Single Employer Defined Benefit Plan CARES Act Guidance Issued by IRS

IRS Notice 2020-61 was issued on August 6, 2020, and provides clarification on the relief the CARES Act provided to single employer defined benefit plans. The CARES Act extended the due date of all 2020 calendar year required pension plan contributions to January 1, 2021, and allows the use of the prior year AFTAP certification to avoid benefit restrictions.

Extended Contribution Deadline

Many plan sponsors are considering taking advantage of the extended due date for the 2020 calendar year required contributions. As this option is considered, plan sponsors should be aware of the potential impact on the administration of the plan. IRS Notice 2020-61 has provided additional details regarding the impact to the plan’s administration.

Single Employer Defined Benefit Plan CARES Act Guidance Issued by IRS

Contribution amounts will be increased as a result of the later payment date. The due dates are extended but as required by §430, interest is added at the plan’s effective interest rate until the date the contribution is paid. The CARES Act has waived the additional 5 percentage point penalty for late contributions until the new due date of January 1, 2021. Any contribution made after January 1, 2021 will start to accrue the additional 5 percentage point interest penalty on January 2, 2021 in addition to the effective interest rate.

An amended Form 5500 filing will be required. The only contributions that are allowed to be included in the 5500 filing are those that have already been contributed to the plan as of the filing date, which is October 15th for calendar-year plans. Consequently, if a plan sponsor opts to delay any 2019 contributions, the 5500 contribution will need to be filed omitting those contributions. Once the contributions are made, the 5500 filing will need to be amended in order to avoid any additional penalties that would be triggered on unpaid contribution requirements.

The audit report may need to be updated once the contributions are made in order to match the amended 5500 filing. This should be discussed with the auditor prior to delaying contributions. Some auditors may choose to footnote the audit report either this year or next year in order while other auditors may choose to update the audit report.

The contribution deadline applies to excess contributions in addition to required contributions. For calendar year plans, any contribution made before January 1, 2021 can be applied to the 2019 plan year even if it is made after September 15, 2020. Plan sponsors therefore have additional time to improve the 2020 funded level of the plan. Note, however, as detailed in our earlier article, contributions made after the filing of the PBGC premium payment for 2020 cannot be included to reduce PBGC premiums.

AFTAP certification for 2020 may be lower because any calendar year plan will need an AFTAP certification by September 30, 2020 but such certification can only include contributions made as of the date of certification. Once the contributions are made, the plan can update their certification if it materially changes the funded percentage of the plan. Alternatively, the CARES Act also allows plan sponsors to use their 2019 AFTAP certification for 2020 which is discussed later.

Prefunding Balance elections are also delayed to January 1, 2021. Plan sponsors have until January 1, 2021 to elect to use the Prefunding Balance towards any contribution requirements or to increase the Prefunding Balance with any excess contributions.

Use of Prior AFTAP Certification

A Plan Sponsor may use the prior year AFTAP certification for any plan year occurring in 2020. This will help keep plans from falling into benefit restrictions as a result of a lower 2020 AFTAP certification.

The election can be used for a 2019 plan year if it ends in 2020. Any plan that has a plan year that ends in 2020, can opt to use the prior year’s AFTAP as long as that prior year ends on or before December 31, 2019.  For example, a July 1, 2019 plan year that ends June 30, 2020 can use the July 1, 2018 AFTAP for 2019. The same AFTAP can also then be used for the plan year beginning July 1, 2020.

Plan Sponsors must make the election by notifying their plan actuary and plan administrator in writing. The process to make such an election is similar to the elections made regarding the plan’s credit balances. The certification is deemed to be made on the day the Plan Sponsor makes the election. An attachment should then be included with the applicable Schedule SB indicating such an election has been made.

Election by the Plan Sponsor is a recertification if the actuary had already certified the AFTAP. Therefore the election would be applicable from the date of the election forward. The actuary cannot certify the AFTAP after an election unless the Plan Sponsor revokes their election in writing.

Presumptive AFTAP for the following year is based on the actual AFTAP instead of the plan sponsor’s election. Therefore for any calendar year plan, the 2021 presumed AFTAP as of April 1, 2021 would be the actual 2020 AFTAP less 10% ignoring the participant’s election to use the 2019 AFTAP for 2020.

