Occupational pension schemes in Germany

Schulz, Peter

Occupational pension schemes in Germany

Changes in the German landscape of old-age plans, cta model

von Peter Schulz (Autor:in)

BWL - Investition und Finanzierung

Zusammenfassung

Inhaltsangabe:Abstract:
Based on national legislation and past business practices in Germany, this master thesis / management report illustrates a specific German issue of occupational pension schemes by comparing the example of the Cologne-based German subsidiary of INFICON, the company with which I am employed, against INFICONs other subsidiaries in Liechtenstein and in the US.
In the past, it was customary for both national and international companies to provide different kinds of occupational pension schemes for employees as an additional incentive. Unlike US and Swiss companies, German corporations retained the money collected from occupational pension schemes in their companies in order to benefit from these low-cost internal funds instead of investing them in external funds.
Rating aspects, the increasing internationalisation of the capital markets and Basel II are forcing INFICON GmbH to reduce its balance sheet by outsourcing pension reserves. Anglo-Saxon dominated rating agencies, in particular, are still extremely critical about pension reserves and treat them as "real" debt capital. In addition, the EU Regulation 1606/2002 stipulates that as of 2005 all capital market-orientated corporations with registered offices in EU Member States will have to draw up their group statements in accordance with International Accounting Standards.
Furthermore, these long-term contracts (occupational pension schemes based on book reserves, Direktzusage) are increasingly imposing a burden on German companies as human life expectancy has constantly been rising, and business growth rates have been decreasing. Moreover, companies were forced to change their policy because of the pressure resulting from the globalisation of fiscal laws for multinational corporations.
Approach: It is the objective of this master thesis / management report to identify INFICONs business issues with regard to its pension book reserves in view of the common German business practices of the past and their changes in light of the internationalisation of the capital markets and of current legal requirements in Germany and the EU and to draw up appropriate recommendations.
By explaining INFICONs diverse approaches in its subsidiaries in the USA, Liechtenstein and Germany, the unequal treatment of national occupational pension schemes in Germany and in other countries will be demonstrated. For that reason the national retirement systems in Switzerland (which is very similar […]

Leseprobe

Inhaltsverzeichnis

Peter Schulz

Occupational pension schemes in Germany

Changes in the German landscape of old-age plans, cta model

ISBN: 978-3-8366-0523-6

Druck Diplomica® Verlag GmbH, Hamburg, 2007

Zugl. University of East London, London, Großbritannien, MA-Thesis / Master, 2007

Dieses Werk ist urheberrechtlich geschützt. Die dadurch begründeten Rechte,

insbesondere die der Übersetzung, des Nachdrucks, des Vortrags, der Entnahme von

Abbildungen und Tabellen, der Funksendung, der Mikroverfilmung oder der

Vervielfältigung auf anderen Wegen und der Speicherung in Datenverarbeitungsanlagen,

bleiben, auch bei nur auszugsweiser Verwertung, vorbehalten. Eine Vervielfältigung

dieses Werkes oder von Teilen dieses Werkes ist auch im Einzelfall nur in den Grenzen

der gesetzlichen Bestimmungen des Urheberrechtsgesetzes der Bundesrepublik

Deutschland in der jeweils geltenden Fassung zulässig. Sie ist grundsätzlich

vergütungspflichtig. Zuwiderhandlungen unterliegen den Strafbestimmungen des

Urheberrechtes.

Die Wiedergabe von Gebrauchsnamen, Handelsnamen, Warenbezeichnungen usw. in

diesem Werk berechtigt auch ohne besondere Kennzeichnung nicht zu der Annahme,

dass solche Namen im Sinne der Warenzeichen- und Markenschutz-Gesetzgebung als frei

zu betrachten wären und daher von jedermann benutzt werden dürften.

