Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Does your plan need IRS Form 8822-B?

“When filing her Form 5500 report, my client was told she needed to file IRS Form 8822-B for her 401(k) plan. What does this form report?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center (RLC) Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Tennessee is representative of a common inquiry related to plan reporting.

Highlights of the Discussion

If your client had a change of address for her business or a change in the “responsible party” (i.e., the representative of the company who received the business’s official Employer Identification Number), [1]  she is required to file IRS Form 8822-B, Change of Address or Responsible Party—Business. Form 8822-B notifies the IRS of a change to a business’s mailing address, location or responsible party. Also, if an organization had not previously identified a specific person as its responsible party, filing Form 8822-B is advisable. When there’s been a change, it’s important to have Form 8822-B in place for any future mailings or correspondence the business may receive from the IRS.

The requirement to file Form 8822-B took effect in 2014, following the release of final regulations (Treasury Regulation 301.6109).  Affected businesses must file the form within 60 days of the change that is being reported. A business files the form with either the IRS office in Cincinnati, OH or Ogden, UT, depending on the firm’s old business address.  While there is no formal penalty for failing to file Form 8822-B or late filings of the form, there is a risk that important IRS notices could be misdirected to the wrong address or sent to the attention of the wrong individual. The form specifically references its connection to certain employment, excise, income and other business returns (e.g., Forms 720, 940, 941, 990, 1041, 1065, 1120, etc.) and employee plan returns such as the Form 5500 series of returns.

Conclusion

Plan sponsors may not have been aware of the importance of IRS Form 8822-B. Filing such form, when required, can only be beneficial.

[1] IRS Publication 1635: Employer Identification Number

 

 

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

DC Plan Amendments and Accrued Benefits

“My client wants to amend his 401(k) plan to add a last day requirement to receive a profit sharing contribution for the current plan year. Right now the contribution is discretionary and there is no service or last day requirement to receive the contribution. Can he make that change before year end?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center (RLC) Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare. We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Tennessee is representative of a common inquiry related to plan amendments.

Highlights of the Discussion

The IRS has taken the position that the right to receive a contribution under a defined contribution plan’s existing allocation formula is protected once the participant has satisfied the plan’s allocation conditions [Technical Advice Memorandum (TAM) 9735001].[1] If participants in the plan have already accrued a right to receive an allocation (a “protected allocable share”)—even though the contribution may be discretionary—the contribution cannot be taken away.

A plan amendment cannot decrease the accrued benefit of any plan participant [IRC § 411(d)(6)(A)]. These anti-cutback rules only protect benefits that accrue prior to the amendment [Treas. Reg. § 1.411(d)-3(b)].

In the question at hand, since there are no requirements to receive the profit sharing contribution, anyone who has completed an hour of service for the year has accrued a right to any profit sharing allocation the sponsor may or may not make for the year.

In contrast, let’s say the plan had a 1,000 hour of service requirement to receive a discretionary profit sharing contribution and the plan sponsor wanted to add a last day requirement. In that case, the plan sponsor could amend the plan to add the last day up to the point that someone completes 1,000 hours of service—which could be mid-year, based on 2,080 hours worked in a full year.

Similarly, suppose the plan required 501 hours of service to receive a contribution. The sponsor would only be able to change the allocation method up until the date on which the first participant works his/her 501st hour for the year. After that point, changing the method would eliminate a right the participant has already earned according to TAM 9735001.

Of course, a plan sponsor has the right to amend the plan’s contribution formulas on a prospective basis.

Conclusion

It’s always very important to check the plan document for contribution eligibility requirements. A plan amendment cannot decrease the accrued benefit of any plan participant. The right to receive a contribution under a defined contribution plan’s existing allocation formula is protected once the participant has a protected allocable share of the contribution.

[1] Technical Advice Memorandum Number: 9735001

Internal Revenue Service

February 20, 1997

SIN# 411.03-00

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

NATIONAL OFFICE TECHNICAL ADVICE MEMORANDUM

ISSUE

Whether §411(d)(6) is violated by a retroactive amendment of an allocation formula under a discretionary profit-sharing plan adopted after the end of the plan year, but before the due date for the employer’s return for the corresponding taxable year, resulting in lower allocations for some participants than the allocations they would have received under the allocation formula in the plan during the plan year.

