Subscribe Now!
Free Daily News, Jobs, Webcasts, Discussions
Post and Distribute
Your Jobs
ARPA News
ARPA Webcasts

Featured Jobs

DB Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

The Nolan Company logo

Director of 401(k) Implementation, Core

Human Interest
(Telecommute / Mill Valley CA)

Human Interest logo

DC or DB Administrator

Farmer & Betts, Inc.
(Telecommute / Tacoma WA / Tualatin OR / Littleton CO)

Farmer & Betts, Inc. logo

DC Retirement Plan Administrator

The Nolan Company
(Telecommute / Overland Park KS)

The Nolan Company logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

Bates & Company
(Telecommute / Winter Park FL)

Bates & Company logo

Plan Document Specialist

Jocelyn Pension Consulting
(Telecommute / Boulder CO / San Rafael CA)

Jocelyn Pension Consulting logo

Product Support Consultant

ftwilliam.com part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory
(Telecommute)

ftwilliam.com part of Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory logo

Retirement Plan Consultant / Relationship Manager

Associated Pension Consultants
(Chico CA / Sacramento CA)

Associated Pension Consultants logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

RSW & Associates
(CT / NJ / NY)

RSW & Associates logo

401(k) Implementation Manager

Human Interest
(Telecommute / San Francisco CA)

Human Interest logo

Retirement Plan Administrator (Account Manager)

Kushner & Company
(Telecommute / Portage MI)

Kushner & Company logo

DB/DC Administrator

Primark Benefits
(Telecommute / Burlingame CA)

Primark Benefits logo

Director of Finance

NYCDC of Carpenters Benefit Funds
(New York NY)

Employee Benefits/Health and Welfare Attorney

Miller Johnson
(Telecommute / Grand Rapids MI / Kalamazoo MI / Detroit MI)

Miller Johnson logo

Retirement Plan Administrator

My Benefits, LLC
(Telecommute / Daphne AL / Atlantic Beach FL)

My Benefits, LLC logo

401(k) Consultant

TPS Group
(Telecommute / North Haven CT)

TPS Group logo

Free Newsletters

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”

-- An attorney subscriber

Mobile App image LinkedIn icon
Twitter icon
Facebook icon

BenefitsLink > Q&A Columns >

Who's the Employer?

Answers are provided by S. Derrin Watson, JD, APM

Top-Heavy Multiple Employer Plans

(Posted June 2, 2005)

Question 278: We have a PEO in which a client organization is top-heavy. The PEO is on a calendar plan and tax year. The client organization is leaving the PEO and wants to delay making the top-heavy contribution. They have a 9/30 tax year. We want them to make the top-heavy contribution before the 2004 form 5500 is filed, no later than 10/17/2005. They want to wait until 6/15/2006, because this is when their corporate tax return for the 9/30/05 plan year is due. Is 6/15/2005 or 6/15/2006 the correct tax filing to use as a deadline? Also, if the payment is not made until 6/15/2006, would the PEO plan have a qualification issue for the 2004 top-heavy contribution not having been made in a timely manner?

Answer: Your question raises an important issue for multiple employer plans, particularly those sponsored by PEOs. It demonstrates the importance of carefully addressing participating employer responsibilities, either in the plan document or in an outside contract.

Each participating sponsor in a multiple employer plan must apply the top-heavy rules separately. Thus, the plan must determine separately for each sponsor whether that sponsor's portion of the plan is top-heavy. If so, that sponsor must make the required contributions for its non-key employees. If the sponsor does not make the contribution, the plan as a whole risks disqualification.

But you have a different question: When is the top-heavy contribution due? You will search section 416 and its regulations in vain for an answer to that question. The top-heavy rules mandate a minimum contribution for each top-heavy year. They don't impose a deadline on funding that contribution.

If the CO makes the required contribution by 6/15/2006 in your situation, not only can the CO deduct it on the 9/30/2005 tax return, but it will be an annual addition for the 2004 plan year. Without any IRS guidance on the subject, I think that such a contribution would be timely for purposes of the top-heavy rules.

The lesson here is that in a multiple employer situation, a sponsor should not rely on the Code to do all the "heavy lifting." It is quite reasonable of the PEO to want to have the contribution by 10/15/2005, especially since the plan as a whole is in jeopardy if the employer fails to contribute. If the PEO wants to make sure that will happen in the future, the PEO should either amend the plan to require funding by that date, or have that requirement be a part of its contract with its client. An "off-the-shelf" document is almost always unsuitable for these situations. Careful planning and drafting is needed to protect the interests of all parties.


Important notice:

Answers are provided as general guidance on the subjects covered in the question and are not provided as legal advice to the questioner or to readers. Any legal issues should be reviewed by your legal counsel to apply the law to the particular facts of this and similar situations.

The law in this area changes frequently. Answers are believed to be correct as of the posting dates shown. The completeness or accuracy of a particular answer may be affected by changes in the law (statutes, regulations, rulings, court decisions, etc.) that occur after the date on which a particular Q&A is posted.


Copyright 1999-2017 S. Derrin Watson
Related links:

(restricted access)

(restricted access)

© 2021 BenefitsLink.com, Inc.