There are many administrative hurdles that should be considered before choosing to elect any of the options provided in the CARES Act.  However, for plan sponsors that need the relief, these are several strategies you can employ. For more information regarding this notice and its effects on single employer defined benefit plans, contact Amy Gentile in the form below.

Published August 12, 2020

Print this article

Copyright © 2020 by Findley, Inc. All rights reserved.

Three Compelling Reasons to Consider Pension Plan Mergers

If you have more than one pension plan you are administering, consider a pension plan merger to potentially reduce plan administrative, Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC), and future plan termination fees. Sound too good to be true? Read on.

While the total number of pension plans may have dwindled over the past few decades, several companies still sponsor not only one, but multiple pension plans for participants within their organization. Most typically this is the result of a decision made years ago when the retirement plans were created or acquired – either to intentionally separate participants with different benefit formulas such as Hourly Plans for union employees earning a service related benefit, Salaried Plans for employees earning a pay related benefit, or as a result of an acquisition where the plans benefitting employees are not original employees of the parent company.

While there may have been reason to keep the plans separate in the past, it might be time to reevaluate and consider whether a pension plan merger might be beneficial.

“It might be time to reevaluate and consider whether a pension plan merger might be beneficial.”

What is a Pension Plan Merger?

A pension plan merger is the consolidation of one or more pension plans into a single, previously existing pension plan. 

Consider Company X who maintains 3 pension plans: 

  • Plan A benefits all Hourly, union employees
  • Plan B benefits all Salaried employees
  • Plan C benefits all participants acquired by Company Y

A pension plan merger is the transfer of all retirement plan assets and liabilities from Plans A and/or Plan B into Plan C (or some other similar combination) and as a result, Plan A and/or Plan B would cease to exist.

Pension Plan Merger Example

Going forward, annual requirements remain only for the consolidated plan. Because the merger cannot violate anti-cutback rules, there is no negative impact to the retirement plan participants. Protected benefits such as accrued and early retirement benefits, subsidies, and optional forms of benefits cannot be reduced.

Why Should We Consider Merging Pension Plans?

Reason #1 : Reduced Administrative Fees

Each qualified pension plan has several annual requirements, regardless of size. Combining plans can reduce total administrative fees by minimizing the redundancy of the annual actuarial, audit, and trustee work:

  • Annual valuations: Funding, accounting, and ASC 960
  • Government reporting: IRS Form 5500 and PBGC filings
  • Participant notices: Annual funding notices
  • Annual audit: Plan audit for ASC 960 and financial accounting audit
  • Trustee reports

Merging plans can streamline many processes, reducing fees for these services compared to operating separately.

Reason #2 : Potential PBGC Savings

Plan sponsors with both an underfunded and overfunded plan can reduce PBGC premiums by sharing the excess retirement plan assets of an overfunded plan with one that is underfunded. Annual premiums are due to the PBGC (Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation) for protection of participant benefits in the event the plan sponsor is unable to fulfill their pension promises. Plans that are fully funded pay only a flat rate premium based on headcount. Underfunded plans pay an additional variable rate premium (VRP) based on the total unfunded liability for the plan (capped by participant). Merging an underfunded and overfunded plan can create a combined fully funded plan, eliminating the variable portion of the cost or premium due to the PBGC as shown:

Consider Company X who maintains 2 pension plans: 

  • Plan A has 580 Hourly participants with a PBGC shortfall of $10 million as of 1/1/2019
  • Plan B has 1,160 Hourly participants with a PBGC excess of $10 million as of 1/1/2019
  • Plan A merges into Plan B with 1,740 participants and no shortfall as of 1/1/2019
Impact of Pension Plan Merger on PBGC Premiums

By merging Plan A into Plan B, the shortfall is eliminated and PBGC premiums due are dramatically reduced with considerable financial impact.

Reason #3 : Plan Termination on the Horizon

Similar to the administrative savings of merging two ongoing pension plans, there will likely be reduced fees related to the process at termination. The final step in distributing retirement plan assets will be the agreement between the insurance company taking over the responsibility for all future benefit payments of remaining participants. Merging plans will consolidate the transaction and increase the number of participants affected, potentially resulting in annuity purchase cost savings to offset the underfunded liability  at final distribution. If plan termination is on the horizon, especially for two small to mid-size pension plans, a plan merger may prove to be a valuable first step with potential positive financial impact.