FACTS

The Employer maintains the Plan, a discretionary profit-sharing plan. Section 2.1 of the Plan defines “account balance” as the aggregate balance of a participant’s account as of a determination date. Section 2.12 defines “determination date” as the last day of the preceding plan year. Section 2.35 defines “plan year” as the calendar year.

Section 5.3 of the Plan provides that the amount of the contribution to the Plan for each plan year shall be paid to the trustees, either in a single payment or in installments, not later than the last day of the period provided by the relevant provisions of the Code and other applicable laws for the payment of a deductible contribution for the taxable year in which the plan year ends. Any payment made prior to the end of the plan year on account of the contribution for such plan year shall be held by the trustees in a suspense account until the end of such plan year.

Article VI of the Plan deals with accounts and allocations. Section 6.3 provides that the contribution to the Plan (including forfeitures occurring during the plan year) for any plan year shall be deemed to have been made as of the last day of such plan year and shall be allocated to the trust fund and apportioned among and credited to the accounts of those participants who are employed on said date, in the ratio that each participant’s compensation bears to the aggregate compensation of all such participants.

Section 6.6 of the Plan provides, in relevant part, that on each valuation date the amount which shall be credited to the account of each participant shall be (i) the account balance on the preceding valuation date, plus (ii) the participant’s allocated portion of the contributions (and, if applicable, forfeitures) made with respect to the plan year ending on the current valuation date, plus or minus (iii) the participant’s pro rata share of the increase or decrease since the preceding valuation date in the fair market value of the trust fund. Section 2.45 defines “valuation date” as the anniversary date and, if applicable, the date of termination of employment of a participant where there has occurred a twenty percent or more decrease in the value of the trust fund since the last valuation date and distribution is to be made to the participant prior to the next valuation date. Section 2.3 defines “anniversary date” as December 31 of each year.

The Plan contained a definite pre-determined allocation formula during the 1992 plan year (“existing formula”). Relying on § 404(a)(6), the Employer made its contribution for the 1992 plan year on or about January 7, 1993 (“1992 contribution”), but the contribution was not immediately allocated among participants.

On March 15, 1993, the Employer adopted an amendment to the Plan that added a new allocation formula (“new formula”). The effective date of this amendment was January 1, 1992. Under the new formula some participants received larger allocable shares of the 1992 contribution, and the remaining participants received smaller allocable shares of the 1992 contribution, compared with their allocable shares under the existing formula. On June 23, 1993, the 1992 contribution was allocated to participants’ accounts under the new formula. Thus, the March 15, 1993 plan amendment reduced the amounts allocated to the accounts of some participants, compared with the amounts that would have been allocated under the existing formula. The reduced allocations in turn resulted in decreased account balances for those participants.

LAW

Section 401(a) prescribes the qualification requirements for a trust forming part of a stock bonus, pension, or profit-sharing plan. Under §1.401-1(b)(1)(ii), a profit-sharing plan must provide a definite predetermined formula for allocating plan contributions among participants. Under §1.401-1(c), qualified status must be maintained throughout the trust’s entire taxable year.

Section 411(d)(6)(A) generally provides that a plan will not be treated as satisfying §411 if the accrued benefit of a participant is decreased by a plan amendment. Under §411(a)(7)(A)(ii) and §1.411(a)-7(a)(2), in the case of a defined contribution plan, “accrued benefit” mean the balance of the employee’s account held under the plan.

Under §1.411(d)-4, A-1(a), §411(d)(6) protected benefits, to the extent they have accrued, are subject to the protection of §411(d)(6) and, where applicable, the definitely determinable requirement of §401(a). Accordingly, such benefit cannot be reduced, eliminated or made subject to employer discretion, except to the extent permitted by regulation.

Section 1.411(d)-4, A-1(d), lists examples of benefits that are not §411(d)(6)-protected. The list includes “(8) the allocation dates for contributions, forfeitures, and earnings, the time for making contributions (but not the conditions for receiving an allocation of contributions or forfeitures for a plan year after such conditions have been satisfied), . . . .” The parenthetical language in §1.411(d)-4, A-1(d)(8), indicates that, once the conditions for receiving an allocation have been met, a plan amendment that adds further conditions would violate §411(d)(6).

