Guest dietpepsi Posted February 27, 2003 Posted February 27, 2003 Some of you might have heard this at the LA Benefits conference. I have confirmed the information with some folks at the IRS. If a plan is a non-calendar year plan year and the EGTRRA Good Faith amendment was signed before the GUST restatement, the IRS is saying that the EGTRRA Good Faith amendment is nullified and another EGTRRA Good Faith amendment needs to be adopted. Also, if a plan sponsor moves from a prototype document to an individually designed plan, the EGTRRA Good Faith amendment would need to be incorporated into the individually designed plan adopted. The same would apply if a plan sponsor moved from one service provider's document to another or had a restatement for any other reason. I had been under the impression that the EGTRRA Good Faith amendment granted the plan sponsor the EGTRRA RAP and all was well with the world. Now it seems we have to stay on top of the EGTRRA Good Faith amendment with every document change. Was this everybody's understanding except for mine? Let me know your thoughts, positive or negative.
rcline46 Posted February 28, 2003 Posted February 28, 2003 We have modified our Resolution to keep the previously signed egtrra whenever we restate a document (ours). We always do a new egtrra on any takeover plan.
Mike Preston Posted February 28, 2003 Posted February 28, 2003 I'm not sure your method works, rcline46, but I guess it is better than nothing. SS (S___t S________?), the IRS has made it clear that an adoption of an amendment and restatement is just that... and amendment and restatement. If your new adoption doesn't have the EGTRRA language in it, well, it doesn't have the EGTRRA language in it.
rcline46 Posted February 28, 2003 Posted February 28, 2003 FWIW, we had an ERISA attorney draft the language. What it actually does is readopt the previous EGTRRA amendment.
Mike Preston Posted February 28, 2003 Posted February 28, 2003 I understand. However a word of caution might be helpful. Some people believe that a resolution, in and of itself, no matter what it says, can not function as an "adoption" of any specific language not embedded within the resolution. Glad you had a lawyer do it, because it is clearly a legal issue.
david rigby Posted February 28, 2003 Posted February 28, 2003 No expert I, but the original post seems to be saying that the IRS is concerned about form over substance. Usually, it is the other way around. Or maybe it's both. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now