We Want to Merge our Pension Plans…Now What?

In most scenarios, the process is fairly straightforward. There will be a few adjustments required to the valuation process in the first year, but going forward will operate as usual. Participants will be notified of the change, but there will be no difference to the way that their benefits are calculated or administered.  

The plan sponsor will also be required to do the following:

  • Execute a plan amendment describing the plan merger
  • Modify the plan document to reflect the new consolidated plan
  • File Form 5310-A with the IRS no later than 30 days prior to the merger

Regardless of the size of the plan, a plan merger may be a step in the right direction toward simplifying the administration and cutting costs for many organizations sponsoring more than one pension plan.  Merging multiple pension plans is most often one example in the pension world where less is more. Finally, there are instances where a merger may result in increased costs (PBGC premiums) or may present other challenges.

Each situation is unique so don’t make any assumptions without consulting your actuary. And don’t overlook the importance of a communications strategy to inform participants of any changes which take place.

Questions? For more information, contact the Findley consultant you normally work with, or contact Debbie Sichko at debbie.sichko@findley.com, 216.875.1930.

Published on August 15, 2019

© 2019 Findley. All Rights Reserved.

Print the article

Terminating an Overfunded Pension Plan? Who Gets the Excess?

If a single employer overfunded pension plan is terminating and its participants and beneficiaries are on track to receive full benefits, the plan sponsor will likely ask if the excess is theirs. In other words, will the surplus revert to the plan sponsor? The answer is maybe.

To determine how excess plan funds can be exhausted, which may include a reversion to the plan sponsor, there are 7 possibilities to consider. As always, the place to start with any retirement plan issue is to answer the question: what does the plan say?

Terminating an Overfunded Pension Plan

Possibilities to Consider if the Terminating Plan Document does not Permit a Reversion

A plan document may state that no part of the plan’s assets can be diverted for any purpose other than for the exclusive benefit of participants and beneficiaries. The plan may also indicate that the plan cannot be amended to designate any part of the assets to become the employer’s property. If an overfunded pension plan has these provisions, it is tempting to assume the only choice is to allocate the excess among participants and beneficiaries. However, even in the face of these explicit provisions, there may be other provisions that permit an employer to recover or use a portion of the excess assets.

Possibilities 1 and 2 – Return of Mistaken and Nondeductible Contributions

Plan documents generally indicate that if an employer makes an excessive plan contribution due to a mistake, the employer can demand the surplus is returned. The employer is required to request this from the trustee within one year after the contribution was made to the trust. In addition, plans generally provide that a contribution is made on the condition that the employer receives a corresponding tax deduction. In the unlikely event that the deduction is not permitted by the IRS, the contribution can be returned to the employer within one year following the IRS’ final determination that the tax deduction was not allowed.

An example of a contribution mistake may be an actuarial calculation error. In a 2014 Private Letter Ruling, the IRS considered a surplus reversion when a terminating single employer plan purchased an annuity contract. The excess assets were created when the purchase price selected to fully fund plan benefits actually came in at a lower price than estimated. Using reasonable actuarial assumptions, the plan’s actuary had advised the employer to contribute a higher amount than was ultimately calculated as necessary by the insurance company. In this case, the IRS permitted the return of the mistaken excess contribution. 

Possibility 3 – Have all Reasonable Plan Expenses Been Paid from the Trust?

Many plan documents provide that plan expenses can be paid from the trust. In some instances, appropriate and reasonable plan termination expenses will go a long way to exhaust excess assets. Reasonable plan termination expenses include determination letter costs and fees, service provider termination charges and termination implementation charges such as those for the plan audit, preparing and filing annual reports, calculating benefits, and preparing benefit statements.

Possibilities to Consider if the Terminating Plan Document Permits a Reversion

The overfunded pension plan may explicitly state that excess assets, once all of the plan’s obligations to participants and beneficiaries have been satisfied, may revert to the plan sponsor. On the other hand, the plan may not explicitly permit a reversion. In that case, the plan sponsor may want to consider amending the plan to allow a reversion well ahead of the anticipated termination.

