Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

I am largely unfamiliar with EPCRS (I never ever make mistakes :lol: ), so let me know if you think this is correct. All those affected are NHCEs, so no discrimination issues.

Takeover profit sharing plan has the following issues:

1) The prior TPA failed to include some eligible employees. This seems like an easy correction under SCP: just give contributions plus earnings. Note I specifically did not say to adjust for losses as I don't think that is required and I don't want to do that.)

2) They allowed participants into the plan too early. Seems like the SCP correction can be to amend the plan under 2.07 of Appendix B to retroactively allow entry.

3) There is a last day requirement to receive a profit sharing contribution, yet too much was given to terminated participants. They just needed to get the gateway, but instead received amounts over and above it. I don't see how this is eligible to be corrected under SCP and allow the employees to keep the allocations. The correction would require an amendment to remove the last day requirement. I don't see this as one of the operation failures eligible for correction under SCP under 2.07 of Appendix B. So, it seems to me a VCP submission is required.

4) Their EGTRRA restatement was effective 1/1/2008 yet signed 11/2009. It did amend eligibility entry dates. It would be best if the effective date was changed to 1/1/2009. Anyone know what the IRS would say about this?

When making the VCP submission should all failures be disclosed, even the ones that can be corrected via SCP?

Thanks.

"What's in the big salad?"

"Big lettuce, big carrots, tomatoes like volleyballs."

Posted

If you read the example for # 2, you will notice that you amend the plan retroactively, but also have to file the amendment for a D letter. It's really annoying how they hid that detail.

  • 1 month later...
Posted

I'm arriving to this discussion a little late, however I don't think it would be required to submit for a DL if a pre-approved plan were being used. IRS had commented on the same issue at the ASPPA conference last Novmeber. Take a look at 6.05 of Rev Proc 2008-50 (page 32) and the memorandum from Michael Julienelle dated 3/11/09. If the plan is individually designed, then I would otherwise agree.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use