Record Retention under SOX

Parker Poe has an article on record retention under SOX: "Sarbanes-Oxley and Corporate Record Retention Policies: Is the Shredder Obsolete?" Quote of Note: What may come as a surprise . . .is the severity of sanctions document shredders may face:…

Parker Poe has an article on record retention under SOX: “Sarbanes-Oxley and Corporate Record Retention Policies: Is the Shredder Obsolete?” Quote of Note:

What may come as a surprise . . .is the severity of sanctions document shredders may face: a fine, imprisonment of up to 20 years, or both. . . Prudent companies should implement or revise their existing record retention policies so as to allow the intentional destruction of documents in the ordinary course of business when there is no hint of legal, regulatory or business impropriety. As soon as any potential problem appears on the horizon, the destruction of documents should immediately cease.”

Plan Fiduciaries: Navigating the Rough Waters of the Mutual Fund Investigations

With the New York Attorney General, the SEC, and a number of other regulatory agencies investigating mutual funds for improper trading practices, many executives, human resource professionals, and other individuals who serve on retirement plan committees and/or who are involved…

With the New York Attorney General, the SEC, and a number of other regulatory agencies investigating mutual funds for improper trading practices, many executives, human resource professionals, and other individuals who serve on retirement plan committees and/or who are involved in communicating benefits to employees have concerns about their obligations under ERISA. Fresh on everyone’s mind are the Enron and WorldCom decisions in which executives and HR professionals were alleged to have violated ERISA through their inaction and lethargy in the face of corporate scandals. In addition, as the news brings more and more evidence of improper mutual fund practices to light, the mere job of keeping track of the different funds implicated is challenging in itself and has been likened to “trying to stop a dam from bursting by using your fingers to fill the holes.”

The selection of a mutual fund as an option for investment in a 401(k) plan subjects those who are responsible for making the selection to ERISA’s fiduciary standards. Those who serve as ERISA fiduciaries must monitor the mutual funds offered to participants on a continuing basis and determine whether or not they remain suitable investment options for participants. In connection with these fiduciary standards, the Department of Labor (which is in charge of ERISA enforcement) recently made the following comments about the mutual fund scandals:

What should plan fiduciaries do in light of the allegations? ERISA requires that plan investment decisions, including the selection of mutual funds, must be prudent and solely in the interest of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries. Allegations of improper mutual fund practices where a plan is invested must be factored into the fiduciary’s determination of the continuing appropriateness of that investment. . . .We expect that fiduciaries will be attentive to activities that materially affect the plan’s investment in the mutual fund or expose the plan to additional risk. . .[We] hope that the issues raised by Enron and similar cases have focused corporate officials on the important role fiduciaries play in protecting plan participants and has provided a necessary wake up call for people to take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously.

In light of recent events, those individuals who serve on retirement plan committees involved in monitoring investments of retirement plans (401(k) and the like) should consider taking the following steps:

Plan fiduciaries should obtain information and stay on top of what is happening with respect to the mutual fund companies in their 401(k) plan line-up. While the New York Attorney General and the SEC have been investigating mutual fund practices, plan fiduciaries should be proceeding with their own independent investigation as well. In order to take appropriate action such as removing funds from a plan’s line-up, fiduciaries should gather accurate information about a mutual fund’s involvement in the current investigation. This would include seeking and keeping track of information from various news sources, from consultants who advise the plan, and most importantly from the fund managers themselves. Many plan fiduciaries have already sent letters to all of their investment providers (even those not implicated) asking that a checklist of information be completed by them in order for the fiduciaries to be able to prudently monitor the provider’s status and involvement in the mutual fund scrutiny. Included in this checklist would be such questions as to whether or not the mutual fund complex represented in the plan has been implicated in market timing or late trading as well as what procedures the mutual fund has in place to prevent such practices.

Plan fiduciaries should analyze information and evaluate alternatives. It is apparent that, of the mutual funds under scrutiny, not all are engaged in the same level of activity as others and that different levels of involvement would require that different actions be taken with respect to the various mutual funds implicated. Here are a few of the questions that plan fiduciaries may want to consider in evaluating their mutual fund providers who have been involved in market timing or late trading:

  • Does it appear that only a few individuals were involved in the improper behavior without the knowledge or consent of management?
  • Does it appear that the improper conduct occurred at the management level of the company or was it condoned by management?
  • Have or will criminal allegations be brought?