Possibilities 4 – Take a Reversion

If the first three possibilities do not work or are inadequate to exhaust the surplus, and the overfunded pension plan allows a reversion, there are three more possibilities. In the first, the employer takes all. The employer can take all of the excess funds back subject to a 50% excise tax, as well as applicable federal tax.  Notably, a not-for-profit organization may not be subject to the excise tax on the reversion at all if it has always been tax-exempt.

Possibility 5  – Transfer the Excess to a Qualified Replacement Plan

The opportunity to pay only a 20% excise tax (and any applicable federal tax) on part of the surplus is available where the remaining excess assets are transferred from the terminating pension plan to a newly implemented or preexisting qualified replacement plan (QRP). A QRP can be any type of qualified retirement plan including a profit sharing plan, 401(k) plan, or money purchase plan. For example, an employer’s or a parent company’s 401(k) plan, whether newly implemented or preexisting, may qualify as a qualified replacement plan.

Once an appropriate plan is chosen, the amount transferred into the QRP must be allocated directly into participant accounts within the year of the transfer or deposited into a suspense account and allocated over seven years, beginning with the year of the transfer.

There are additional requirements for a qualified replacement plan. At least 95% of the active participants from the terminated plan who remain as employees must participate in the QRP. In addition, the employer is required to transfer a minimum of 25% of the surplus into a qualified replacement plan prior to the reversion. If all of the QRP requirements are satisfied, then only the amounts reverted to the employer are subject to a 20% excise tax and federal tax, if applicable. 

Possibility 6 – Provide Pro Rata Benefit Increases

If the employer chooses not to use a QRP, it can still limit the excise tax if it takes back 80% or less of the surplus and provides pro rata or proportionate benefit increases in the accrued benefits of all qualified participants. The amendment to provide the benefit increases must take effect on the plan’s termination date and must benefit all qualified participants. A qualified participant is an active participant, a participant or beneficiary in pay status, or a terminated vested participant whose credited service under the plan ended during the period beginning 3 years before termination date and ending with the date of the final distribution of plan assets. In addition, certain other conditions apply including how much of the increases are allowed to go to participants who are not active.

A Possibility That’s Always Available

Possibility 7 – Allocate all of the Excess Among Participants and Beneficiaries

It is always possible to allocate all of the excess assets among participants in a nondiscriminatory way that meets all applicable law. A plan amendment is necessary to provide for these higher benefits.

You may know at the outset of terminating your plan that there will be excess assets. On the other hand, a surplus may come as a surprise. Even if a pension plan is underfunded at the time the termination process officially begins, it is possible that the plan becomes overfunded during the approximate 12 month time period to terminate the plan. In this scenario, the plan sponsor will have to address what to do with the excess assets.

Dealing with the excess assets in a terminating defined benefit plan can be a challenge. There are traps for the unwary, and considerations beyond the scope of this article. Plan sponsors need to determine first how the excess was created, because the answer to that question may determine what happens to it. If there is no obvious answer in how to deal with the surplus, then the plan sponsor needs to look at all of the possibilities. It may be that a combination of uses for the excess plan assets is best. If you think you will find yourself in this situation with your defined benefit plan, consult your trusted advisors at your earliest opportunity so that you know the possibilities available to you.

Questions on your defined benefit pension plan’s possibilities? Need help navigating your options? Please contact Sheila Ninnenam in the form below.

Published July 10, 2019

© 2019 Findley. All Rights Reserved.

Print the article

Retirement Savings Opportunities for High Earning Owners and Professionals

Overview: For successful small businesses, a 401(k) plan combined with a cash balance plan can provide opportunities to:

  • Build wealth and retirement savings for the owners/ professionals with much greater contributions than through a 401(k) plan alone
  • Save on federal, state, and local taxes through higher deductible contributions
  • Protect substantial assets from creditors or legal action
  • Provide attractive retirement benefits for nonowner
  • Attract and retain talented employees
  • Enhance financial well-being and retirement readiness for all participants

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act substantially reduced corporate tax rates for C corporations, and added a complex set of rules on deductions for pass-through entities such as partnerships, LLCs, and S corporations. Fundamentally, tax reform enacted a slightly lower individual tax rate (top brackets reduced from 39.6 percent to 37 percent) for high-earning owners, which means that these plans are still tax effective, while the substantial long-term benefits remain unchanged. Business owners who are currently sponsoring or planning to set up a 401(k) plan and cash balance plan should talk with their tax advisor and actuary, to see if any changes to plan design or their business structure are desirable.