Die Informationen in diesem Werk wurden mit Sorgfalt erarbeitet. Dennoch können

Fehler nicht vollständig ausgeschlossen werden, und die Diplomarbeiten Agentur, die

Autoren oder Übersetzer übernehmen keine juristische Verantwortung oder irgendeine

Haftung für evtl. verbliebene fehlerhafte Angaben und deren Folgen.

http://www.diplom.de, Hamburg 2007

Printed in Germany

Table of Contents

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF FIGURES

III

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS V

INTRODUCTION 1

1.1

Rationale

1.2

Approach

NATIONAL AND OCCUPATIONAL RETIREMENT SYSTEMS

2.1

National Retirement Systems based on the Example of Switzerland, USA and Germany

2.1.1

Switzerland

2.1.2

USA

2.1.3

Germany

2.2

The Treatment of Occupational Pension Schemes in Germany: Five Investment Vehicles 13

2.2.1

Direct Pension Promise/Book Reserve (Direktzusage)

2.2.2

Benefit/Support Fund (Unterstützungskasse)

2.2.3

Direct Insurance (Direktversicherung)

2.2.4

Staff Pension Insurance (Pensionskasse)

2.2.5

Pension Fund (Pensionsfond)

2.3

The Impact of Pension Liabilities on the Financial Statement of a Company

2.3.1

FAS 87 vs. IAS 19 vs. HGB

2.3.2

Basel II

SUMMARY: NATIONAL/OCCUPATIONAL RETIREMENT SYSTEMS

INFICON AND ITS PENSION SYSTEMS

4.1

Introducing INFICON

4.2

INFICON GmbH's Business Issues

4.3

Impact On Financial Performance/Balance Sheet

4.4

Occupational Pension Schemes for INFICON's German Subsidary:

Overview of the Advantages and Disadvantages

4.4.1

Direct Pension Promise / Book Reserve (Direktzusage)

4.4.2

Benefit/Support Fund (Unterstützungskasse)

4.4.3

Direct Insurance (Direktversicherung)

4.4.4

Staff Pension Insurance (Pensionskasse)

4.4.5

Pension Fund (Pensionsfond)

4.5

Occupational Pension Schemes and the Impact on INFICON/Matrix

ASSUMPTION/MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATION

5.1

Outsourcing of Pension Liabilities

5.1.1

Compensation of Pension Obligations

5.1.2

Transfer to a Staff Pension Insurance or to a Direct Insurance

5.1.3

Transfer to a Pension Fund

5.1.4

Transfer to a Contractual Trust Arrangement (CTA)

5.2

Assumption

ANNEX

6.1

Introduction - Survey: best practice in German companies

6.2

Realisation - Survey: best practice in German companies

6.3

Outcome - Survey: best practice in German companies

6.4

Summary - Survey: best practice in German companies

BIBLIOGRAPHY

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS

iii

List of Figures

Figure 2-1: The three pillar system

Figure 2-2: Comparing DB and DC Plans

Figure 2-3: Fragmentation of the five German investment vehicles, status 2004

Figure 4-1: Balance Sheet Impacts, INFICON GmbH, Köln

Figure 6-1: Questionnaire Occupational Pension Schemes English

Figure 6-2: Questionnaire Occupational Pension Schemes German

Figure 6-3 Survey Sample, DAX 30 Companies

Figure 6-4 Survey Sample, "Others" Companies

Figure 6-5: Number of companies that provide an occupational pension scheme

Figure 6-6: Number of companies that outsourced their pension liabilities to an external legal

entity or have dealt with that issue

Figure 6-7: Number of companies that do not see the necessity to deal with the issue of

outsourcing

Figure 6-8: Expected advantages of outsourcing

Figure 6-9: Confirmed benefits of outsourcing

Figure 6-10: Preferred financial vehicles for outsourcing

Figure 6-11: Expected advantages of outsourcing; companies with a CTA solution

Figure 6-12: Confirmed benefits of outsourcing; companies with a CTA solution

Acknowledgements

First and foremost, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my mentor, Prof. Klaus Wirges,

for giving me an opportunity to pursue my MBA-degree under his supervision as a part-time stu-

dent. His valuable advices helped me to structure this report in an early stage. His prompt re-

sponses helped me to determine and plan my tasks. His guidance, insight and knowledge during

the planning, developing and writing phase of this study added considerably to my research ex-

perience.

