement saving results in a delay in the receipt of tax revenue until retirement, not a loss of tax revenue.  Those in Washington need to consider the long term effect savings has and not focus solely on the short term tax revenue impact. 

That said, no one in the industry should be complacent, or confident that there is no real threat to today’s retirement saving model.  Continuing to make our voices heard loud and clear by our congressmen and senators is vital to preserving all workers’ chances for a secure retirement.

Fiscal Cliff Avoided

Some may view it as a belated Christmas present, or an attempt at a New Year’s resolution.  However one characterizes it, Congress finally completed and passed legislation that at least temporarily averts the so-called “fiscal cliff” facing our government.  As this drama was unfolding, most Americans and lawmakers were focused on income tax rates, jobless benefits, payroll tax withholding, and possible cuts to federal entitlement programs.  Pending legislation to extend a long roster of expiring tax provisions was not even part of the dialogue, and both lawmakers and Capitol Hill watchers questioned whether all, or any, of those provisions would be extended at any time in the foreseeable future.  

But, as if to prove that one can never be too sure of what will happen in Congress, an 11^th hour agreement was reached that led both House and Senate to pass—and the president to sign—the American Taxpayer Relief Act of 2012 (ATRA).  As it turned out, this legislation will have a direct impact on IRAs, Coverdell Education Savings Accounts, and employer sponsored retirement plans that allow designated Roth account deferrals.   The IRA qualified charitable distribution (QCD) option has been extended from its December 31, 2011 (yes 2011!) expiration through the 2012 year just passed, and through the remainder of 2013.  It maintains the ability of IRA owners age 70 ½ or older to contribute up to $100,000 tax free to qualifying charities.  This popular and bipartisan-supported option was expected by many to someday be resurrected, but just when was certainly in doubt.  Coverdell Education Savings accounts (ESAs) were set to revert to pre-2001 contribution limits and other provisions that would have made these accounts much less attractive as a means to save for our children’s education.  Thankfully the 2001 enhancements have been made permanent.

The real surprise in ATRA was the provision allowing plan participants to convert any pre-tax amounts in their employer’s 401(k), 403(b) or governmental 457(b) plan to Roth status—via what’s known as an in-plan Roth rollover, or IRR—at any time, if the plan allows Roth deferrals and elects this liberalized provision.  This will allow participants to begin accumulating potentially tax-free assets much sooner than under prior law, which required that such pretax-to-Roth conversions take place only after a participant had satisfied a statutory or regulatory distribution trigger for the type of assets in their accounts.  For example, 401(k) plan deferrals generally are unavailable for distribution before a participant reaches age 59 ½.  As a result, only at age 59 ½, or later, could an IRR of elective deferrals take place.  ATRA changes this and permits an IRR at any time, without the participant having a statutory or regulatory distribution trigger.

It’s clear that lawmakers included this provision in ATRA in the belief that the option would prove popular, and perhaps more important, would generate significant federal tax revenues, since the act of converting a pretax balance to Roth status is a taxable event.  In fact, $12.2 billion in tax revenue over 10 years was the estimate of the Congressional Budget Office.  This revenue was sought as a way to offset the tax revenue cost, or losses, expected of the other provisions of ATRA.  This provision is strikingly similar to earlier legislation that allowed the tax impact of 2010 Roth IRA conversions to be split over 2011 and 2012 tax years, and ultimately raised significant tax revenues in the process. 

It’s almost a certainty that we will see more legislation in 2013 that will have an impact on retirement arrangements.  Aiding the victims of Hurricane Sandy is almost a certainty, with liberalized access to retirement assets a possible result.  There is also the possibility of very fundamental Tax Code restructuring, with consequences we cannot fully predict at this time.

Stay tuned, because in this business it seems that nothing is as constant as change.

A New "Trend" in ERISA Litigation?

Few would argue the point that we live in a society that has become somewhat “lawsuit prone”.  Sometimes it’s a matter of people or entities not wanting to accept responsibility for the decisions they make. At other times it’s greed, with the prospect of exploiting a deep pocket too tempting for some to resist.  And of course, there are plenty of legitimate, justifiable legal actions that complete the mix.

The world of ERISA is no exception to the phenomenon of intensified litigation.  The sum and substance of retirement saving is the accumulation of, if not wealth, at least adequate resources to support a reasonably comfortable lifestyle in retirement.  With retirement plan balances usually being one of the top two largest assets(along with their home) an individual has at retirement time, the stakes are high for all who save through an employer sponsored retirement plan.  As such, more litigation over wrongs or perceived wrongs are the result.      