Impact of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act

A lot has been written and said about the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act and the tax rule changes that affect businesses. In this article, we focus on the very fundamental aspects of these changes.

C corporations now have a flat 21 percent income tax rate and pass-through entities now have a 20 percent deduction on qualified business income. This 20 percent deduction is limited or phased-out based on the type of business and business income through very complex rules. For taxpayers in the top individual income tax bracket of 37 percent, this 20 percent deduction can be viewed as a 7.4 percent (20 percent of 37 percent top individual income tax rate) rate reduction.

Thus for most high-earning owners and professionals, the evaluation of the tax effectiveness of their 401(k) and cash balance plan will involve only a change in tax rate from 39.6 percent to 37 percent. We’ve seen that this may cause subtle changes in design and contribution levels, but it does not change fundamental decisions on whether to adopt one or both plan types.

To illustrate how the combination of a 401(k) and cash balance plan can be used, let’s look at a case study of a professional firm we’ll call ABC Services.

Case Study:  ABC Services

Cash Balance  Plan Contribution Chart

ABC Services is a partnership of any type of business professionals such as accountants, doctors, or lawyers. There are three partners in the business, each owning one-third of the practice. The firm has a number of nonowner professionals we’ll call associates. The firm employs other staff as well.

The partners at ABC have these goals for their retirement program:

  • Partners – Adam and Bill (both age 55) would like to maximize their retirement savings. Carol (age 45) needs more current income and less saving for retirement. No partner wants to subsidize the retirement benefit of the other partners.
  • Associates – the associates are ages 30 to 45. Associates prefer current compensation over future retirement benefits. ABC wants to minimize retirement plan contributions to this group.
  • Staff – ABC hires relatively young staff and experiences moderate turnover among this group. ABC wants to offer a market-competitive level of retirement benefits to attract staff employees.

Tables 1A and 1B show the employer contributions provided under the 401(k) and cash balance plans established by ABC. Each participant can make salary deferral contributions to the 401(k) plan up to the IRS limits, including additional catch-up contributions for individuals age 50 and older.

Table 1A: Annual contribution amounts for ABC partners

 

Eligible Pay

Salary
Deferrals
Employer 401(k)
Contributions
Employer
Cash Balance
Contributions
Total
Employer
Contributions
Total
Retirement
Contributions
Adam $280,000 $25,000 $14,000 $140,000 $154,000 $179,000
Bill $280,000 $25,000 $14,000 $140,000 $154,000 $179,000
Carol $280,000 $19,000 $14,000   $35,000   $49,000   $68,000

*Subject to IRS limits

Table 1B: Annual employer contributions, as a percentage of eligible pay, by employment category

  Employer 401(k)
Contribution
Employer Cash Balance
Contribution
Total Employer
Contribution
Partners      
Adam 5% 50.0% 55.0%
Bill 5% 50.0% 55.0%
Carol 5% 12.5% 17.5%
Associates 0%      0%       0%
Staff 5%   2.5%    7.5%

How well does this retirement program accomplish ABC’s objectives?

  • Partners – Adam and Bill are able to receive contributions of (and defer tax on) $179,000 each year. Carol accomplishes her goal by having a meaningful, but significantly lower, contribution amount of $68,000 per year with flexibility to change her contribution amounts through the 401(k) plan.
  • Associates – ABC minimizes retirement contributions for associates by providing a separate, employee deferral only 401(k) plan for associates, and excluding the associates from the cash balance plan.
  • Staff – ABC offers a strong benefit to this group in order to attract and retain staff employees. The plan design provides employer contributions of 7.5 percent of pay for staff, plus employee 401(k) salary deferrals and  catch-up contributions if the employee is at least age 50.

What Types of Employers Should Consider a 401(k) Cash Balance Plan?