I would also like to thank INFICON's CEO Dr Ulrich Doebler who recommended to write my

master thesis on this interesting subject. Dr Doebler took time to discuss and exchange opinions

with me; he made it possible for me to work on this project. He encouraged me to move beyond

the theoretical stage and to formulate a final solution implementing a new procedure for the

company.

I would like to express my gratitude to Mr. Aribert Schneider (INFICON's Head of Finance and

Controlling) who offered insight into significant financial figures and provided important sources

of literature.

I would also like to express my sincere thanks to my family, who stood behind me, for their con-

sistent support and patience.

Finally, I would like to give special thanks to those who I have not mentioned here. I am grateful

for all the support and encouragement.

1 Introduction

1.1 Rationale

The following subject reveals a real problematic business issue affecting the Cologne-based

German subsidiary of INFICON, hereinafter called INFICON GmbH, the company with which I

am employed. Based on national legislation and past business practices relating to occupational

pension schemes in Germany, this management report illustrates a specific German issue by

comparing it against INFICON's other subsidiaries in Liechtenstein and in the US.

In the past, it was customary for both national and international companies to provide different

kinds of occupational pension schemes for employees as an additional incentive.Unlike US and

Swiss companies, German corporations retained the money collected from occupational pension

schemes in their companies in order to benefit from these low-cost internal funds instead of in-

vesting them in external funds, ABA (2005).

Rating aspects, the increasing internationalisation of the capital markets and Basel II are forcing

INFICON GmbH to reduce its balance sheet by outsourcing pension reserves. According to

Gerke and Pellens (2003), Anglo-Saxon dominated rating agencies, in particular, are still ex-

tremely critical about pension reserves and treat them as "real" debt capital. In addition, the EU

Regulation 1606/2002 stipulates that as of 2005 all capital market-orientated corporations with

registered offices in EU Member States will have to draw up their group statements in accor-

dance with International Accounting Standards, (European Parliament, 2002).

Furthermore, these long-term contracts (occupational pension schemes based on book reserves)

are increasingly imposing a burden on German companies as human life expectancy has con-

stantly been rising, and business growth rates have been decreasing. Moreover, companies were

forced to change their policy because of the pressure resulting from the globalisation of fiscal

laws for multinational corporations, (ADPC, 2006). Applied to INFICON, this would mean that

the company would become less attractive for potential investors.

1.2 Approach

It is the objective of this management report to identify INFICON's business issues with regard

to its pension book reserves in view of the common German business practices of the past and

their changes in light of the internationalisation of the capital markets and of current legal re-

quirements in Germany and the EU and to draw up appropriate recommendations.

By explaining INFICON's diverse approaches in its subsidiaries in the USA, Liechtenstein and

Germany, the unequal treatment of national occupational pension schemes in Germany and in

other countries will be demonstrated. For that reason the national retirement systems in Switzer-

land (which is very similar to Liechtenstein's system), the US and Germany will be outlined in

chapter 2. Moreover, the five most common German occupational pension scheme vehicles with

regard to the new German Income Tax Act (EStG; Einkommenssteuergesetz) in force since

January 1, 2005 as well as the financial impact of the pension liabilities concerning international

accounting standards (e.g. US-GAAP and IAS) in comparison to the German Commercial Law

HGB (Handelsgesetzbuch) will also be presented. Further effects on financial borrowings (Basel

II) will be discussed. The idea is to point out prevalent national approaches and concepts regard-

ing retirement systems in Germany, Liechtenstein and the USA and to show how these relate to

the issue of occupational pension schemes of INFICON GmbH in order to reveal the differences

and to endorse suitable recommendations that can be applied internationally. A detailed discus-

sion of impact on the German tax regulation has been missed out deliberately. Further actuarial

evaluations and assumptions of pension benefits will not be discussed.

