Carol V. Calhoun Posted October 8, 1999 Report Share Posted October 8, 1999 The problem is that I.R.C. § 415(e)(5) is the source of the rule that a 403(B) plan is not to be treated as a plan of the employer which actually sponsors it, but only of any business controlled by the participant. Although you are right that the first part of that rule is not explicit (since the statute by its terms mentions only the second part), it is the only part of 415 which could be construed to cause a 403(B) plan sponsored by an employer not to be treated as a plan of that employer for purposes of I.R.C. § 415(f), which calls for all plans of an employer to be combined in applying the 415 limits. The question may soon be moot, however. TRA '99 would have corrected the problem. While of course TRA '99 was vetoed (isn't that an annual tradition by now?), the general expectation seems to be that the pension plan provisions will eventually turn up in whatever tax bill is passed. -------------------------------- Employee benefits legal resource site [This message has been edited by CVCalhoun (edited 10-08-1999).] Employee benefits legal resource site The opinions of my postings are my own and do not necessarily represent my law firm's position, strategies, or opinions. The contents of my postings are offered for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. A visit to this board or an exchange of information through this board does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult directly with an attorney for individual advice regarding your particular situation. I am not your lawyer under any circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!Register a new account
Already have an account? Sign in here.Sign In Now