Section 404(a)(6) allows a contribution made after the end of the employer’s taxable year, but before the due date of the employer’s return, to be treated as made on the last day of the preceding taxable year if the contribution is made on account of the preceding year. Rev. Rul. 76-28, 1976-1 C.B. 106 and Rev. Rul. 90-105, 1990-2 C.B. 69 provide that a contribution made after the close of an employer’s taxable year will be deemed to have been made on account of the preceding taxable year under § 404(a)(6) if, among other conditions, the contribution is treated by the plan in the same manner as the plan would treat a contribution actually received on the last day of the preceding taxable year.

Section 411(d)(6) was added to the Internal Revenue Code under Title II of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (“ERISA”). Title I of ERISA provides an identical provision to §411(d)(6) at §204(g), which was enacted at the same time and has been interpreted in participants’ suits challenging employer plan amendments. Several ERISA §204(g) cases involve plan amendments that were retroactively effective and that changed the valuation date used in determining the account balance of a terminated employee under the plan. In Pratt v. Petroleum Production Management, Inc. Employee Savings Plan & Trust , 920 F.2d 651 (10th Cir. 1990), and Kay v. Thrift and Profit Sharing Plan for Employees of Boyertown Casket Co. , 780 F.Supp. 1447 (E.D. Pa. 1991) the courts addressed such plan amendments.

In Pratt , the petitioner separated from service at a time when the plan provided that a separated participant was to receive his vested interest in his account valued as of the next preceding valuation date, which was defined as the last day of the plan year. However, before Pratt received his distribution and subsequent to the applicable valuation date (as defined under the terms of the plan when he separated, i.e., prior to the adoption of the amendment) a plan amendment was adopted that permitted interim valuation dates as necessary to account for a material change in the value of trust assets. Stocks that were a part of Pratt’s account had seriously declined in value in the time period between the original valuation date and Pratt’s separation date (and the new interim valuation date under the amended plan). The district court granted Pratt relief on the basis of both ERISA §204(g) and under ERISA §502(a), breach of contract. On review, the appellate court noted that a participant’s accrued benefit in an account-type plan consists of the participant’s account balance. The appellate court looked to the terms of the plan prior to the adoption of the amendment when Pratt separated to ascertain his vested rights and how his account balance should be valued. The appellate court affirmed the district court’s decision, stating that the retroactive amendment, under these circumstances, reduced Pratt’s accrued benefit. Thus, the amendment was precluded by ERISA §204(g).

Kay differs from Pratt in that the retroactive amendment made on December 22, 1987, changing the valuation date from September 30, 1987 (as defined under the terms of the plan when Kay separated from service) to October 30, 1987, was made before the September 30, 1987 valuation was completed. Citing Pratt , the court held that the plan administrator was required to determine the value of Kay’s accrued benefits in accordance with the terms of the plan at the time of Kay’s termination, and that retroactive application of the amendment permitting interim valuation dates violated §204(g) of ERISA. The effect of this holding is that Kay’s ERISA-protected accrued benefit was his account balance determined as of the original valuation date, even though the valuation of his account as of that date had not actually been made at the time the plan was amended.

ANALYSIS

In the case of a defined contribution plan, an employee’s accrued benefit is the balance of the employee’s account held under the plan. With respect to the employer’s contributions, it could therefore be argued that §411(d)(6) protection applies only to amounts actually credited to the participant’s account. However, the accrued benefit includes amounts to which the participant is entitled under the terms of the plan, even though the bookkeeping process of crediting those amounts to the participant’s account has not actually occurred.

Prior to the adoption of the March 15, 1993 amendment, the account balance under the terms of the Plan was the aggregate balance of the participant’s account as of December 31, 1992. The Plan provided that, as of December 31, 1992, the participant’s account was to be credited with the participant’s allocated portion of the contribution for the 1992 plan year. The Plan provided for the 1992 contribution to be apportioned among and credited to the accounts of the participants employed on December 31, 1992, and specified the formula, that is, the existing formula, under which the 1992 contribution was to be allocated among participants’ accounts. Under the terms of the plan, each participant became entitled to his or her allocable share of the 1992 contribution as of December 31, 1992, determined under the existing formula (“protected allocable share”).

