SteveH Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 If a client is looking to give a more guaranteed contribution to their employees, what affect does writing into a profit sharing document that the contribution will be 10% of pay? Typically you would just list it as discretionary and then allocate an amount that would equal 10% of pay. If the document actually dictated that the allocation would be 10% of pay, and then the client did not contribute 10% of pay what are the consequences? Are you in effect creating a Money Purchase Plan subject to minimum funding if you write in the 10% of pay? You can ammend a plan within the couple months after the plan year, but when MPP were a little more common, we would tell employers that once someone worked the 1000 requirement they were entitled to the contribution. So you couldn't really change a MPP formula past mid year. I am trying to determine the difference between a Profit Sharing plan with the contribution fomula written into the document and a Money Purchase Plan.
jpod Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 1. PS plans can be designed to avoid J&S requirements; MPP plans cannot. 2. PS plans not subject to minimum funding requirements and minimum fundnig excise tax; MPP plans are. 3. PS plans not subject to ERISA 204(h); MPP plans are. 4. Can't incorporate a cash or deferred feature into a MPP plan. There may be more differences but these are off the top of the head. You can have a PS plan with a fixed contribution formula. Just make sure that the plan says, somewhere, that it is a PS plan.
SteveH Posted August 17, 2006 Author Posted August 17, 2006 I am just wondering from a contribution persepctive. For instance if the plan says that the allocation will be 15% of pay, but the employer doesn't have the money, what happens? Has the employer not deposited the required contribution and therefore has gotten the company into an excise tax situation?
jpod Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 PS Plan = no excise tax. That doesn't mean that the employer does not have a past due obligation to the plan.
david rigby Posted August 17, 2006 Posted August 17, 2006 Isn't this an employee communciation issue more than a plan design issue? If the sponsor wants to give more in a PS plan, do so, and tell the employees that is your goal. Putting it in the plan is not worth the bother. 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.
QDROphile Posted August 18, 2006 Posted August 18, 2006 Is the plan disqualified if says that the participant's account will get a 15% contributionand it does not (most plans state a time limit for contributions)? Failure to comply with plan terms is a disqualifying event. If the employer is supposed to contribute 15% and does not, is the "past due" obligation an extension of credit by the plan and therefore a prohibited transaction?
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