Belgarath

Curious to see if you think this would qualify. Suppose you have a Union Plan, where the percentage contribution to the Money Purchase Plan varies according to the collective bargaining agreement terms every time it is renegotiated. If you have a formula that says something to the effect of, " The Employer contribution percentage for each Plan Year will be the percentage required under the terms of the Collective Bargaining Agreement applicable to that Plan Year." - or something similar. It seems to me that this satisfies 1.401-1(b), but maybe I've been exposed to airplane glue or something...

This may sound ridiculous, and I've done no research on this, so it is just floating a thought - can you file an amended form for the 2014 plan year as a small plan, and therefore continue to file as a small plan in future years until the magic 121?

Thanks Mike! P.S. - just reading Revenue Procedure 2015-32, which governs the delinquent 5500-EZ filer program, and Section 7 .03 (d) lists the web address for forms after 1989, and for applicable schedules after 1994. Thankfully, Mike provided the method for finding the instructions. For schedules between 1990 and 1994, it appears that you must call the tax form line at 800-829-3676 - actually, if you are so inclined, you can supposedly get forms and schedules for any plan year at this number.

I found the forms themselves on the IRS website going back to 1990, but I couldn't find the instructions for all those older forms. Anyone know where I can find them?

Seems like I should have known that, but if I did, I forgot. Thanks!

Yeah, I'm not sure about it either! Certain provisions of ERISA don't apply, and some do, for example SEP-IRA's are exempt from parts 2 and 3 of Title I of ERISA, etc. - so I'm not sure offhand which ERISA rights might apply and which don't.

First, not knowing the situation, I'd say that you should tread carefully. Did your employer notify you of this? Is it privileged, confidential information? Second, I'm not necessarily sure you have any "rights" as such. If the employer wishes to retain the qualified status of the plan, then "make-up" contributions plus lost earnings would be required for all eligible employees. But, the employer may choose to simply have the IRS disqualify the plan, if it is audited, and pay taxes, interest, penalties for all the deductions that will be disallowed. Hard to even guess without knowing how much money is at stake, employer's general attitude towards employees, etc., etc. Some other folks here may have different opinions or more specific input. I don't know anything about potential state laws, express or implied employment contracts, or perhaps any of a host of other issues that an attorney might raise. Good luck!

Time to bump it up to a supervisor.

"Other than potential discrimination in operation for the timing of deposits, does anyone see a problem funding before year end and immediately converting to Roth?" I can't get to the Roth conversion, because the deposit scheme you propose fails miserably, IMHO. Plan has an allocation method. Contributions must be allocated according to that method. Making a contribution just for the owner on January 1m whether or not he converts to Roth, just isn't acceptable. As the AFLAC commercial guy says when asked if the duck kicking the golf ball into the hole is legal, "That's a big fat NOOO." Others may, of course, disagree.

Haven't ever seen this one. Suppose a non-profit has a formula of 10% of pay. In a given year, they contribute 15%. There's no penalty for a nondeductible contribution because there is no deduction anyway. The question is, can/must it be ALLOCATED even though it violates the formula? My inclination is no - it is an operational violation of the plan, so it needs to be carried over to the next year, for which they can amend the plan to increase the contribution if so desired. Any other thoughts?

Who is your 5500 software vendor? Perhaps this is a problem related to their specific software? I haven't heard of this being an issue before. Have you checked with them?

Someone may have posted this one here before - not my invention, certainly. There is a day coming up in May when all the skunks come out of hibernation and have a big party to celebrate the end of winter. It's called: . . . . . . .Wait for it . . . . . . . . . . . .Stinko De Mayo

Classroom blunders: History calls people Romans because they never stayed in one place for very long. At Roman banquets, the guests wore garlics in their hair. Julius Caesar extinguished himself on the battlefields of Gaul. The Ides of March murdered him because they thought he was going to be made king. Nero was a cruel tyranny who would torture his poor subjects by playing the fiddle to them.

Suppose a non-profit employer has a 401(k) or 403(b), and in addition, has a 457(b) plan. The 401(k) and 403(b) plans define compensation to include deferrals to 457(b) plans. Suppose for a given year, the employer contributes $18,000 to the 457(b) plan as a nonelective contribution - the employee does NOT make a deferral election? Although the general treatment of 457 employer contributions is a deferral for purposes of the elective deferral limit, it seems less clear to me how this should be treated for compensation purposes in other plans. 1.415©-2(b)(1) includes the clause ..."(or to the extent amounts would have been received and includible in gross income BUT FOR an election under....457(b)." (emphasis is mine) 415©(3)(D)(ii) says any amount which is contributed or deferred by the employer "at the election of the employee"... So it seems to me that employer nonelective contributions should NOT be added back in as compensation for purposes of other plans, as the employee has made no "election" for those amounts to be contributed? Thoughts? I can also argue it the other way - if it suited my purposes...

They are each app. 2-1/2 inches wide. Thin paper, small print. Nearly 5,000 pages total. But they are well-made - I've never had any problems with the binding, stuff falling apart, etc. Just saw your last post - I know the website was wrong when I ordere3d mine, because I had this set before, and there was no way they could shoehorn it into 2,000+ pages. Each volume is 2,000+ pages. I called them to confirm it before I ordered.

Like you, I like to have a book as well. The first option on the link Tom posted is the one I use - the 2-volume option. I think it is a bargain.

I agree - eligible as of the date they officially become a "leased" employee.