For purposes of §411(d)(6), each participant’s protected allocable share of the 1992 contribution under the existing formula became part of the participant’s account balance, and thus part of the accrued benefit, as of December 31, 1992, even though the bookkeeping process of determining account balances did not actually occur on that day. Thus, the March 15, 1993 retroactive amendment of the formula under which the 1992 contribution was allocated, reducing the protected allocable shares of the 1992 contribution of some participants, resulted in a reduction of those participants’ accrued benefits and violated §411(d)(6).

Under §1.411(d)-4, A-1(d)(8), the conditions for receiving an allocation of contributions or forfeitures for a plan year are subject to § 411(d)(6) after such conditions have been satisfied. That is, once a participant has satisfied the conditions for receiving an allocation, the participant’s right to an allocation becomes §411(d)(6)-protected, and a plan amendment cannot add further conditions. In this case, amendment of the allocation formula after the end of the 1992 plan year, when participants had satisfied the conditions for receiving an allocation, is analogous to a change in the conditions for receiving an allocation in violation of §411(d)(6).

The Employer argues that, in the case of a discretionary profit-sharing plan, the employer has no obligation to make a contribution; therefore, participants do not accrue benefits under the plan until a contribution is actually made. We note that, in this case, the contribution had in fact been made at the time of the March 15, 1993 plan amendment. Moreover, as described above, under the terms of the plan, a participant became entitled to his allocable share of any contribution for 1992 as of December 31, 1992. Where a contribution is in fact made for 1992, the participant’s protected allocable share of that contribution is determined as of December 31, 1992, under the existing formula.

The Employer also refers to §404(a)(6), which allows an employer to make a contribution after the end of the plan year. Section 404(a)(6) is irrelevant in determining when a participant’s right to an allocation becomes §411(d)(6)-protected. The sole effect of § 404(a)(6) is to deem a payment to have been made on the last day of the preceding plan year for deduction purposes. The employer’s exercise of the right to make a contribution after the end of the plan year cannot be used to circumvent §411(d)(6) protection that attaches as of the end of the plan year.

CONCLUSION

Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, each participant’s protected allocable share of the 1992 contribution under the existing formula became part of the participant’s account balance, and for purposes of §411(d)(6), part of the accrued benefit as of December 31, 1992. Therefore, the March 15, 1993 retroactive amendment of the formula under which the 1992 contribution was allocated, reducing the protected allocable shares of the 1992 contribution of some participants, resulted in a reduction of those participants’ accrued benefits and violated §411(d)(6).

 

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

Three’s A Crowd Regarding IRA Rollovers

By W. Andrew Larson, CPC

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) finalized new rules (known as Regulation Best Interest or Reg. BI) that address, in part, IRA rollovers for broker-dealers.  This commentator questions the wisdom of inserting now a third governmental agency into the retirement space, which, historically, was overseen by the IRS and Department of Labor (DOL). It seems that if Congress had wanted the SEC in this regulatory mix it would have said so in the first place. I wonder if the SEC has such ample resources it feels impelled to expand their regulatory purview or if, perhaps, this is an attempt to obtain additional funding for these new endeavors.

Under Reg. BI, broker-dealers are held to a best interest standard when making a recommendation to a retail customer. In this context, a “retail customer” does not include a plan sponsor, but it does include plan participants with regard to recommendations to take distributions or roll over assets to IRAs. Arguably, advisors are required to demonstrate how they arrived at a best interest finding and recommendation. Effectively, this regulation is a watered-down version of the vacated DOL fiduciary rules and, while the objective of protecting consumers is admirable, my concern is the propriety of injecting another federal agency into the arena of Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) enforcement.

The General Obligation of Reg. BI has four components:

  • Disclosure of the relationship and fees (Disclosure Obligation);
  • Duty of care (Care Obligation),
  • Mitigation and disclosure of conflicts (Conflicts of Interest Obligation); and
  • Establishment, maintenance and enforcement of policies and procedures (Compliance Obligation).

