Can freezing the wrong plan be corrected through ECPRS?

Yes, you read that right. Apx 10 years ago plan sponsor adopted an amendment to freeze contributions to a money purchase pension plan, but the intent was to cease contributions to  the profit sharing plan instead. The plan sponsor has been operating and making contributions to the pension plan as if it were not frozen and has made no contributions to the profit sharing plan since that time. Thoughts on whether this can be corrected through VCP by retroactively amending the pension plan to revoke or rescind the freeze amendment?  The plan was operated as if it were not frozen, participants' expectations were that it was not frozen, and I believe revoking the freeze amendment increases the benefits to participants (as they are entitled to $0 with the freeze amendment in place). 

(The profit sharing plan has a discretionary contribution and a freeze amendment was not necessary to effectively cease contributions, so the profit sharing plan has been operated correctly.)

Thanks in advance for any insights. 

Here is a thought: I expect a 204(h) notice was never issued to the MPPP participants since the plan sponsor didn't think they were freezing that plan. An amendment to reduce future pension accruals goes into effect the latest of (1) the effective date of the amendment, (2) the date the amendment is adopted, and (3) the date that is 45 days (or 15 days for plans <100) later than the date the 204(h) notice is provided. By that scenario, it can be argued that the amendment never took effect and by administrative practice that holds true. 

If 204(h) notices were issued then this argument has some holes in it.

I would suggest some legal counsel input before going this route for a better comfort level.

I assume the plan document has continued to have been updated as needed, but is not on a pre-approved platform otherwise this should have been discovered long before now.

The outcome of a VCP submission can sometimes depend on what evidence the employer can provide that they intended to do the right thing. Cuse's observation about 204(h) notices is a great example.

You could request an anonymous pre-submission conference to get an idea of how open they would be to this correction. My guess is that they would be ok with it, since it is in the participant's favor and there is some evidence to back up the employer's position.