Search the Community

I am restating a traditional defined benefit plan from a prior provider’s document to our pre-approved volume submitter document. The plan credits all service with related employers (i.e., members of a controlled or affiliated service group) for eligibility and vesting. However, for purposes of benefit accrual, service with related employers is counted only from the date the related employer adopts the plan (or, if applicable, from the date an employee transfers employment from a non-adopting related employer to the plan sponsor). The IRS did issue a favorable determination letter on the document prepared by the prior provider. I suspect the application was filed using a Form 5300, but I do not know for certain. (The document is in an individually designed format vs. on an Adoption Agreement.) Under the terms of our pre-approved volume submitter base doc, all service with related employers is automatically credited for all purposes. (I see this was a required provision under Section 14.03 of Rev. Proc. 2015-36.) If we move forward with the restatement, I understand the provision limiting credited service for benefit accruals will negate reliance on the IRS advisory letter. Since the plan already has an FDL, I don’t believe there is an option to file for a new letter using a Form 5300. The question I have is this: could we reasonably argue that this provision is a “minor modification” to the pre-approved volume submitter language such that we could apply for a determination letter using Form 5307?

I have a governmental plan that is individually designed and has not been restated since 2001. If it is a cycle C (I realize that remedial amendment cycles are no longer around), what years should the plan have been restated? In other words, what years did the plan miss a required restatement?

As we are now in the DC restatement cycle, I use this as an opportunity to formally review Plan provisions with my clients to see what is working for them and what might want to be changed (I discuss things with them every year but this is more formal). Taking aside the issue with changing safe-harbor plans mid-year, I know there are certain provisions that cannot be changed if it makes it worse for participants. Retirement benefits is the first that comes to mind. Typically, I could use a logical rule that says if it is going to "take away" a benefit from existing participants, then it is not allowed to be removed. Is that a rule set in stone? What if a client is sick of handling loan repayments? Could they remove a loan provision going forward? I could argue that existing participants only deferred in the past because they knew they would have access to the money. But is that stretching it? Besides the above, is there any list of specific provisions that can NOT be removed or made more strict when doing these restatements? Thanks in advance.