In addition, plan fiduciaries should weigh the risks of different alternatives. For instance, are asset values of the plan or participant accounts at risk? Could enough investors begin to withdraw their money so that returns could be affected?

The investment policy statement can also be very helpful in evaluating the information collected and determining whether or not fund offerings continue to meet the standards set forth in the investment policy statement.

Plan fiduciaries should act prudently based on available information and in accordance with applicable laws. Plan fiduciaries should not “act in a vacuum” without considering the following legal constraints:

  • Plan fiduciaries must act “solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries.” (ERISA section 404(a)(1))
  • Plan fiduciaries must act in accordance with provisions of the plan documents. (ERISA section 404(a)(1)(D))
  • Plan fiduciaries should act in accordance with the plan’s investment policy statement.
  • Plan fiduciaries must act in accordance with any applicable laws, i.e. ERISA, Sarbanes-Oxley, state law (with respect to public plans), etc.

Plan fiduciaries should also consider the following courses of action with respect to an implicated mutual fund offering, depending on the information gathered and the results of the analysis performed:

  • Plan fiduciaries may decide to continue to provide the same mutual fund investment offerings with ongoing monitoring.
  • Plan fiduciaries may decide to place funds on a special “watch” status and wait for further developments.
  • Plan fiduciaries may decide to remove certain mutual fund investment options and replace them with other options.

Plan fiduciaries should communicate with participants and beneficiaries where necessary and appropriate. Recent developments in the law have further emphasized the principle that participants and beneficiaries need to be informed on an ongoing basis of any material information which would affect participants’ and beneficiaries’ interests in the plan. In the wake of mutual fund scandals, plan fiduciaries including HR professionals who communicate benefits to participants will be faced with difficult decisions regarding their disclosure obligations to plan participants, particularly if the plan is a 401(k) plan where participants direct their own investments. These individuals must determine whether or not prudence requires them to disclose to participants that a fund’s manager is under investigation and what steps the fiduciaries are taking in response to the allegations. They must also decide whether or not prudence requires them to issue a communication to all participants or to simply respond to individual inquiries. Many of these questions should be answered with the help of legal counsel who has been apprised of all of the pertinent facts and circumstances. Certainly if funds are removed and new ones offered, section 404(c) of ERISA would require participants to receive reasonable advance notice of such changes. However, the replacement of a fund would not constitute a “blackout period” requiring a Sarbanes-Oxley type advance notice, according to language in the preamble to regulations finalized by the DOL this year, unless the replacement constituted a “temporary” replacement, or unless in connection with implementing a permanent replacement, some rights would be temporarily suspended, limited or restricted.

Additional Note to Fiduciaries:

Document, document, document! It is important that all aspects of the prudent processes described above be fully and carefully documented. Plan fiduciaries should keep communication logs, recording relevant information that has been considered, and should document the decisions made and the decision-making process through preparation of minutes of their plan fiduciary meetings.

Plan Committees should meet frequently as needed. In addition, while retirement plan committees may normally meet on a quarterly basis, the current mutual fund scrutiny will likely require more frequent meetings otherwise known as “special meetings” to be called and attended by plan fiduciaries. In the recent Enron decision, the judge mentioned the lack of frequent meetings by plan committee members as one indication that fiduciaries may not have met their fiduciary standards under ERISA.

HIPAA and Flexible Spending Accounts

The Boston Business Journal has an article discussing practical aspects of changing FSAs to permit coverage of over-the-counter ("OTC") drugs (as is now permitted by IRS rules): "HIPAA raises administrative concerns surrounding FSAs: Legal compliance is an issue under new…

The Boston Business Journal has an article discussing practical aspects of changing FSAs to permit coverage of over-the-counter (“OTC”) drugs (as is now permitted by IRS rules): “HIPAA raises administrative concerns surrounding FSAs: Legal compliance is an issue under new law governing portability.” The article notes how adding the OTC benefit can lead to HIPAA compliance issues:

For instance, IRS requirements dictate that employees must provide a written statement or receipt from the drug store, pharmacy or other retailer that states, among other things, that a medical expense was incurred and identifies the drug purchased.

In contrast, if the FSA limits drug coverage to prescription drugs, the employer must do little more than ensure that the employee has been billed for a prescription drug; only in rare instances would the employer need to know the name of the prescription.

