|
|  |
 |
 |
New
Accounting Rules for Defined Benefit Pension Plans
By
Kenneth W. Shaw
MARCH 2008 -
Issued in September 2006, Statement of Financial Accounting Standards
(SFAS) 158, Employers’ Accounting for Defined Benefit
Pension and Other Postretirement Plans—An Amendment of FASB
Statements No. 87, 88, 106, and 132(R), significantly changes
the balance-sheet reporting for defined benefit pension plans. Before
SFAS 158, the effects of certain events, such as plan amendments
or actuarial gains and losses, were granted delayed balance-sheet
recognition. As a result, a plan’s funded status (plan assets
minus obligations) was rarely reported on the balance sheet. SFAS
158 requires companies to report their plans’ funded status
as either an asset or a liability on their balance sheets, which
will cause reported pension liabilities to rise significantly. Although
SFAS 158 also applies to postretirement benefit plans other than
pensions and to not-for-profit entities, the focus below is on for-profit
businesses with defined benefit pension plans.
Balance-Sheet
Reporting Under SFAS 158
Under SFAS
87, prepaid or accrued pension cost, which is the net of a firm’s
pension assets, liabilities, and unrecognized amounts, is reported
on the balance sheet. SFAS 158 arguably improves financial reporting
by more clearly communicating the funded status of defined benefit
pension plans. Previously, this information was reported only
in the detailed pension footnotes.
Under SFAS
158, companies with defined benefit pension plans must recognize
the difference between the plan’s projected benefit obligation
and its fair value of plan assets as either an asset or a liability.
The projected benefit obligation is the actuarial present value
of the benefits attributed by the pension plan benefit formula
for services already provided. As a result, the complex and conceptually
unsound “minimum pension liability” rules, which are
used when the accumulated benefit obligation is less than the
fair value of pension plan assets, has been eliminated. (The accumulated
benefit obligation is similar to the projected benefit obligation
but does not include expected future salary increases in the calculation
of the present value of actuarial benefits.) In addition, the
unrecognized prior service costs and actuarial gains and losses
that were previously relegated to the footnotes are now recognized
on the balance sheet, with an offsetting amount in accumulated
other comprehensive income under shareholders’ equity.
Income
Reporting Under SFAS 158
SFAS 158
does not change the computation of periodic pension cost, which
remains a function of service cost, interest cost, expected return
on pension plan assets, and amortization of unrecognized items.
It does, however, impact the reporting of comprehensive income.
Specifically, actuarial gains or losses and prior service costs
that arise during the period are recognized as components of comprehensive
income. In addition, the amortization of actuarial gains or losses,
prior service costs, and transition amounts recognized before
implementing SFAS 158 require a reclassification adjustment to
comprehensive income.
Applying
SFAS 158
Exhibit
1 presents pension footnote data for three companies: Lockheed
Martin, Glatfelter, and AMR Corp. Lockheed Martin represents a
classic example of a scenario SFAS 158 is designed to eliminate:
namely, reporting a pension asset when the pension plan is actually
underfunded. Specifically, Lockheed Martin’s pension obligation
($28,421 million) exceeds its plan assets ($23,432 million), meaning
the plan is underfunded by the difference, $4,989 million. Previously,
Lockheed Martin’s unrecognized net losses and unrecognized
prior service costs (totaling $7,108 million) enabled it to report
a pension asset of $2,119 million ($7,108 – $4,989).
The data
for Glatfelter and AMR in Exhibit 1 indicate other likely scenarios
under SFAS 158. Glatfelter, while overfunded by $155.3 million,
would reduce its reported pension asset by $90 million under SFAS
158. Although AMR currently recognizes a pension liability of
$882 million, SFAS 158 would require AMR to significantly increase
its reported pension liability to $3,225 million.
An
Illustration of the Transition to SFAS 158
The following
example uses the actual 2005 data from Exhibit 1 to illustrate
how each of these companies would record the transition to the
new rules. Because SFAS 158 is generally first effective for fiscal
years ending after December 15, 2006, the actual numbers these
companies record upon transition to SFAS 158 will differ from
those in this example. For simplicity, the illustration ignores
tax effects.
Exhibit 1
shows that each of the three companies reports additional minimum
liabilities and related intangible assets on its balance sheet.
These items are eliminated under SFAS 158. In addition, pension
assets and liabilities and accumulated other comprehensive income
are adjusted so that their ending balances conform to the amounts
required under SFAS 158. The necessary journal entries to accomplish
the transition, using 2005 data, are presented in Exhibit
2.
Exhibit
3 shows the balance-sheet reporting for each company after
posting the entries in Exhibit 2, and exposes several important
points. First, each company reports its funded status as either
a pension asset or liability. Second, the balance in accumulated
other comprehensive income equals the amount of previously unrecognized
items. In this example, and likely for many companies with defined
benefit plans, the amount of this contra-shareholders’ equity
will increase under SFAS 158, even potentially generating negative
shareholders’ equity. The transition to SFAS 158 might impose
costs on leveraged firms due to the increased likelihood of tightening
restrictive debt covenants. Finally, the balance-sheet presentation,
and each company’s funded status, should be easier to understand
after SFAS 158 is implemented.
Subsequent
Application of SFAS 158
SFAS 158
does not impact the amount of periodic pension cost reported on
the income statement, but it does impact the reporting of comprehensive
income. For example, assume that after implementing SFAS 158 Lockheed
Martin were to report the financial results in Exhibit
4. Again, these amounts are for illustrative purposes only.
Exhibit
5 shows the required journal entries. The first entry records
the service cost, interest cost, and expected return on plan assets
components of periodic pension cost. The second entry reclassifies
the amortization items from accumulated other comprehensive income
to periodic pension cost, and the third entry adjusts the pension
liability and accumulated other comprehensive income for the difference
in actual pension returns above expectations during the year.
Tax
effects. For the sake of simplicity, the illustrations
above ignore the effect of taxes on the financial results. In
the real world, however, the application of SFAS 158 requires
companies to account for the temporary differences between the
book and tax bases of pension liabilities. The balance-sheet liability
most businesses will report after SFAS 158 will in turn either
lower their deferred tax liabilities or increase their deferred
tax assets. Companies will have to consider these effects when
assessing the need for and amount of valuation allowances on their
deferred tax assets.
Changes
to Required Disclosures
SFAS 158
retains many of the required pension disclosures in current GAAP.
It eliminates the requirement to reconcile the plan’s funded
status and the amount recognized on the balance sheet (as the
funded status will now be recognized on the balance sheet). SFAS
158 as also eliminates the need to disclose the plan’s measurement
date (as this date now must coincide with the firm’s fiscal
year-end).
Prior to
SFAS 158, companies could measure their pension assets and benefit
obligations at times other than their fiscal year-end. Effective
for fiscal years ending after December 15, 2008, companies must
measure these items as of the date of their fiscal year-end balance
sheet.
Finally,
SFAS 158 expands disclosure of the effects of the pension plan
in other comprehensive income.
Kenneth
W. Shaw, CPA, is an associate professor and the CBIZ/MHM
Scholar in the school of accountancy at the University of Missouri,
Columbia, Mo.
|
|