We’ve noted that any successful business can consider implementing a 401(k) and a cash balance plan. We find, however, that businesses with the following characteristics are the most likely to see the benefits of implementing these plans together:

  • The business owners are age 40–64
  • The business has had consistent cash flow and profitability
  • The future of the business looks good, with positive cash flow and profitability over the next five years
  • The ratio of nonowner employees to owner employees is relatively low
  • The business has a 401(k) plan in place and is making employer contributions currently

Also, we frequently hear these goals in discussions with owners of successful businesses:

  • We want (or need) to save more for retirement than the current IRS annual limit imposed on the 401(k) plan
  • We want to reduce our current taxes
  • We need protection of assets from creditors, or in the event of a lawsuit
  • We want to recognize and reward key staff
  • We want to attract and retain the best employees

By implementing a 401(k) plan and cash balance plan with advanced plan designs, successful businesses can meet their owners’ goals for wealth building and retirement savings and offer an attractive and cost-effective retirement program to their employees.

Looking Closer at Cash Balance and 401(k) Plans

Qualified retirement plans are divided into two categories: defined benefit (DB) plans and defined contribution (DC) plans. Cash balance plans are a typical DB design for small businesses and professional firms, while 401(k) plans are a common DC plan design.

A cash balance plan is structured to look like a DC plan with each participant having a recordkeeping account that receives employer contributions and interest credits. These interest credits are often defined and guaranteed by the plan.

Common Features

Since both 401(k) and cash balance plans are types of qualified retirement plans, they share a number of common features that are important for employers and participants:

  • Contributions are tax-deductible
  • Trust earnings are tax-deferred
  • Trust assets are protected from the claims of creditors
  • Distributions are usually immediately available after termination, retirement, death or disability
  • Lump sum distributions may be rolled over to a successor plan or another tax-advantaged plan
  • Distributions are not subject to FICA or FUTA tax

Key Differences

Table 2 highlights the key differences between 401(k) and cash balance plans:

401(k) Plans Cash Balance Plans
Contributions (based on 2019 limits) Contributions
Participants can save up to $19,000 in before tax or Roth (after tax) employee savings

Participants age 50 or older can save an extra $6,000 in catch-up contributions

The employer and employee contributions can be up to $56,000 ($62,000 including catch-up contributions)

Employer contributions (match and profit sharing) are usually discretionary
Contributions can be far greater than current 401(k) limits, depending on the owner’s/professional’s current age

The cash balance account is guaranteed
Additions to the cash balance account are based on pay credit and interest rate factors defined in the plan document

Employer contributions are required
Investments Investments
Participants usually direct the investments in their 401(k) account

The participant chooses their investment strategy and bears the investment risk
Assets are invested in a pool for all participants in the plan, usually with a conservative investment strategy

Plans are allowed to credit the actual performance of the portfolio to participants’ cash balance accounts (certain restrictions apply)

The employer sets investment strategy and often bears all the investment risk
Accounts Benefits
The participant’s account value is based on contributions and actual investment returns (or losses) The participant’s account has guarantees; the account is based on contributions, interest credits as defined by the plan, and minimum guarantees required by law

Distribution

Distribution

In-service distributions are allowable for hardship or upon reaching age 59½

Distributions are usually as a lump sum, some plans allow for installments or purchase of an annuity

Participant loans are often available through the plan


In-service distributions are allowable at or after age 62

Distributions are usually made as a lump sum, annuity options are available through the plan

Loans are usually not offered

Other Considerations

With examples showing the benefits of implementing a 401(k) plan and cash balance plan to owners and their employees, the natural question is: why not implement these plans?

Business owners considering these plans should also discuss these issues with their actuary, tax advisor, and plan consultants:

  • Higher contributions for nonowner employees will likely be required
  • There will be higher administrative costs for a second plan, including hiring an actuary to certify the minimum funding required of the cash balance plan
  • There may be PBGC premium expense for certain plans and employers; however, PBGC coverage can result in additional deductible contributions
  • There are annual required minimum contributions for the cash balance plan
  • Volatility in the investments held by the cash balance plan can lead to volatility in the required minimum contributions
  • Funding levels must be managed to avoid certain restrictions on distributions

In Summary

The combination of a 401(k) plan and a cash balance plan is often the best solution for a successful business wishing to provide substantial tax-deferred savings for key individuals. This combination of plans is easy to understand and can provide surprising flexibility along with increased contribution limits.

The case study shown in this article shows the retirement accumulation potential of implementing a 401(k) and cash balance plan. Other cost-effective plan designs are generally available; for more information, please contact your Findley consultant.

Published on June 7, 2019

© Copyright 2019 • Findley • All rights reserved

Print this article