Leaderboard

No, severance pay is not considered by the IRS as plan compensation in any manner. It is not considered payment for services. 415 post severance compensation is for payment of amounts after termination of employment to which the employee would have been entitled had the employee continued in employment, such as accrued vacation time, paid sick leave, delayed bonuses, etc. Severance payments would not be made to an employee absent termination and therefore not post severance compensation. This was always the IRS position on severance pay, even before the 415 post severance compensation regulations (which only confused the matter because of the use of the term "severance"), and employer compliance back in the day was inconsistent to be sure.

How? Brother-Sister relationship exists when two thresholds are met: Common Ownership: the same 5 or fewer individuals own 80% or more of each business; and Identical Ownership: the common owners have identical ownership of more than 50%.

The National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) at nceo.org has a lot of resources available to members (and a fair amount available for free). There is a wide range of information available from the what and why of ESOPs to some of the more technical aspects of leveraged ESOPs. Membership is relatively modest. If you want to dive into the deep end, there is a national forum in Philadelphia next week https://forum.nceo.org/

defer to legal counsel

In terms of conferences find out which chapter of the ESOP Association covers your area. They all have local conferences with good breakout sessions. Since they are local the travel costs aren't too bad typically. There are regional conferences related to the ESOP Association. The Midwest Conference is in the Chicago area this year in mid September for example. If you, or your employer, are willing to spend a little more money than: If you work for an ESOP company or a company thinking about an ESOP look into the National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO), noted by another person. Look into becoming a member. Once you are a member you can get discounts on their books. I believe they still have monthly webinars for members. Their spring conference is a great learning environment. The reason I note them if you are an ESOP company or a company looking into ESOPs is their spring conference has a very large proportion of their attendees from ESOP companies. That allows you to meet and talk to the executives from other ESOP companies. You will find they are very willing to share their experiences and network with you. If you are on the TPA side of things the NCEO can still be great for first learning as they have a lot of basic sessions since so many companies show up. However, the large ESOP Association conferences have the best advance technical sessions. They have some fall conferences. They are the most expensive to go to in terms of conference fees and travel typically. Also look into: The Beyster Institute https://rady.ucsd.edu/why/centers/beyster/index.html The Ohio Center for Employee Ownership (even if you don't live in Ohio) https://www.oeockent.org/ More and more states are funding their own centers for ownership so check your own state. The Ohio one is one of the best and oldest. They put out all kinds of publications and have their own conferences. Hope that helps.

You might look into materials/conferences/webinars available from: National Center for Employee Ownership (NCEO) Beyster Institute ESOP Association

Others might suggest a conference. For a book, whether print or electronic, that covers needed information (without wasting your attention on stuff you’re unlikely to need), Brian Pinheiro’s Employee Stock Ownership Plan Answer Book (Wolters Kluwer) is useful.

The key to this early out is that it’s an involuntary distribution that results because the plan’s sponsor or fiduciary has removed the insurance contract from the plan’s investment alternatives. Before SECURE, among the many challenges of including an in-plan annuity contract as a retirement plan’s investment alternative was what might have been the imprudence of allowing a participant to devote a portion of one’s retirement savings to a contract that might become stranded because the plan discontinues the contract as an investment alternative. And some worry that a desire not to discontinue an annuity contract might lead a fiduciary to continue service arrangements a prudent fiduciary ought to replace. Before SECURE, many fiduciaries worried that allowing an annuity alternative impedes opportunities to select investment and service providers. For example, selecting a new recordkeeper might mean annuity contracts, especially guaranteed-lifetime-withdrawal-benefit or “GLWB” contracts, placed by a preceding recordkeeper or its affiliate will be discontinued. Many participants whose contracts are discontinued might feel their plan accounts were charged for insurance rights they never had an opportunity to use. The 2019 Act coins a new term, a lifetime-income investment, and for it allows a way to get around a retirement plan’s restraints against a too-early payout or distribution. Congress’s hope is that the availability of these exit strategies might help persuade some plans’ sponsors to try allowing an annuity contract as a participant-directed investment alternative. If a lifetime-income investment no longer is a plan’s investment alternative, the plan could allow: a direct rollover of the annuity contract to another eligible retirement plan, which could include an Individual Retirement Annuity; or a distribution of that lifetime-income investment as a qualified plan distribution annuity contract—one that preserves benefits and restrictions. To get an exception from a plan’s restriction against a too-early distribution (or from an extra 10% tax on a too-early distribution), either kind of extraordinary distribution must be made within 90 days from when the lifetime-income investment no longer is allowed as the plan’s investment alternative. I.R.C. (26 U.S.C.) § 401(a)(38); § 401(k)(2)(B)(i)(VI); § 402(c)(8)(B)(iii)-(vi); § 403(b)(11)(D); § 457(d)(1)(A)(iv). This is not advice to anyone.

Is this a one person plan, or are there other participants? I know that shouldn't matter, but I think it is often helpful to consider the implications of the various interpretations. If it is a one life plan than I wouldn't worry about discrimination. I know the IRS can always raise the issue, but the chances they ever look at this are slim. If it has other participants, then you need to consider discrimination issues. I don't recall if increases in 415 limit are considered to be accruals (I think they are), but giving only the HCE an increase would likely cause problems. I think the $6,500 is safe, assuming you don't have any discrimination problems. I don't think the $7,000 would be permitted since that would require an increase in the plan-defined accrued benefit. I also think the $5,250 is probably ok, In all situations, it might be helpful to draft a clarifying resolution defining exactly what the intent was in the amendment, even after the fact. If there are other participants you need to think through the discrimination implications, and I wouldn't do anything that could potentially be discriminatory, but if there are no other employees, I think it is fairly safe to go with whichever answer you want.

Years of participation for 415 purposes are tied to years of benefit accrual service (see Years of Participation definition under 1.415(b)-1). So I am not sure that you can even recognize additional years of participation for 415 purposes when a plan is frozen. But what you can recognize is increase in the 415 $ limit. However this amendment will be discriminatory if you have any non-HCEs in your DB plan.