In chapter 3 the main factors of the bibliography research presented in chapter 2 will briefly be

summarized.

The problematic business issues (occupational pension schemes based on book reserves) of

INFICON GmbH will be evaluated and its impact on the financial performance will be demon-

strated in chapter 4. Moreover, alternative vehicles for occupational pension schemes for Ger-

man companies will be analysed in more detail by highlighting the benefits and downsides and

comparing them in a matrix.

A management recommendation will be given in chapter 5, which will be based on different

means of outsourcing pension liabilities. Furthermore, the possibilities of concluding a contrac-

tual trust arrangement (CTA) will be discussed in depth. The realisation process of outsourcing

pension liabilities under German legislation e.g. the German Income Tax Act (EStG), the Com-

mercial Law (HGB) or the Works Council Constitution Act (BetrVG; Betriebsverfassungsgesetz)

will not be subject of this management report.

2 National and Occupational Retirement Systems

This chapter is aimed at pointing out prevalent national approaches and concepts regarding the

retirement systems in Germany, Liechtenstein (similar to Switzerland) and the USA and to out-

line how these relate to the issue of occupational pension schemes of INFICON GmbH in order

to reveal the differences and to develop ideas for solving the problem. Therefore, the major em-

phasis is on national retirement systems in Switzerland, the US and Germany and on the five tra-

ditional occupational pension vehicles in Germany with regard to the new German Income Tax

Act (EStG; Einkommenssteuergesetz) and on the financial impact of pension liabilities with re-

gard to international accounting standards, like US-GAAP and IAS; in comparison to the Ger-

man Commercial Law HGB (Handelsgesetzbuch). Other effects on financial borrowings (Basel

II) will also be discussed.

In order to understand the different approaches to the occupational pension systems in Switzer-

land, the US and Germany, it is at first necessary to explain the history and background of the

individual national retirement systems and to illustrate their significance.

2.1 National Retirement Systems based on the Example of Switzerland, USA and

Germany

Spencer (2005) describes the term "three pillar system" as a concept of shared responsibility for

retirement income. This term is globally used in reference to pensions and has become part of

pension jargon. The three pillars are defined as social security (state benefit), employer-

sponsored pensions (occupational pension) and individual savings for retirement (personal pen-

sion). See Figure 2-1.

Figure 2-1: The three pillar system, source Credit Suisse; 2005

The term was coined in the 70s resulting from a Swiss and a Dutch study on mandatory em-

ployer-sponsored pensions. Switzerland decided in favour of such a system, while the Nether-

lands was not interested. In most of the countries, the first pillar is financed on a pay-as-you-go

(PAYG) basis. The pensions of current retirees are financed by the contributions of active work-

ers.

Given the trend towards early retirement and the worldwide demographic changes (longer life

expectancy and a lower birth rate) the PAYG system has increasingly been facing problems.

According to Harris and Painter (2002) there are many countries around the world, which are

confronted with similar problems. They state that the PAYG system will not be able to cope with

the consequences of aging populaces by 2030. Although this represents a serious issue for all the

countries, each country has its own way to deal with the problem.

2.1.1 Switzerland

Switzerland was the first country to introduce the triple pillar theory, by which supplemental re-

sponsibilities and welfare were spread among the state, the companies and the private individual

to build up retirement income, (Garcia, 2004).

The first pillar: The basic state insurance scheme

According to Switzerland, Just landed (2005), it is mandatory for the Swiss working population

over the age of twenty to contribute to the federal retirement fund for the elderly and for the sur-

vivors (AHV/AVS Alters- und Hinterlassenenversicherung/Altervorsorge). Employers and

employees equally split the contributions, which are directly deducted from the salary. Both par-

ties have to contribute the total of 10.1% to the AHV/AVS social insurance programme.