This last point illustrates the likelihood that the employer will require confidential medical information to decide a claim for OTC drug benefits and, therefore, be subject to the HIPAA privacy rules.

You can access previous posts on IRS Revenue Ruling 2003-102 and FSA coverage of OTC drugs here.

Of Blogs and Blog Addictions

I mentioned some time ago that Workforce magazine had done an article featuring workforce-related blogs and that the article had featured Benefitsblog. You can now access the article via LookSmart: "They came from the Internet: workforce-centric "blogs" proliferate; experts, kibitzers…

I mentioned some time ago that Workforce magazine had done an article featuring workforce-related blogs and that the article had featured Benefitsblog. You can now access the article via LookSmart: “They came from the Internet: workforce-centric “blogs” proliferate; experts, kibitzers add value–and their own two cents’ worth.(Out front: news & trends in workforce management).” (Correction to the article: Three teens, not two.)

When I discovered that you could access the article via LookSmart, I got a pleasant surprise exploring the LookSmart website which is an excellent resource for information on various topics. I especially liked this article which I found on blogs by Mary Ellen Bates: “Blogs: my new addiction.(online spotlight).” Quote of Note: “I remember discovering Weblogs back in 1999. “Hmmm,” I thought . . . Fast-forward to 2003. I’m hooked. I spend more time on blogs than I do on e-mail lists, and if I don’t set a limit, I could spend all day reading blogs. As a side note, the Google Toolbar version 2.0–still in beta at press time–should probably be classified as a Schedule I controlled substance.”

Adding Some Pertinent Law Links

Since I regularly link to different sections of the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA here at Benefitsblog, I have added a "Pertinent Laws" Section of links over on the right (scroll down) so I won't have to waste time hunting…

Since I regularly link to different sections of the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA here at Benefitsblog, I have added a “Pertinent Laws” Section of links over on the right (scroll down) so I won’t have to waste time hunting for them any more. I will be adding to the list from time to time as we go along here. (And, no, my inclusion of these links here is not a tactical ploy to get my website to appear in the Google search engine under every section of the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA.) For more links useful to benefits and ERISA, visit Benefitslink.com and access Dave Baker’s fabulous outline entitled “Using the Web for Employee Benefits Research” which contains links to nearly every resource available.

The links to Pertinent Laws are as follows. Most are via the Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School. Hope you find them useful as well.

ERISA:

Part I, Reporting and Disclosure
Part II, Participation and Vesting
Part III, Funding
Part IV, Fiduciary Responsibility
Part V, Administration and Enforcement
Part VI, Continuation Coverage and Additional Standards for Group Health Plans
Part VII, Group Health Plan Requirements
Plan Termination Insurance Provisions

Internal Revenue Code:

PART I – PENSION, PROFIT-SHARING, STOCK BONUS PLANS, ETC.
Subpart A – General Rule
Sec 401 -Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans
Sec. 402. – Taxability of beneficiary of employees’ trust
Sec. 403. – Taxation of employee annuities
Sec. 404. – Deduction for contributions of an employer to an employees’ trust or annuity plan and compensation under a deferred-payment plan
Sec. 404A. – Deduction for certain foreign deferred compensation plans
Sec. 407. – Certain employees of domestic subsidiaries engaged in business outside the United States
Sec. 408. – Individual retirement accounts
Sec. 408A. – Roth IRAs
Sec. 409. – Qualifications for tax credit employee stock ownership plans
Subpart A – General Rule
Sec. 410. – Minimum participation standards
Sec. 411. – Minimum vesting standards
Sec. 412. – Minimum funding standards
Sec. 413. – Collectively bargained plans, etc.
Sec. 414. – Definitions and special rules
Sec. 415. – Limitations on benefits and contribution under qualified plans
Sec. 416. – Special rules for top-heavy plans
Sec. 417. – Definitions and special rules for purposes of minimum survivor annuity requirements
Subpart C – Special Rules for Multiemployer Plan
Subpart D – Treatment of Welfare Benefit Funds
Sec. 419. – Treatment of funded welfare benefit plans
Sec. 419A. – Qualified asset account; limitation on additions to account
Subpart E – Treatment of Transfers to Retiree Health Accounts
Sec. 420. Transfers of excess pension assets to retiree health accounts