The SEC has noted certain considerations are not considered determinative in and of themselves to warrant a rollover recommendation. For example, having more investment elections available within an IRA vis a vis the qualified plan is not considered enough rationale to conclude a rollover would be in the best interest of the investor according to the SEC.

Factors to consider when contemplating a rollover should include items such as, but not limited to, the following:

  • Fees and expenses;
  • Level of service available;
  • Availability of retirement income products and other investment options;
  • Ability to take penalty free withdrawals;
  • Protections from creditors and legal judgments;
  • Administrative convenience;
  • Beneficiary considerations (some qualified plans don’t allow the full range of beneficiary options permitted under statute);
  • Availability of net unrealized appreciation (NUA) opportunities with employer stock,
  • After-tax contributions and the potential for Roth conversions;
  • Required minimum distribution (RMD) requirements (e.g., Designated Roth accounts in 401(k) plans remain subject to RMD requirements); and
  • Any special features of the existing account.

Ultimately, I believe Reg. BI will result in a more nuanced IRA rollover recommendation process where “all or nothing” rollover events will become less common. Future recommendations involving plan distributions and rollovers will require advisors to have a greater understanding of their customers’ retirement plans, and the options and choices among the various money types within the plans. For example, 401(k) arrangements are highly variable by sponsor, each having multiple money types, features and provisions. Clearly, the first step in the Duty of Care process is having a thorough understanding of the distributing plan’s applicable provisions and features, and securing documentation that would support the basis for making any recommendations. But sources for detailed plan information are limited.

Retirement Learning Center (RLC) has a library of over 6,000 plan documents it has analyzed and summarized as “Plan Snapshots,” which can give advisors important plan information necessary to feed the Duty of Care process. Use of RLC’s plan information not only saves time but can be part of the crucial documentation necessary to support a recommendation.

With oversight from the IRS, DOL and now SEC, the rollover landscape is changing and will result in advisors taking a more subtle, thoughtful and documented approach with investors when recommending retirement plan distributions and rollovers.

 

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved
Print Friendly Version Print Friendly Version

A tale of two 457(b) plans

“Are there differences between 457(b) plans for tax-exempt entities and governmental entities and, if so, what are the differences?”

ERISA consultants at the Retirement Learning Center (RLC) Resource Desk regularly receive calls from financial advisors on a broad array of technical topics related to IRAs, qualified retirement plans and other types of retirement savings and income plans, including nonqualified plans, stock options, and Social Security and Medicare.  We bring Case of the Week to you to highlight the most relevant topics affecting your business.

A recent call with a financial advisor from Wisconsin is representative of a common inquiry related to 457 plans.

Highlights of the Discussion

A plan established under IRC §457(b) allows employees of eligible sponsoring employers to set aside a portion of their income on a tax-deferred basis for receipt and taxation at a later date (similar to a 401(k) or 403(b) plan). You may sometimes hear them referred to as “eligible deferred compensation plans” because they follow the rules of subsection (b) under IRC §457 as opposed to “ineligible” plans as defined under IRC §457(f).

Two types of employers can establish 457(b) plans:  1) state or local governmental entities; or 2) tax-exempt organizations pursuant to IRC §501. While there are some similarities between a governmental 457(b) plan and a tax-exempt 457(b) plan, there are some very important differences, including, but not limited to, funded status, plan loans, catch-up contributions, when amounts are taxable, and eligibility for roll over to another plan.

The IRS has compiled this handy comparison chart (recreated below) to help those who work with or participate in 457(b) plans understand in more detail the similarities and differences between plan operations for the two types of employers that sponsor them.

  Tax-Exempt 457(b) plan Governmental 457(b) plan
Eligible employer IRC §501 tax-exempt employer that isn’t a state or local government (or political subdivision, instrumentality, agency) State or local government or political subdivision or instrumentality or agency
Written plan document required? Yes Yes
Eligible participants Limited to select group of management or highly compensated employees Employees or independent contractors who perform services for the employer may participate
Coverage; nondiscrimination testing No No
Salary reduction contributions (employee elective deferrals) permitted? Yes Yes
Ability to designate all or portion of salary reduction contribution as a Roth contribution No Yes
Employer contributions permitted? Yes Yes
Salary reduction contribution limit, in general Lesser of applicable dollar limit ($19,000 in 2019) or 100% of participant’s includible compensation Lesser of applicable dollar limit ($19,000 in 2019) or 100% of participant’s includible compensation
Increased salary reduction limit for final 3 years before attaining normal retirement age Lesser of:

  • 2 x applicable dollar limit ($38,000 in 2019) or
  • applicable dollar limit plus sum of unused deferrals in prior years (only if deferrals made were less than the applicable deferral limits (Note: age 50 catch up contributions not allowed; no coordination needed))
Lesser of:

  • 2 x applicable dollar limit ($38,000 in 2019) or
  • applicable dollar limit plus sum of unused deferrals in prior years (to the extent that deferrals made were less than the applicable limits on deferrals; age 50 catch up contributions aren’t counted for this purpose)

Note: Can’t use the increased limit if using age 50 catch up contributions. Therefore, in years when an employee is eligible to take advantage of both, the employee can use the higher of the two increases to the limit.

Salary reduction contribution limits- Age 50 catch-up contributions (for individuals who are age 50 or over at the end of the taxable year) Not permitted Salary reduction dollar limit increased by $6,000 (up to a total of $25,000 in 2019)

Note: See above. Can’t use in years that a participant is taking advantage of the increased limit during the final 3 years before attaining normal retirement age.

Timing of election to make salary reduction contribution Before the first day of the month in which the compensation is paid or made available Before the first day of the month in which the compensation is paid or made available
Total contribution limits (both salary reduction and employer contributions) Same as limit for salary reduction contributions. So, any employer contribution limits the amount of salary reduction contribution an employee can make (and vice versa) Same as limit for salary reduction contributions. So, any employer contribution limits the amount of salary reduction contribution an employee can make (and vice versa)
Correcting excess elective deferrals Distribute excess (plus allocable income) by April 15 following the close of the taxable year of excess deferral Distribute excess (plus allocable income) as soon as administratively practicable after the plan determines that the amount is an excess deferral
Contributions to trust? No Yes
Participant loans permitted? No Yes
Hardship distributions permitted? Yes, if both:
1. the distribution is required as a result of an unforeseeable emergency, for example, illness, accident, natural disaster, other extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances arising from events beyond the participant’s (or beneficiary’s) control
2. the participant exhausted other sources of financing and the amount distributed is necessary to satisfy the emergency need  (and tax liability arising from distribution)
Yes, if both:
1. the distribution is required as a result of an unforeseeable emergency, for example, illness, accident, natural disaster, other extraordinary and unforeseeable circumstances arising from events beyond the participant’s (or beneficiary’s) control and
2. the participant exhausted other sources of financing and the amount distributed is necessary to satisfy the emergency need (and tax liability arising from distribution)
Automatic Enrollment permitted? No Yes
Taxation Earlier of when made available or distribution Distribution
Distributable events
  • Attainment of age 70 ½
  • Severance from employment
  • Unforeseeable emergency (see above)
  • Plan termination
  • Qualified domestic relations order
  • Small account distribution (not to exceed $5,000)
  • Attainment of age 70 ½
  • Severance from employment
  • Unforeseeable emergency (see above)
  • Plan termination
  • Qualified domestic relations order
  • Small account distribution  ($5,000 or less)
  • Permissible Eligible Automatic Contribution Arrangement (EACA) withdrawals
Required minimum distributions under Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a)(9) Yes Yes
Rollovers to other eligible retirement plans (401(k), 403(b), governmental 457(b), IRAs) No Yes
Availability of statutory period to correct plan for failure to meet applicable requirements No Yes, until 1st day of the plan year beginning more than 180 days after notification by the IRS
Availability of IRS correction programs including the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS) under Revenue Procedure 2019-19 Generally, not available to correct failures for an unfunded plan benefiting selected management or highly compensated employees. May consider closing agreement proposals when nonhighly compensated are erroneously impacted. Can apply for a closing agreement with a proposal to correct failures. Proposal is evaluated according to EPCRS standards.

 

Conclusion

While there are some similarities between governmental 457(b) plans and a tax-exempt 457(b) plans, there are some very important differences of which to be aware.

© Copyright 2019 Retirement Learning Center, all rights reserved