Com-

pared to Germany, the contributions made to AHV/AVS are comparatively low.

The second pillar: Company pension funds

The occupational benefit plan BVG (Berufliche Vorsorgegesetz) constitutes the second pillar,

which mainly consists of company pension funds, (Switzerland, Just landed, 2005).

According to Harris (2000), in addition to the regulations in two other countries in the world,

Swiss employees have made contributions into this pension fund, which was set up on

1 January 1985 by the compulsory pension legislation BVG. The concept of compulsory occupa-

tional pension plans was adopted in Switzerland following a referendum in 1972. This insurance

is mandatory for all employees with an annual income of between CHF25,320 and CHF75,960,

(Switzerland, Just landed, 2005).

Harris (2000) added another important aspect regarding the BVG in Switzerland. Although the

BVG system is based on a defined contribution (DC) schema, most of the currently paid benefits

exceed these minimum requirements and are created on a defined benefit (DB) basis. Please, re-

fer to the explanations regarding DC and DB in this management report. The BVG system re-

quires that all the pension funds in Switzerland are set up as a separate legal entity, a so called

foundation (similar to a trust company).

The third pillar: Private pension insurance

The third pillar consists of additional individual and non-mandatory retirement plans offering tax

relief. Contributions to these retirement plans are tax deductible and only taxed on payouts, while

the interest on the contributions are not taxed at all, (Switzerland, Just landed, 2005).

Harris (2000) emphasises that the increasing market in this sector reflects a new lifestyle pattern

in Switzerland as a consequence of a changed saving behaviour.

Life insurance companies, for

example, offer these individual private saving and retirement plans, which constitute a small but

sophisticated pillar.

2.1.2 USA

DIW (2005) states that as a matter of course the American pension system also rests on the

above-mentioned three-pillar system: state social security, private pensions and individual sav-

ings. Unlike in Germany, private pension schemes, which comprise "Defined Benefit (DB)

Plans" and "Defined Contribution (DC) 401(k) plans" play a very important role in the US.

These private pension plans, which have been developed over the past 20 years, disburden the

US state budget highly as they already account for one fourth of the total pension income. The

individual private pension plans, the so-called "401(k) plans" enjoy the highest popularity among

employers and employees. According to Drinkwater (2002) retirement plans account for one

fifth of the total retirement income (of the retirees in the US) while social security makes up 38%

of the aggregate income. Retirement plans include payments of 401(k) plans, IRAs and Keoghy

plans.

Private Pensions/Retirement plans:

401(k):

Wikipedia (2005a) explains the 401(k) retirement plan as follows.

The 401(k) is an employer-sponsored qualified retirement saving plan, named after a section of

the 1978 Internal Revenue Code IRC.

"The 401(k) allows individuals to save for their retirement while deferring any immediate in-

come taxes on the money they save or their respective earnings until withdrawn".

The employers, who act as plan trustees, are responsible for the implementation and management

of these plans, including the selection of the adequate investment. Many companies also offer

their employees the possibility of buying company stocks as part of 401(k) plans as an invest-

ment. Ultimately, employees are entitled to split the money among various investment offers.

Some companies use the 401(k) plans as an additional incentive for the employee and pay extra

money into the employee's plan in order to increase the pension benefit.

In the past, defined benefit plans predominated. Nowadays, they are increasingly being replaced

by defined contribution plans. The main differences between defined benefit and defined contri-

bution plans are summarised in Figure 2-2.

Comparing Defined Benefit and Defined Contribution Plans

Defined Benefit

Defined Contribution

Benefits are fixed.

The benefit formula is stated in the plan.

Benefits are not fixed

The contribution formula is stated in the plan.

Benefits are depending on performance of the plan

assets.

Investment risk assumed by plan sponsor.

Investment risk assumed by participant.

Employer's contribution is determined by expected

earnings, mortality, turnover, etc.

Employer's contribution is fixed.

The plan is fully funded and features are reflected

in the account balance.

