To BenefitsLink home page           EmployeeBenefitsJobs.com is where the best employers find the best candidates!

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) · 0 New Messages

 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> Annual Additions and dual Employment, Participant limitations
dobsonlaw
post Mar 12 2008, 01:10 PM
Post #1


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 13
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 15,170



Situation: Employee works for P and is eligible to participate in P's retirement plan. Employee also works for H (an unrelated employer to P) and is eligible to participate in H's retirement plans.

Question: for the 415 annual additions limitations, do the contributions to the retirement plans for Employee have to be aggregated for both plans?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike Preston
post Mar 12 2008, 01:57 PM
Post #2


Registered User


Group: Sitewide Moderator
Posts: 3,354
Joined: 22-November 01
From: Orland, CA
Member No.: 8,453



No. But there must be something more to this story. The facts are too easy. If the employers are unrelated, the 415 limits are, too. Maybe they are unrelated in the ownership sense, but related in the affiliated service group sense? Probably should have stopped at "no."
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PLAN MAN
post Mar 12 2008, 02:56 PM
Post #3


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 123
Joined: 6-January 06
From: SW Missouri
Member No.: 15,578



Do P and H sponsor the same retirement plan?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mike Preston
post Mar 12 2008, 03:42 PM
Post #4


Registered User


Group: Sitewide Moderator
Posts: 3,354
Joined: 22-November 01
From: Orland, CA
Member No.: 8,453



laugh.gif Hopefully, that isn't the case. If it is, the OP posted a very misleading description. But, hey, SOMETHING is up, here, so it just might be that!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
masteff
post Mar 12 2008, 04:04 PM
Post #5


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 893
Joined: 17-May 05
Member No.: 14,641



smile.gif I figured PlanMan's question was alluding to a multiemployer plan.

Maybe the OP will come back and expand on the question.... like is he asking from employee's perspective or the employer's perspective.

I think we're all searching for what the basis of the question is since the two employers are stated to be unrelated.


--------------------
"He attacked everything in life with a mix of extraordinary genius and naive incompetence, and it was often difficult to tell which was which." - Douglas Adams (last updated: 10/12/09)
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dobsonlaw
post Mar 14 2008, 08:15 AM
Post #6


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 13
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 15,170



QUOTE (Mike Preston @ Mar 12 2008, 01:57 PM) *
No. But there must be something more to this story. The facts are too easy. If the employers are unrelated, the 415 limits are, too. Maybe they are unrelated in the ownership sense, but related in the affiliated service group sense? Probably should have stopped at "no."



The employers are unrelated in the ownership sense. I don't believe they constitute an affiliated service group. But you bring up a good point. I will look at the ASG issue closer. Thanks.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dobsonlaw
post Mar 14 2008, 08:17 AM
Post #7


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 13
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 15,170



QUOTE (PLAN MAN @ Mar 12 2008, 02:56 PM) *
Do P and H sponsor the same retirement plan?



No. They do not sponsor the same plan.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dobsonlaw
post Mar 14 2008, 08:20 AM
Post #8


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 13
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 15,170



QUOTE (masteff @ Mar 12 2008, 04:04 PM) *
smile.gif I figured PlanMan's question was alluding to a multiemployer plan.

Maybe the OP will come back and expand on the question.... like is he asking from employee's perspective or the employer's perspective.

I think we're all searching for what the basis of the question is since the two employers are stated to be unrelated.


Employee is a 1/4 owner of Employer P, a physician practice. Employee is also employed by a local hospital, Employer H. Full time employment at both employers.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Stuartt
post Mar 14 2008, 08:34 AM
Post #9


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 25
Joined: 11-September 06
Member No.: 16,851



I recall a PLR or Rev Rul from about 6+ years ago with similar facts. The IRS stated that there is no aggregation and the person could get the max in each plan. 401(k) deferrals are an exception to this rule.

It would be worth searching for this guidance.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J Simmons
post Mar 14 2008, 10:41 AM
Post #10


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 2,138
Joined: 23-July 06
Member No.: 16,532



In discussing the then $7,000 limit on elective deferrals, the House Committee Report for Sec 403©, Tax-Sheltered Annuities (TRA '86, P.L. 99-514) explained that "Unlike the overall limits on annual additions, which apply separately to amounts accumulated under plans of different employers, this $7,000 cap limits all elective deferrals by an employee."


--------------------
John Simmons
jsimmons@ida.net


Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dobsonlaw
post Mar 14 2008, 10:57 AM
Post #11


Registered User


Group: Registered
Posts: 13
Joined: 12-October 05
Member No.: 15,170



QUOTE (J Simmons @ Mar 14 2008, 10:41 AM) *
In discussing the then $7,000 limit on elective deferrals, the House Committee Report for Sec 403©, Tax-Sheltered Annuities (TRA '86, P.L. 99-514) explained that "Unlike the overall limits on annual additions, which apply separately to amounts accumulated under plans of different employers, this $7,000 cap limits all elective deferrals by an employee."



Awesome. Thanks guys!!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
J4FKBC
post Mar 17 2008, 01:05 AM
Post #12


John Feldt, CPC, QPA


Group: Registered
Posts: 878
Joined: 3-August 05
From: West Des Moines, Iowa
Member No.: 14,892



Is the hospital plan a 403(b) and the PC plan a normal DC type PS/401(k) or money purchase? If so, then:

Since the PC owner owns 50% or less of the PC, then the 415 limit is not aggregated with the hospital 403(b) plan. However, if the owner of the PC owned more than 50% of the PC, then their PC plan and the hospital 403(b) plan must be aggregated for 415 purposes.

The 402(g) limit for deferrals is an individual limit, aggregating all 403(b) and 401(k) deferrals together (without regard to 457(b) deferrals).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

Reply to this topicStart new topic

 



Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 03:21 PM