Jump to content

11(g) Amendment


RLR
 Share

Recommended Posts

17 minutes ago, RLR said:

I really appreciate all the replies.  There are 3 NHCE's who worked 1,000 hours but were not there the last day who will be brought into the plan.

Does 1 HCE and 3 NHCE's constitute a 410(b) group?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, BG5150 said:

An 11-g amendment is effective as of the first day of the plan year to which it pertains.  So why wouldn't a contribution allocated thereunder not be deductible for that plan year?  I think there is a reason why the latest date for the amendment is 9 1/2 months after PYE: tax form extensions.

Because it isn't.  You think wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, any additions due to an 11-g amendment are not deductible for the plan year to which it pertains?  It's deductible in the year of deposit?

QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPA

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, QP_Guy said:

The other "gotcha" has to do with deduction timing for contributions made compliant via-11g amendments.

As i understand the original facts, the contribution originally made to the HCE was not permitted by the plan terms.  Allocations created after the plan year end via -11g amendment would NOT be deductible for the plan year they are allocated to.  Rather that contribution would be deductible in the year the amendment was executed (the following year).

The statement I made BOLD above is not correct; guaranteed. What do you base your belief on?

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

36 minutes ago, BG5150 said:

So, any additions due to an 11-g amendment are not deductible for the plan year to which it pertains?  It's deductible in the year of deposit?

Not so.

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trying to find citation that shows -11g additions are deductible so long as contributed by the due date of tax return plus extensions.

Here is the parallel issue for QNECs (from EOB):

4. QNECs must be made within 12 months after close of plan year. To be counted in the ADP test or ACP test for a plan year, QNECs must be contributed no later than 12 months after the close of the plan year for which they are allocated. This rule is found in Treas. Reg. §1.401(k)-2(a)(6)(i) (ADP test) and §1.401(m)-2(a)(6)(i) (ACP test). Usually, the employer will make the contribution sooner (i.e., the due date of its tax return for the year for which the QNECs are allocated) because it wants to deduct the contribution for the year for which the QNECs are allocated.

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QNEC provisions are baked into the document before the last day of the fiscal year so they are not in any way comparable to corrective allocations pursuant to an -11(g) amendment. Why do you need a citation that says the obvious?  Or if a flip answer doesn't warm the cockles of your heart, try 1.401(a)(4)-11(g)(5):

(5)Effect under other statutory requirements. A corrective amendment under this paragraph (g) is treated as if it were adopted and effective as of the first day of the plan year only for the specific purposes described in this paragraph (g). Thus, for example, the corrective amendment is taken into account not only for purposes of sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b), but also for purposes of determining whether the plan satisfies sections 401(l). By contrast, the amendment is not given retroactive effect for purposes of section 404 (deductions for employer contributions) or section 412 (minimum funding standards), unless otherwise provided for in rules applicable to those sections.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But while we are discussing angels, dancing and pins there is an (overly aggressive, in my view) interpretation of the above that will typically satisfy both definitions.  While the -11(g) amendment can't be used to modify the otherwise determined deductible limit of 404, the contributions made pursuant to the -11(g) amendment can be deducted as long as they don't cause an aggregate deduction to exceed that otherwise determined deductible limit of 404.  That leaves your only hurdle as 404(a)(6).  Got any workarounds for 404(a)(6)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought about this some more.

the whole thing smells. and smells real bad.

oh, an owner quit and now we want to retroactively amend the document to conform what took place in which the owner was 'accidently' provided a contribution.

The  company doesn't  run the  cross testing, it is the TPA or whomever, and apparently it was discovered that the owner won't get anything, so now lets go ahead and give him something. (instead of rerunning the test how it should.)

and let's call it a correction under -11g and to be fair we will give to the nhce terminees as well. we never gave terminated NHCEs in the past, but then we never had a terminated owner either.

arguing they can pass all the mathematical testing reminds me of the comment made by the IRS in regards to cross testing in general

Although these designs may allow the plan to satisfy the vesting or numeric general tests for nondiscrimination and the associated regulations, they don’t satisfy Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-1(c)(2), which requires that the provisions of Sections 1.401(a)(4)-1 through 1.401(a)(4)-13 be reasonably interpreted to prevent discrimination in favor of HCEs. 

so is it a reasonable interpretation to say this flies? lets see, we give an owner $40,000 or whatever and give terminees who probably have minimal comp a 5% contribution and because mathematically it works out, it is ok.