The spectrum of ERISA lawsuits is as broad as litigation in commerce and society in general.  At times there is out-and-out thievery of workers’ assets, which obviously must be rectified.  At other times there is litigation in the wake of poor judgment, bad luck or just bad timing, typically in investment performance.  When a saver’s assets fail to grow as hoped, or worse yet, they “tank,” to use an unscientific term, more and more the matter ends up in court.

ERISA litigation is characterized by many layers of complexity, including employers, trustees, investment providers, third-party administrators, recordkeepers, accountants and actuaries.  These days, the real hot buttons in ERISA litigation are the fairness and disclosure of fees associated with plan administration and investments, and the propriety of investments offered to plan participants. 

A recent “push” of a hot button was the decision by the U.S. Supreme Court not to hear the case known as Santomenno v. John Hancock Life Insurance Co.  This action lets stand an April 2012 ruling by the 3^rd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, and its effect will be to allow a lawsuit against John Hancock alleging excessive 401(k) plan fees to go forward.

What’s concerning to some about this particular suit is that the plaintiffs sued the service provider, John Hancock, directly, without having exhausted the customary remedies of demanding that the sponsoring employer and/or plan trustee take action, and adding these parties to the lawsuit first.  The Supreme Court in deciding not to hear this case, appears to have given tacit approval to this approach.    

It is probably small comfort that the 3^rd Circuit ruled that the plaintiffs could not also sue under the Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA), because during the course of this lawsuit the lead plaintiffs had divested the investment funds that gave rise to their lawsuit, and technically no longer had standing to sue under that law.  The Supreme Court had been asked to overrule the 3^rd Circuit and allow the plaintiffs to sue under the ICA. 

While it is unclear whether John Hancock will ultimately be found to have charged excessive fees, it does seem clear that entities that provide services and investment products to retirement plans are likely to feel more vulnerable to such litigation; vulnerable at least to having to expend resources to defend themselves against direct litigation before the exhaustion of standard legal remedies.  And it’s hard to avoid the conclusion that their costs will ultimately become the costs of plans and their participants. 

New Proposed Fiduciary Definition Coming

As mentioned in my last blog, one of the things we felt would likely occur with an Obama re-election was that the Department of Labor would re-propose a new definition of fiduciary under ERISA.  Well, it has occurred or at least it appears it is going to.  Almost a week to the day after the election, Assistant Secretary of Labor Phyllis Borzi announced that a proposal to "modernize" this definition has been submitted to the administration for clearance and would be issued in early 2013.  This is definitely a priority item for Ms. Borzi and one she intends to try to sheperd through the regulatory process. 

We don't know yet what it says but Borzi did indicate that the proposal included a "robust" economic analysis related to the impact of the new fiduciary definition.  She went on to indicate that the benefits far outweighed any increased costs associated with the new definition.  If you recall, the DOL indicated that the lack of this economic impact study was what caused them to withdraw the proposed fiduciary definition the first time it was issued.  As I said in the blog issued prior to the election, the DOL had said that the lack of an economic impact study was the reason for the initial withdrawal but  many felt that the bipartisan opposition and political pressure placed on the DOL really was the primary reason the regulation wasn't pushed ahead.  It will be interesting to see what changes, if any, were made to this definition of fiduciary as compared to what was issued in 2010 and if there has been a movement towards alleviating some of the concerns that were raised with the prior proposal.  If what we see is similar to what the DOL did then, there is some concern over what advice, if any, plan participants and IRA accountholders would receive.  Many in the financial industry have indicated that they would not be able to economically provide advice to these individuals if they have to meet ERISA fiduciary standards as specified in that original proposal.   We are waiting to see, with great interest, what this proposal says and what the reaction of both the financial industry and the political establishment will be.  As you can tell, this is an extremely important issue and one that we will continue to follow and comment on.

November Elections Could Enable, or Disable, Retirement Readiness

One recurring theme in our national election system finds the challenger promising to lead the nation in a different direction than the one taken by the incumbent.  Whether this happens can depend on many things, not least of which is the inherent difficulty of “turning the ship” from the direction in which it’s sailing.  But that was the plan from the beginning of our nation.  For the sake of stability, the founding fathers created a governing system that—by its nature—is difficult to rapidly or radically change.  This has become even more evident in recent times, with a highly polarized Congress, which is a reflection of a very polarized electorate. 

