Dual contributions from seperate school payroll points into one 403(b)

[Guest bstarr@metlife.com]

Who knows weather a school employee who works for both

the superentendant of school district county office part time and also works for one of the feeder schools part time

can have the county match and deferral from the second school into one TSA-403(B)? Without any violations.

[Guest James S. K]

It is possible that the superintendant and the feeder school are part of the same "single employer." I believe that there is a relatively recent PLR where the IRS ruled that all the school districts in the state of Idaho were a "single employer." If the entities in your fact situation are a single employer, then it would be possible to defer salary and to match such contributions from both entities in a single 403(B) program.

If you determine that a "single employer" is involved, then you should look at the plan document or other applicable agreements to see if the plan or plans permit or require matching of salary deferrals from both entities. For example, in some instances, two entities which are part of a single employer may have separate 403(B) plans, the same 403(B) plan, or one may have a 403(B) plan while the other does not. In addition, the one entity may provide matching contributions while the other does not.

[Guest bstarr@metlife.com]

Now I just have to get the 'group remittance' department to accept participant contributions written with seperate checks from the same "single" county source. Any suggestions ?

[Guest James S. K]

Sorry, I can't help you with that. Try explaining the situation to them (i.e., single employer, match applies to one part of deferral or both) and show them how it fits into plan document and adoptions by both entities. Beyond that...

[Guest bstarr@metlife.com]

Please direct me to PLR(reprint)decision in Idaho on several "schools" were deemed to be actually "one Employer" in relation to MEA.

Thankx.

[Guest James S. K]

I apologize. I reviewed my notes and found that this ruling is not yet published. I will search my cluttered desktop and see if I can locate the hardcopy.

[Carol V. Calhoun]

The Idaho ruling actually dealt with treating the state of Idaho and all of its subdivisions as a single employer for purposes of the 401(k) grandfather rules. You can click on this link to see a copy. However, note that it involved a situation in which the state chose to go for single employer status. The individuals at the IRS involved with the ruling stressed that the situation might well be different if the entities chose to treat themselves as different employers.