 

dang, might as well have a document that reads

in no year terminees will receive except in a year in which it is an owner and then all terminees receive. (Could you at least have said, oh I didn't see that the owner is past NRA and those folks do actually get a contribution)

bet you would have problems getting that document approved.

or taking it a step further if it was a MP plan at 5% would you say it is ok to retroactively amend to 10% to all and call it a corrective amendment because that is how we ran the allocation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Mike Preston said:

QNEC provisions are baked into the document before the last day of the fiscal year so they are not in any way comparable to corrective allocations pursuant to an -11(g) amendment. Why do you need a citation that says the obvious?  Or if a flip answer doesn't warm the cockles of your heart, try 1.401(a)(4)-11(g)(5):

(5)Effect under other statutory requirements. A corrective amendment under this paragraph (g) is treated as if it were adopted and effective as of the first day of the plan year only for the specific purposes described in this paragraph (g). Thus, for example, the corrective amendment is taken into account not only for purposes of sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b), but also for purposes of determining whether the plan satisfies sections 401(l). By contrast, the amendment is not given retroactive effect for purposes of section 404 (deductions for employer contributions) or section 412 (minimum funding standards), unless otherwise provided for in rules applicable to those sections.

Whew! That's a load of my mind. I'm glad that's your citation, because that is exactly saying what I'm saying. 

The -11g amendment allows for the additional funds to be deducted in the prior year tax return. Now, to accomplish that, you still have to comply with either 404 or 412.  So for a PS plan (401(k) plan), you have to make the contribution within the due date of the tax return plus extensions.  If you are not on extension, making the  -11g amendment AFTER 3/15 (4/15) does not allow for the deduction in the prior year EVEN though it is allowed to be effective for the prior year for the other purposes noted.  If it is subject to minimum funding, you have the 2 1/2 month rule in order to have it effective for deduction purposes for the prior year and the election that is attached to the 5500 under 412(c)(8).

But other than that, a -11g amendment done after the year end for a DC plan is deductible if done and funded prior to the extended due date of the applicable return.

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Poje said:

I thought about this some more.

the whole thing smells. and smells real bad.

oh, an owner quit and now we want to retroactively amend the document to conform what took place in which the owner was 'accidently' provided a contribution.

The  company doesn't  run the  cross testing, it is the TPA or whomever, and apparently it was discovered that the owner won't get anything, so now lets go ahead and give him something. (instead of rerunning the test how it should.)

and let's call it a correction under -11g and to be fair we will give to the nhce terminees as well. we never gave terminated NHCEs in the past, but then we never had a terminated owner either.

arguing they can pass all the mathematical testing reminds me of the comment made by the IRS in regards to cross testing in general

Although these designs may allow the plan to satisfy the vesting or numeric general tests for nondiscrimination and the associated regulations, they don’t satisfy Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-1(c)(2), which requires that the provisions of Sections 1.401(a)(4)-1 through 1.401(a)(4)-13 be reasonably interpreted to prevent discrimination in favor of HCEs. 

so is it a reasonable interpretation to say this flies? lets see, we give an owner $40,000 or whatever and give terminees who probably have minimal comp a 5% contribution and because mathematically it works out, it is ok.

 

dang, might as well have a document that reads

in no year terminees will receive except in a year in which it is an owner and then all terminees receive. (Could you at least have said, oh I didn't see that the owner is past NRA and those folks do actually get a contribution)

bet you would have problems getting that document approved.

or taking it a step further if it was a MP plan at 5% would you say it is ok to retroactively amend to 10% to all and call it a corrective amendment because that is how we ran the allocation?

Tom,

I do think you are overthinking it. But I do believe that the allocation done that included the HCE who was not entitled to that allocation needs to be re-run and the full amount allocated without him in it since it appears those funds were contributed prior to the year end.  Those funds belong to those who were entitled to the allocation of the plan contribution as of the year end.

The -11g amendment has to be an ADDITIONAL amount of money, for the HCE and all the other terminated employees now included.

And yes, I have no problem with bringing EVERYONE in and then giving the appropriate amount of money so the plan passes all the tests, now including the additional folk.  That's why the IRS wrote those 800  pages of regulations and if this passes, it passes.  It clearly (to me) is NOT discrimination in favor of the HCE when they amend to give the money to everyone.  It is no different than if the plan had been amended on 12/30 to eliminate the end of year provision, held off its contribution until after 12/31, figured out what had to be contributed INCLUDING any -11g amendment in case the plan was cross tested, and then adopted the amendment and contributed the funds.

On your MP example, how they ran a wrong allocation at 10% is immaterial. They found out it should be 5%, they want it to be 10%, now they don't need to do an -11g amendment because they can adopt an amendment within 2 1/2 months and give it retroactive effect under 412(c)(8) for deduction purposes.   A -11g amendment doesn't give a MP plan retroactive increase in minimum funding if done after 2 1/2 months.