Nevertheless, the coming presidential and congressional elections could put the retirement industry on any of several paths, each leading to a different place.  Some are predicting that the post-election period could resemble 1986, the year that the Tax Reform Act of 1986 brought about very significant changes to employer plans and IRAs.  Now, as then, one of the driving forces behind reform is a move towards balancing the federal budget.  In other words moving towards a place where tax revenues equal or outpace federal spending.

On a regulatory level, if president Obama wins another term as president, and we retain the same leaders in our regulatory agencies, many feel we will see a more aggressive regulatory approach than under Mitt Romney.   One of the regulatory issues that stands front-and-center is the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA) definition of fiduciary for retirement plan purposes.  EBSA proposed regulations defining fiduciary status were withdrawn in September, 2011, amid great industry and political opposition, to the great relief to many. 

Of special concern is defining fiduciary status and standards not only for employer plans, where fiduciary protocols are well-established, but for IRAs as well.  Applying the same definition to IRAs could, many fear, lead to an unwillingness of financial professionals to work with IRA owners in need of investment guidance, especially those with smaller balances.  Perhaps, in the opinion of some, the IRA owners who need it most.  If this proves to be the result, such savers would be less likely to receive the guidance they need to adequately prepare for retirement.  Some have asked why EBSA should even be considered to have regulatory authority over IRAs.

Few interpret EBSA’s withdrawal of proposed fiduciary definition regulations in 2011 as motivated by a desire to recast them as “kinder and gentler.”  Many feel that only a technicality caused them to be withdrawn, EBSA not having done an adequate job of estimating and disclosing the time and cost of compliance.  Still others interpreted the withdrawal as temporarily defusing opposition from an engaged and mobilized retirement industry and the related political pressure. 

If the present administration and EBSA leadership remain in place, without the same need to be concerned about the 2016 election, some feel there will be little inclination on the part of EBSA to show flexibility and forbearance.  Conversely, much of the political rhetoric during the Republican primary season, and from Republican candidates during the presidential and congressional campaigns, has advocated reduced regulatory burdens on business.  It is hard to imagine EBSA under a Romney administration being as aggressive in its regulation of retirement arrangements.  This is not an endorsement, but a carefully considered observation.

Potentially more game-changing than regulatory philosophy, is possible congressional action to reform the Internal Revenue Code.   There is strong sentiment that the Code is too complex, and needs to be simplified.  There is also a desire, chiefly on the part of fiscal conservatives, to reduce tax rates for individuals and businesses.  For this to be accomplished, it will be necessary to either curb federal expenditures, or to accomplish real economic growth that increases gross tax revenues, despite lower tax rates.  Or, some combination of both.

If reducing federal tax expenditures is pursued, some popular tax exemptions and deductions are likely to be prime candidates for limitation, potentially even outright elimination.  Some in Congress feel that the Tax Code should not favor certain kinds of behavior by providing tax breaks to encourage it.  Such popular tax deductions as home mortgage interest, charitable contributions, and retirement and education savings, fall into this category, as does the exemption for employer-provided health care benefits. 

Some in Congress would eliminate all such tax deductions and exemptions in favor of a “pure” Tax Code.  Others would preserve some of the more popular tax breaks; mortgage interest, charitable giving and retirement saving have all been mentioned as possible carve-outs that might be preserved in a reformed Tax Code. 

Interestingly, both presidential candidates have advocated positions that could limit tax-favored saving opportunities now available to American taxpayers.  President Obama, in a budget proposal released in February of this year, recommended setting an upper limit of 28 percent on the tax savings for deductions and exclusions, including those associated with retirement savings.  For example, a taxpayer whose marginal tax rate is 35%, would—under current law—recover 35 cents for every dollar of tax deductions or exclusions.  But under the president’s recapture principle, such tax benefits could not be greater than 28%, even for those in higher taxing brackets.

For his part, Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney recently provided details on a tax cut plan that would cap annual itemized income tax deductions at $17,000, not including employer-provided health care benefits.  Depending on the mix of income tax deductions a taxpayer qualifies for, it is not difficult to imagine this $17,000 cap requiring a taxpayer to have to choose between a retirement savings contribution and an alternate tax deduction.

Still other economic policy "experts" have proposed such things as limiting annual retirement contributions to the lesser of $20,000, or 20% of income, which could greatly limit the contributions of savers attempting to maximize their retirement savings.  At the other end of the spectrum, there have also been proposals to establish automatic IRAs, as well as to create a mandatory auto-enrollment retirement plan with guaranteed payouts, something akin to a public/private partnership in a hybrid defined contribution/defined benefit plan.  We believe that a mandatory automatic IRA plan for employers who don't currently have a plan in place is very likely to be proposed under an Obama administration and something similar, but possibly without the "mandatory" aspect likely under Romney. 