PART II – CERTAIN STOCK OPTIONS

Regulations:
DOL Regulations
PBGC Regulations
Treasury Regulations

Adding Some Law Links

Since I regularly link to different sections of the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA here at Benefitsblog, I have added a "Pertinent Laws" Section of links over on the right (scroll down) so I won't have to waste time hunting…

Since I regularly link to different sections of the Internal Revenue Code and ERISA here at Benefitsblog, I have added a “Pertinent Laws” Section of links over on the right (scroll down) so I won’t have to waste time hunting for them any more. I hope that you find the Section of links useful as well. The links are as follows:

ERISA:

Part I, Reporting and Disclosure
Part II, Participation and Vesting
Part III, Funding
Part IV, Fiduciary Responsibility
Part V, Administration and Enforcement
Part VI, Continuation Coverage and Additional Standards for Group Health Plans
Part VII, Group Health Plan Requirements
Plan Termination Insurance Provisions

Internal Revenue Code:

PART I – PENSION, PROFIT-SHARING, STOCK BONUS PLANS, ETC.
Subpart A – General Rule
Sec 401 -Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans
Sec. 402. – Taxability of beneficiary of employees’ trust
Sec. 403. – Taxation of employee annuities
Sec. 404. – Deduction for contributions of an employer to an employees’ trust or annuity plan and compensation under a deferred-payment plan
Sec. 404A. – Deduction for certain foreign deferred compensation plans
Sec. 407. – Certain employees of domestic subsidiaries engaged in business outside the United States
Sec. 408. – Individual retirement accounts
Sec. 408A. – Roth IRAs
Sec. 409. – Qualifications for tax credit employee stock ownership plans
Subpart A – General Rule
Sec. 410. – Minimum participation standards
Sec. 411. – Minimum vesting standards
Sec. 412. – Minimum funding standards
Sec. 413. – Collectively bargained plans, etc.
Sec. 414. – Definitions and special rules
Sec. 415. – Limitations on benefits and contribution under qualified plans
Sec. 416. – Special rules for top-heavy plans
Sec. 417. – Definitions and special rules for purposes of minimum survivor annuity requirements
Subpart C – Special Rules for Multiemployer Plan
Subpart D – Treatment of Welfare Benefit Funds
Sec. 419. – Treatment of funded welfare benefit plans
Sec. 419A. – Qualified asset account; limitation on additions to account
Subpart E – Treatment of Transfers to Retiree Health Accounts
Sec. 420. Transfers of excess pension assets to retiree health accounts

PART II – CERTAIN STOCK OPTIONS

Regulations:

DOL Regulations
PBGC Regulations
Treasury Regulations

Plan Fiduciaries: Navigating the Rough Waters of the Mutual Fund Investigations

With the New York Attorney General, the SEC, and a number of other regulatory agencies investigating mutual funds for improper trading practices, many executives, human resource professionals, and other individuals who serve on retirement plan committees and/or who are involved…

With the New York Attorney General, the SEC, and a number of other regulatory agencies investigating mutual funds for improper trading practices, many executives, human resource professionals, and other individuals who serve on retirement plan committees and/or who are involved in communicating benefits to employees have concerns about their obligations under ERISA. Fresh on everyone’s mind are the Enron and WorldCom decisions in which executives and HR professionals were alleged to have violated ERISA through their inaction and lethargy in the face of corporate scandals. In addition, as the news brings more and more evidence of improper mutual fund practices to light, the mere job of keeping track of the different funds implicated is challenging in itself and has been likened to “trying to stop a dam from bursting by using your fingers to fill the holes.”

The selection of a mutual fund as an option for investment in a 401(k) plan subjects those who are responsible for making the selection to ERISA’s fiduciary standards. Those who serve as ERISA fiduciaries must monitor the mutual funds offered to participants on a continuing basis and determine whether or not they remain suitable investment options for participants. In connection with these fiduciary standards, the Department of Labor (which is in charge of ERISA enforcement) recently made the following comments about the mutual fund scandals:

What should plan fiduciaries do in light of the allegations? ERISA requires that plan investment decisions, including the selection of mutual funds, must be prudent and solely in the interest of the plan’s participants and beneficiaries. Allegations of improper mutual fund practices where a plan is invested must be factored into the fiduciary’s determination of the continuing appropriateness of that investment. . . .We expect that fiduciaries will be attentive to activities that materially affect the plan’s investment in the mutual fund or expose the plan to additional risk. . .[We] hope that the issues raised by Enron and similar cases have focused corporate officials on the important role fiduciaries play in protecting plan participants and has provided a necessary wake up call for people to take their fiduciary responsibilities seriously.