Payout: annuity at retirement

Payout: Annuity at retirement or lump sum

Death or disability is separated

Figure 2-2: Comparing DB and DC Plans, source Drinkwater, 2002

The main difference between these two concepts is that in defined contribution plans the invest-

ment risk is assumed by the employee by having to determine the required amount of contribu-

tion and to decide on the investment type. In defined benefit plans, it is the plan sponsor (typi-

cally the employer) who has to ensure that the employee will receive the promised benefits when

retiring, Drinkwater (2002).

IRA:

According to Investopedia (2005), the IRA is basically an investment form, either an Individual

Retirement Annuity or an Individual Retirement Account. There are various types if IRAs, like

Roth IRAs, Traditional IRAs, SIMPLE IRAs, etc.

The Answerbag (2005) explains the differences between IRA and 401(k) as follows: The 401(k)

plan is sponsored by the employer, whereas the IRA is almost not linked to the job. The nature of

a 401(k) plan is that the employer contributes to the plan for the employee's benefit. The em-

ployee can elect to contribute a proportion of his/her salary to the plan. These contributions are

not regarded as the employee's taxable income. The IRA is a financial arrangement for individu-

als who prefer to make their own investment decision. One characteristic of this investment

form, which makes it similar to a 401(k) plan, is that the contributions respectively the future fi-

nancial performance benefit from a favourable tax treatment.

Keogh account:

This investment form is designed for self-employed individuals or for owners of incorporated

businesses. This person subgroup can benefit from tax-deferred savings for their retirement,

(TeachMeFinance, 2005).

Individual Savings/Income:

Asset Income:

In 2002, Drinkwater argued that asset income in the US consisted of royalties and income from

estates or trusts, interest, dividends, rents, etc. Moreover, Drinkwater mentioned that although

nearly 60% of the population aged 65 or older received asset income, it only accounted for one

fifth of their total income. Without individual savings in addition to Social Security benefits and

employment-based retirement plans, it is nearly impossible to reach a replacement ratio of

70 to 80% in the US.

2.1.3 Germany

As Natali (2004) points out, the pension system was introduced in 1957 in Germany and has ever

since kept up to the key features. The first pillar is mandatory and consists of the Social Pension

Insurance. The coverage is for employees in the public and private sector and for some self-

employed groups.

It is a wage-related PAYG system.

Spencer's (2005) argument that the current social security pension (1

pillar) of 40 to 45% of the

final gross salary cannot be maintained shows that the German pension system has to be modi-

fied. According to Spencer, the active worker's contribution rate of 19.1% in 2001 will have to

increase to 27% in 2020 without changing benefits. In order to maintain a contribution rate of

below 20% until 2020, the German government was forced to upgrade its outdated pension sys-

tem by reducing the PAYG old-age social security pension.

The government accumulated a small decline from 70% of net (post-tax) wages to a minimum of

67% for the average pensioner for such a 20% fixing of contributions. The Economist (2002)

states that on a like-for-like basis, pension benefits will decline to 64% of net wages, without

adapting a new formula to calculate pension claims.

A new approach was introduced in 2001, the so-called "Riester-Pension" named after Walter Ri-

ester, who at that time was the Secretary of State for Employment and who masterminded the

pension reform. The Riester-Pension was intended as a supplementary and (usually) voluntary

funded pension representing the second pillar of the German pension system. The Riester plan

guarantees that every individual who takes out a certified private pension policy will benefit

from a tax deduction or, if more advantageous, will receive a 100% saving subsidy from the

government in addition to the individual saving amount, irrespective whether it is a private or an

employment-based plan, (Börsch-Supan and Wilke, 2003).

Spencer (2005) explains the Riester plan contributions as follows: Similar to the 401(k) plan in

the US, the Riester plan requires salary sacrifices from all contributing employees. Employees

can elect to defer salary, which is paid as a contribution to a certified funded pension plan. In

2006, contributions of up to 2,520 (4 percent of the income limit for chargeable contributions in

former West Germany, "BMG, Beitragsbemessungsgrenze") were tax-free and no social security

contributions have to be paid for them until 2008.