Then, too, there are those in Congress and positions of influence who believe that America’s retirement saving mechanisms must be preserved despite federal budget woes, in order to avoid impoverishing millions of retirees in the future.  They contend that the present retirement system, particularly the 401(k) environment, is sound, needing at most fine-tuning, rather than a major overhaul. 

Preservation, limitation, elimination, all are words that could potentially have relevance in the post-election retirement savings world.  It’s up to the voices in our industry to make sure that elected officials and policymakers hear, in no uncertain terms, how critical it is that Americans continue to have meaningful opportunities to save for retirement; no matter which side of the political aisle those decision makers sit on.

Separate and Un-Equal Treatment for IRA and Employer Plan Documents

One of the core principles of retirement plan administration is that, wherever discretion is allowed, policies and procedures are to be applied “in a uniform and nondiscriminatory manner.”  Equal treatment is another way to put it; and you would be hard-put to find an IRS auditor or DOL examiner who would not echo this sentiment. 

We find it interesting, then, that there is such an obvious and perhaps illogical difference between the IRS’s approach to qualified retirement plan vs. IRA documents?  We have a tightly regulated, predictable, six-year cycle for the updating of documents and restatement of pre-approved qualified retirement plans.  We also may have numerous interim amendments during the normal six-year cycle.  The purpose of this regimen is to make sure that plan administrators, participants, and beneficiaries know the provisions under which a plan operates.   The last plan restatement cycle for EGTRRA began in 2006, and another for the PPA document is well underway.  Document compliance and consistency with the most up to date rules is not left to chance in the qualified plan world.

In contrast, it has been a decade since revised, up-to-date IRA model documents have been drafted and issued by the IRS.  During this time there have been seven significant pieces of legislation with IRA implications, and numerous items of interpretive guidance issued.  These changes affect such things as required minimum distributions (RMDs), Roth IRA conversions, rollovers from employer plans to IRAs, special options for military reservists and victims of natural disasters, transfers from IRAs to health savings accounts (HSAs), and more. 

In December of 2009, the IRS’s web site forms-release schedule targeted January, 2010, for issuance of updated model IRA forms.  At that time, statements from the IRS indicated that the actual redrafting of these model forms had been completed, and they were awaiting clearance from higher levels within the agency before being released.   Two and one-half years later, the model forms have not been issued, and the IRS has withdrawn the forms from its release schedule.

The IRA forms guidance that has been received arrived in June of 2010, when the IRS issued updated listing-of-required-modification (LRM) language for Traditional, Roth and SIMPLE IRAs.  LRM is a acronym for the “boilerplate” language that is used, either verbatim, or similar enough that it is identical in meaning, when forms drafters craft their own IRA documents.  These LRMs contain significant changes from the prior governing LRMs, two examples being requirements associated with beneficiary IRAs, and rollovers from employer plans to Roth IRAs.

Yet despite the numerous changes for law and guidance, and the new LRMs, the IRS surprisingly issued the ambiguous directive—in Revenue Procedure 2010-48—that prototype IRA documents DID NOT have to be revised in order for an IRA owner to take advantage of the law changes reflected in the new LRMs.  If IRA prototype drafters updated their documents only for the changes described therein, the IRS indicated that application for new opinion letters was not needed.

Finally, the IRS concluded Rev. Proc. 2010-48 ambiguously.  After stating that “The Service expects to issue revised model IRAs shortly,” it states that “use of the new models is not required,” but that “the Service recommends adoption of the latest model IRAs.”  With all the changes that have occurred in the decade since the last IRA model forms issuance, in 2002, it seems incomprehensible to advise that new and up-to-date IRA documents—whenever these finally do appear—would not be mandated, but merely recommended.

Some IRA document providers, like Ascensus, have during this past decade,  voluntarily redrafted their IRA prototype and model-based IRA agreements to better align them with current law and guidance, as well as providing amended “plain English” disclosure statements to reflect new requirements. 

The extremely long drought in release of new model IRA documents, combined with the lack of any IRS roadmap to IRA document consistency, has left the industry with a patchwork of IRA documents that varies greatly between custodians, trustees and issuers.  This approach to IRA document compliance isn’t accepted in the qualified plan world.  We wonder why the IRS not been equally concerned and diligent with IRAs?  Especially when we see the rapid growth in IRA deposits and increased regulatory scrutiny related to IRAs for things such as defining fiduciaries and providing investment advice.   It will be interesting to see where the IRS goes with the IRA amendment process.