 

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Tom Poje said:

I thought about this some more.

the whole thing smells. and smells real bad.

Nobody has discussed making the design changes described in the -11(g) amendment permanent or not. I would resist any further expansion of -1(c)(2) in the absence of, at the least, an informal announcement from the IRS. Where do you draw the line, Tom?  Couldn't you use that same provision to diminish the effectiveness of ANY design that is on the wrong side of a pro-rata allocation formula? I would argue that there are certain things that are very much intended to be measured by the mathematical formulas of the regulation.  And treating a contribution to an historically walled off class of employees (those who terminate before the end of the year) as subject to those formulas is one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

32 minutes ago, Larry Starr said:

Whew! That's a load of my mind. I'm glad that's your citation, because that is exactly saying what I'm saying. 

Assuming we adopt the view that I've already described as over-aggressive, how do you get around 404(a)(6)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, Mike Preston said:

Assuming we adopt the view that I've already described as over-aggressive, how do you get around 404(a)(6)?

What exactly is your concern.  My 404(a)(6) says this:

(6)Time when contributions deemed made

For purposes of paragraphs (1), (2), and (3), a taxpayer shall be deemed to have made a payment on the last day of the preceding taxable year if the payment is on account of such taxable year and is made not later than the time prescribed by law for filing the return for such taxable year (including extensions thereof).

I think that is exactly what I said.

More important is the reg you quoted: 1.401(a)(4)-11g(5):

(5)Effect under other statutory requirements. A corrective amendment under this paragraph (g) is treated as if it were adopted and effective as of the first day of the plan year only for the specific purposes described in this paragraph (g). Thus, for example, the corrective amendment is taken into account not only for purposes of sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b), but also for purposes of determining whether the plan satisfies sections 401(l). By contrast, the amendment is not given retroactive effect for purposes of section 404 (deductions for employer contributions) or section 412 (minimum funding standards), unless otherwise provided for in rules applicable to those sections.

And here, that last clause that I highlighted is what I explained in my prior email.  As long as you follow the rules for deduction (contribution made by extended due date of return), then you are in compliance.

What exactly do you think the problem is with 404(a)(6) that I am missing?

 

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Preston said:

Assuming we adopt the view that I've already described as over-aggressive, how do you get around 404(a)(6)?

BTW, I really don't think it is over aggressive. Really.

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

404(a)(6) has always been interpreted literally as to the terms of the plan.  To the extent there have been carve outs to that definition they have been explicit (hence 412(c)(8) you previously cited.  There is no such nexus between 404(a)(6) and an -11(g) amendment that I'm aware of.

I guess we are just going to have to disagree that the language of 404(a)(6) you are hanging your hat on ["unless otherwise provided for in rules applicable to those sections."] has any applicability to -11(g).  It doesn't.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/Workshop 01.Pension Deductions - Not for the Faint of Heart.pdf

See pages 47 and 48

I also saw a Relius tease for a workshop that supposedly addressed the following:

"In which tax year are the contributions made with respect to a retroactive corrective amendment deductible?"

which may be instructional:

http://www.relius.net/news/TechnicalUpdateDetails.aspx?T=&1=1&ID=971

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/9/2018 at 11:40 PM, Mike Preston said:

http://www.asppa.org/Portals/2/Workshop 01.Pension Deductions - Not for the Faint of Heart.pdf

See pages 47 and 48

I also saw a Relius tease for a workshop that supposedly addressed the following:

"In which tax year are the contributions made with respect to a retroactive corrective amendment deductible?"

which may be instructional:

http://www.relius.net/news/TechnicalUpdateDetails.aspx?T=&1=1&ID=971

Hmmmm..  on page 48, Kevin left out the important part of that reg (as I see it).  See my prior discussion.

The Relius tease was from 2013 and only raises the question but doesn't provide and useful discussion.

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mike Preston said:

Yes, but I thought with your Relius connections you can burrow beneath the tease and see what they said in the presentation being teased.

I'll give it the old college try.. tomorrow.

BTW: Yesterday we were in NYC for a Tony Party.  My show WON THE FRIGGIN BEST MUSICAL REVIVAL!!!!!!!! Got home at 3:30 this morning and had a dental appt at 7:30!

Once On This Island.

Lawrence C. Starr, FLMI, CLU, CEBS, CPC, ChFC, EA, ATA, QPFC
President
Qualified Plan Consultants, Inc.
46 Daggett Drive
West Springfield, MA 01089
413-736-2066
larrystarr@qpc-inc.com

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...