IMHO, not that loosely! Rent just doesn't qualify. Of course, the plan could be amended to utilize a non-safe harbor definition or criteria for "financial hardship" to allow it. It has to not allow administrator discretion. It might be possible, for example, to define hardship as all hardship events that would qualify under the safe harbor definition (I'm not going to bother to list them here) then to add a category that defines homelessness as a qualifying hardship event, or something like that. You'd have to think about that one a while to get an appropriate definition or set of objective criteria. Call me out of touch, but I wouldn't have expected this to be a common situation that would be encountered very often. Thankfully, I haven't ever seen it either.

Take a look at 408(m).

Honestly, I wouldn't even attempt to answer that question - to me, that's a question for ERISA counsel. Any opinion I might have I'll keep to myself, lest I expose my ignorance even more than is customary...

While I defer to the ERISA attorneys, I'd just observe that it is the participant who wants the distribution that is saying there will be a divorce - what ulterior motive would a participant have for making a statement that serves to delay or prohibit a distribution to himself? So I think it is pretty reasonable for the plan to put a hold on the account based on that, pending whatever additional written confirmation/statements whatever an attorney would tell the plan is appropriate. I think the "may" is fairly standard language, to allow some Plan Administrator flexibility. And, good luck getting a statement indicating marital bliss.

There may be many sources, but you might want to look into purchasing Janice Wegesin's 5500 Preparer's Manual. In my prior life our company purchased this every year, and it was a great resource. I can't guarantee it will answer your questions, but I'm sure you could contact Janice with a list of your questions and ask if the manual answers them.

If you submit under VCP, just possible the IRS might run it over to audit as an "egregious" situation anyway... If a person has a failure (or multiple failures) but isn't willing to fix it, then there isn't really anything that can be done. Were the 5500 EZ forms filed correctly (under penalty of perjury, no less)? Relationships can be tough, but I don't really see any alternative other than saying something to the effect of, "your plan is out of compliance and can be disqualified upon audit, and you are potentially subject to all kinds of penalties for prohibited transactions, etc., etc., and you need to seek advice of counsel to determine your possible course(s) of action and the risks/rewards associated with each."

Short answer - I don't know. I think this is further complicated by 1.403(b)-10, referring to 1.403(b)(3) - which gets you to (d)(2) of that section regarding nonforfeitability, ultimately seems to sort of say that amounts that don't satisfy the nonforfeitability provisions aren't 403(b) amounts, but are instead subject to 403© or 401(a). I haven't done any sort of thorough analysis on this, and if I did, I'm not sure I could find a solidly supportable answer anyway! Going purely with what "feels" right, I'd say the PPT rules apply. I'm most willing to be instructed in why that isn't right, however. Interesting question.

I can't assess your likelihood of success, but see the following: 457(b) Plan Submissions to Voluntary Compliance Some plan sponsors may, under limited circumstances, submit requests to the IRS for voluntary correction of Code Section 457(b) retirement plans (Revenue Procedure 2013-12, Section 4.09). The IRS Employee Plans Voluntary Compliance (VC) team will consider these requests on a provisional basis outside of the Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (EPCRS). VC retains complete discretion to accept or reject these requests. If accepted, VC will issue a special closing agreement. •VC will not consider any issue relating to the form of a written 457(b) plan document. •Governmental plan sponsors do not have to make a submission to VC to voluntarily fix problems with their 457(b) plans. Where to send Plan failures related to IRC Section 457(b) should be resolved in accordance with Revenue Procedure 2013-12, Section 4.09, by completing Form 8950, Application for Voluntary Correction Program (VCP). •Mail Form 8950 with a cover letter that describes the problem and proposed solution to the IRS address listed in the instructions. •Don't mail your submission to the California address used for voluntary closing agreement requests related to issues that can't be addressed under the EPCRS. •Don't submit your request to the EP Examinations or Determinations functions. Don't submit plan document issues We have received several submissions alleging that a written 457(b) plan was not timely adopted, or amended for some tax law or income tax regulation. VC will not issue closing agreements for these matters and will decline to process these requests and refund any payments. Plan sponsors are reminded that the remedial amendment concepts and definitions in Revenue Procedure 2007-44 do not apply to 457(b) retirement plans. Plan sponsors who want the IRS to review their 457(b) plan document or consider any other document form issue may request a private letter ruling. See Revenue Procedure 2016-1 (or annual successor revenue procedure) for details. Governmental plan sponsors can self-correct Governmental plan sponsors may self-correct their 457(b) plans if they did not comply with the Code or regulations. Governmental entities have until the first day of the plan year that begins more than 180 days after the IRS notifies them of the failure to correct their plan failures (IRC Section 457(b)(6) and Treasury Regulation Section 1.457-9(a)). Considering the time governmental entities have to self-correct plan errors, they may not need to make voluntary submissions to the IRS in most cases. If a governmental plan sponsor needs to request additional relief or simply wants IRS approval for a correction method for a non-plan document failure, they may make a submission to VC as permitted by Revenue Procedure 2013-12, Section 4.09. The plan sponsor must indicate that they are aware of the self-correction rule in IRC Section 457(b)(6) and Treasury Regulation Section 1.457-9, but still wants to proceed with a written VC application. Plan sponsors should include this statement and Form 8950, Application for Voluntary Correction Program (VCP) (instructions) with their submission. Questions? Send your questions about submitting a request for voluntary correction for a 457(b) retirement plan to TEGE.EP.VC@irs.gov.