In light of recent events, those individuals who serve on retirement plan committees involved in monitoring investments of retirement plans (401(k) and the like) should consider taking the following steps:

Plan fiduciaries should obtain information and stay on top of what is happening with respect to the mutual fund companies in their 401(k) plan line-up. While the New York Attorney General and the SEC have been investigating mutual fund practices, plan fiduciaries should be proceeding with their own independent investigation as well. In order to take appropriate action such as removing funds from a plan’s line-up, fiduciaries should gather accurate information about a mutual fund’s involvement in the current investigation. This would include seeking and keeping track of information from various news sources, from consultants who advise the plan, and most importantly from the fund managers themselves. Many plan fiduciaries have already sent letters to all of their investment providers (even those not implicated) asking that a checklist of information be completed by them in order for the fiduciaries to be able to prudently monitor the provider’s status and involvement in the mutual fund scrutiny. Included in this checklist would be such questions as to whether or not the mutual fund complex represented in the plan has been implicated in market timing or late trading as well as what procedures the mutual fund has in place to prevent such practices.

Plan fiduciaries should analyze information and evaluate alternatives. It is apparent that, of the mutual funds under scrutiny, not all are engaged in the same level of activity as others and that different levels of involvement would require that different actions be taken with respect to the various mutual funds implicated. Here are a few of the questions that plan fiduciaries may want to consider in evaluating their mutual fund providers who have been involved in market timing or late trading:

  • Does it appear that only a few individuals were involved in the improper behavior without the knowledge or consent of management?
  • Does it appear that the improper conduct occurred at the management level of the company or was it condoned by management?
  • Have or will criminal allegations be brought?

In addition, plan fiduciaries should weigh the risks of different alternatives. For instance, are asset values of the plan or participant accounts at risk? Could enough investors begin to withdraw their money so that returns could be affected?

The investment policy statement can also be very helpful in evaluating the information collected and determining whether or not fund offerings continue to meet the standards set forth in the investment policy statement.

Plan fiduciaries should act prudently based on available information and in accordance with applicable laws. Plan fiduciaries should not “act in a vacuum” without considering the following legal constraints:

  • Plan fiduciaries must act “solely in the interest of plan participants and beneficiaries.” (ERISA section 404(a)(1))
  • Plan fiduciaries must act in accordance with provisions of the plan documents. (ERISA section 404(a)(1)(D))
  • Plan fiduciaries should act in accordance with the plan’s investment policy statement.
  • Plan fiduciaries must act in accordance with any applicable laws, i.e. ERISA, Sarbanes-Oxley, state law (with respect to public plans), etc.

Plan fiduciaries should also consider the following courses of action with respect to an implicated mutual fund offering, depending on the information gathered and the results of the analysis performed:

  • Plan fiduciaries may decide to continue to provide the same mutual fund investment offerings with ongoing monitoring.
  • Plan fiduciaries may decide to place funds on a special “watch” status and wait for further developments.
  • Plan fiduciaries may decide to remove certain mutual fund investment options and replace them with other options.

Plan fiduciaries should communicate with participants and beneficiaries where necessary and appropriate. Recent developments in the law have further emphasized the principle that participants and beneficiaries need to be informed on an ongoing basis of any material information which would affect participants’ and beneficiaries’ interests in the plan. In the wake of mutual fund scandals, plan fiduciaries including HR professionals who communicate benefits to participants will be faced with difficult decisions regarding their disclosure obligations to plan participants, particularly if the plan is a 401(k) plan where participants direct their own investments. These individuals must determine whether or not prudence requires them to disclose to participants that a fund’s manager is under investigation and what steps the fiduciaries are taking in response to the allegations. They must also decide whether or not prudence requires them to issue a communication to all participants or to simply respond to individual inquiries. Many of these questions should be answered with the help of legal counsel who has been apprised of all of the pertinent facts and circumstances. Certainly if funds are removed and new ones offered, section 404(c) of ERISA would require participants to receive reasonable advance notice of such changes. However, the replacement of a fund would not constitute a “blackout period” requiring a Sarbanes-Oxley type advance notice, according to language in the preamble to regulations finalized by the DOL this year, unless the replacement constituted a “temporary” replacement, or unless in connection with implementing a permanent replacement, some rights would be temporarily suspended, limited or restricted.

