Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register ) · 0 New Messages
![]() ![]() |
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? |
|
|
|
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."
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
|
|
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 |
|
|
|
|
Mar 12 2008, 04:04 PM
Post
#5
|
|
|
Registered User Group: Registered Posts: 893 Joined: 17-May 05 Member No.: 14,641 |
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)
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2008, 08:15 AM
Post
#6
|
|
|
Registered User Group: Registered Posts: 13 Joined: 12-October 05 Member No.: 15,170 |
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. |
|
|
|
Mar 14 2008, 08:17 AM
Post
#7
|
|
|
Registered User Group: Registered Posts: 13 Joined: 12-October 05 Member No.: 15,170 |
|
|
|
|
Mar 14 2008, 08:20 AM
Post
#8
|
|
|
Registered User Group: Registered Posts: 13 Joined: 12-October 05 Member No.: 15,170 |
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
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. |
|
|
|
Mar 14 2008, 10:57 AM
Post
#11
|
|
|
Registered User Group: Registered Posts: 13 Joined: 12-October 05 Member No.: 15,170 |
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!! |
|
|
|
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). |
|
|
|
![]() ![]() |
| Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: 21st November 2009 - 03:21 PM |