Critics, like The Economist (2002) dismiss the German reform as too half-heartedly. However,

the transition to the second pillar is increasingly being regarded as a breakthrough. While earlier

reforms were aimed at cutting down the costs of the PAYG system, the Riester reform changed

the entire German pension system to strengthen private funding.

As Schmandt (2004) points out, the new German Income Tax Law (EStG, Einkommenssteuerge-

setz), which has been in force since 1 January 2005, will change the regulations of the Riester

plan. Firstly, the new options for the payment of benefits, for example, enable the beneficiary to

choose between a lifetime annuity and a lump-sum payment of a maximum of 30% of the ac-

crued funds. Secondly, in future unisex tariffs will have to be offered for individual contracts. As

the German insurance industry traditionally uses sex-based mortality tables, this approach is un-

usual and as a consequence, there might be more benefits for women. Thirdly, the new law re-

duces the paperwork for the beneficiary by authorising the pension plan provider to receive the

subsidies in the beneficiary's name.

Natali (2004) explains the third German pillar. The third pillar in Germany, which is privately

funded, is not very widespread, yet. It is voluntary and consists of insurance policies and old-age

pension funds. Tax incentives are only available for certified plans but to a lower extend than

occupational programmes.

2.2 The Treatment of Occupational Pension Schemes in Germany:

Five Investment Vehicles

According to Börsch-Supan and Wilke (2003), the Riester reform failed to support the tradition-

ally weak position of occupational pension schemes in Germany and remained largely pendant

about their role and the role of individual savings.

In contrast, Gohdes and Schmandt (2001) point out that the Riester reform and other legislation

modifications (e.g. Eichel-Reform) have led to broad changes in the German pension landscape.

Below only a few examples of regulations that were adopted between 2001 and 2004 have been

listed.

Riester subsidy/tax relief pursuant to section 10a EStG.

Flat tax rate pursuant to section 40b EStG

Eichel tax relief pursuant to section 3.63 EStG

According to these two authors, the Riester reform will not only strengthen occupational pension

schemes as new vehicles for deferred compensation but it will also entail three crucial new

pieces of legislation that will alter the foundations of employer-financed old age savings. The

first change represents the launch of defined contribution plans (DC) by adapting the tax and la-

bour legislation. As mentioned above, DC plans offer controllable pension costs and are there-

fore very attractive for all companies which cannot or do not want to bear the risk of defined

benefit (DB) plans. The second modification includes changes to the legal vesting requirements,

which improve the transferability of pension benefits. The third change introduces a new invest-

ment vehicle in form of pension funds.

The Income Tax Law (EStG = Einkommenssteuergesetz), which has been in force since

1 January 2005, changed the treatment of contributions paid to externally funded company plans,

as Schmandt (2004) reveals.

The reform (section 3.63 EStG) harmonised the tax conditions of

contributions made to qualified externally funded arrangements, such as staff pension insurances,

pension funds or direct insurances. In conclusion, every employee is entitled to contribute up to

four percent of the income limit for chargeable contributions (Beitragsbemessungsgrenze) plus

1,800 p.a. from its individual salary to contribute to a certified external pension plan. The latter

amount (1,800) will not be indexed and will only be available outside the special provision of

Details

Seiten
Erscheinungsform: Originalausgabe
Erscheinungsjahr: 2007
ISBN (eBook): 9783836605236
DOI: 10.3239/9783836605236
Dateigröße: 2 MB
Sprache: Englisch
Institution / Hochschule: University of East London – East London Business School (ELBS)
Erscheinungsdatum: 2007 (September)
Note: 1
Schlagworte: unternehmen pensionskasse occupational contractual trust arrangement outsourcing balance pensionsverpflichtung
Produktsicherheit: Diplom.de

Autor

Peter Schulz (Autor:in)