Additional Note to Fiduciaries:

Document, document, document! It is important that all aspects of the prudent processes described above be fully and carefully documented. Plan fiduciaries should keep communication logs, recording relevant information that has been considered, and should document the decisions made and the decision-making process through preparation of minutes of their plan fiduciary meetings.

Plan Committees should meet frequently as needed. In addition, while retirement plan committees may normally meet on a quarterly basis, the current mutual fund scrutiny will likely require more frequent meetings otherwise known as “special meetings” to be called and attended by plan fiduciaries. In the recent Enron decision, the judge mentioned the lack of frequent meetings by plan committee members as one indication that fiduciaries may not have met their fiduciary standards under ERISA.

Humor with my Morning Coffee

Thanks to Mike O'Sullivan at Corp Law Blog for bringing humor to my day so early in the morning relating to this: "The Spotlight Shines on Benefitsblog." You know, if Mike doesn't get fan mail, it is probably because that…

Thanks to Mike O’Sullivan at Corp Law Blog for bringing humor to my day so early in the morning relating to this: “The Spotlight Shines on Benefitsblog.” You know, if Mike doesn’t get fan mail, it is probably because that big law firm of his has so many spam filters, that the fan mail is just not getting through. However, I have to tell you that I have been green with envy over his blog for the following reasons:

  • He started Corp Law Blog about the same time as I started Benefitsblog and has over 700 links to his site as evidenced here.
  • The auspicious Professor Bainbridge links to his blog frequently.
  • His blog is part of TheCorporateCounsel.net Blog City.
  • He has to “grind away” at those Big Law billable hours and still manages to be a very prolific and thoughtful writer.

I am sure Mike has made it into the spotlight as well and is just not letting on. But please send him some fan mail immediately just to make sure he knows how much we appreciate him.

(By the way, regarding the article, I am trying to negotiate with my teenager’s science teacher to see how much money is required for him to take this article down from the bulletin board where it is presently nestled among all of the school sports articles.)

Humor with my Morning Coffee

Thanks to Mike O'Sullivan at Corp Law Blog for bringing humor to my day so early in the morning relating to this: "The Spotlight Shines on Benefitsblog." You know, if Mike doesn't get fan mail, it is probably because that…

Thanks to Mike O’Sullivan at Corp Law Blog for bringing humor to my day so early in the morning relating to this: “The Spotlight Shines on Benefitsblog.” You know, if Mike doesn’t get fan mail, it is probably because that big law firm of his has so many spam filters, that the fan mail is just not getting through. However, I have to tell you that I have been green with envy over his blog for the following reasons:

  • He started Corp Law Blog about the same time as I started Benefitsblog and has over 700 links to his site as evidenced here.
  • The auspicious Professor Bainbridge links to his blog frequently.
  • His blog is part of TheCorporateCounsel.net Blog City.
  • He has to “grind away” at those Big Law billable hours and still manages to be a very prolific and thoughtful writer.

I am sure Mike has made it into the spotlight as well and is just not letting on. But please send him some fan mail immediately just to make sure he knows how much we appreciate him.

(By the way, regarding the article, I am trying to negotiate with my teenager’s science teacher to see how much money is required for him to take this article down from the bulletin board where it is presently nestled among all of the school sports articles.)

Tax Breaks for Savers: Who Benefits?

Thanks to the Tax Guru-Ker$tetter for pointing out this article: "Tax breaks for saving stir debate: Critics say only the wealthy benefit." Regarding the new proposed "lifetime savings accounts," the article quotes Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth,…

Thanks to the Tax Guru-Ker$tetter for pointing out this article: “Tax breaks for saving stir debate: Critics say only the wealthy benefit.” Regarding the new proposed “lifetime savings accounts,” the article quotes Stephen Moore, president of the Club for Growth, an influential group that lobbies for tax cuts, as saying that he has been “in several meetings with the White House in recent weeks … and they are closely contemplating” asking Congress to approve the new [lifetime savings] accounts, even though lawmakers may be reluctant to do so because of deficit concerns.

By the way, who are the wealthy? This website–“The Global Rich List“–gives an enlightening perspective to the whole question.