BenefitsLink.com logo   

BenefitsLink
Message Boards Digest

September 24, 2019

Here are the most recently added topics on the BenefitsLink Message Boards:

Bumppo23 created a topic in Retirement Plans in General

4971 Excise Taxes and MPPP

§ 4971 excise taxes seem inapplicable to money purchase plans after circa 2007, though the guidance on this situation seems unclear. 
___

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/2014cpe_plan_terminations.pdf#page=88

NOTE: Specialists are cautioned not to pursue the §4971 excise tax for affected money purchase pension plans after the effective date of PPA until technical guidance has been issued. See FY 2011-1 Interim Guidelines (EP Examinations)- IRC §4971 & Money Purchase Pension Plans after PPA.
___

https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/plan_terms_phoneforum_qas.pdf

For plan years beginning after December 31, 2007, it appears that a money purchase plan is not subject to the excise tax under IRC §4971(a). The tax is based upon unpaid minimum required contributions. Unpaid minimum required contributions are defined under IRC §430 which applies to defined benefit plans. Although the plan fails the minimum funding standards of IRC §412, the excise tax under IRC §4971 cannot be calculated because minimum required contributions are not defined for a money purchase plan. However, under IRC §412(a)(2) the employer is required to make contributions under the terms of the plan.
___

Conversely, one finds: 
___

https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-072-016

7.12.1.18 (02-16-2017)

Minimum Funding Standards

IRC 412 imposes minimum funding standards on certain types of plans in order to protect a participant's promised benefits. Plan sponsors are subject to a tax under IRC 4971 if they don't meet the funding standards.

IRC 412(a)(2) requires plan sponsors of a:

DB plan which is not a multiemployer to make contributions to (fund) the trust for the plan year of the minimum amount required. See IRC 430.

Money purchase plan to fund the trust for the plan year in the amount required under the plan terms unless they have a funding waiver.
___

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/choosing-a-retirement-plan-money-purchase-plan

An excise tax applies if the minimum contribution requirement is not satisfied.
___

https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/vcp-submission-kit-failure-to-make-timely-required-contributions-to-a-money-purchase-or-target-benefit-plan

EPCRS, including the VCP, will not resolve any excise tax that may be owed under IRC 4971.
___

The IRM seems perhaps ambiguous, as does the VCP submission guide. The description of MPPPs seems to indicate § 4971 excise taxes will apply.

Number of replies posted  1 reply      Number of times viewed  65 views      Add Reply
[Advert.]

ASC CE Webcast: 457(b) Plans for Tax Exempt & Governmental Entities

Sponsored by ASC
Learn the rules & regulations of 457(b) plans and how they differ from 401(k) plans with regard to governmental entities and tax-exempt organizations. Register Now!

B21 created a topic in Form 5500

Modified Cash Accounting Method

Can anyone provide any citation or guidance regarding the definition of modified cash accounting for Form 5500 reporting purposes? I thought this method reports all activity on a cash basis with the exception of employer/employee contributions and distributions that are accrued, but I've seen audit reports stating the Form 5500 was prepared on a modified cash method and that contribution receivables are not required to be reported.

Number of replies posted  0 replies      Number of times viewed  22 views      Add Reply

perplexedbypensions created a topic in Distributions and Loans, Other than QDROs

RMDs Required for Former Owner Whose Son is Now 100% Owner?

Participant turned 70-1/2 on 9/1/2019. In 2018, he was an over-5% owner, but sold his ownership in June 2019, prior to turning 70-1/2. He is still working. It seems clear that he would not have to take an RMD because he was not a 5% owner upon attainment of age 70-1/2 -- but his son (with whom he formerly shared ownership) is now the sole owner. Is this 70-1/2 participant still considered an over-5% owner due to family attribution, and therefore needs to start taking his RMDs?

Number of replies posted  4 replies      Number of times viewed  92 views      Add Reply

Pixie created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Land Purchase with 401(k) Assets

A client wants to purchase land with his 401k assets and have a non-related party develop it. It is my understanding that real estate held by a 401k plan can only be a passive investment and hence the deal wouldn't be legal. Correct?

Number of replies posted  2 replies      Number of times viewed  65 views      Add Reply

Pammie57 created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Definition of Participant for Purpose of Distributing the SAR

Is an employee who has met a plan's eligibility requirements, but does not have an account balance, considered a participant for purposes of being entitled to a Summary Annual Report?

Number of replies posted  1 reply      Number of times viewed  41 views      Add Reply

sdix401k created a topic in 401(k) Plans

Owner Has a Solo K -- Wants to Set Up a Parallel New Plan for 2020

A new client has a solo k. He will take on a number of employees in 2020. He wants to keep the current plan, but going forward wants to make all contributions for himself and the employees to a new plan. I'm thinking this will be fine but I need to freeze the solo k, which has 100% vesting. The new plan will not. Are there any BRF issues if the solo k is frozen? I know I need to aggregate them for top heavy, but are there are any other issues here? What if the solo k were not frozen?

Number of replies posted  3 replies      Number of times viewed  41 views      Add Reply

I need help created a topic in Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs)

Retiring -- Are My ESOP Shares Undervalued?

A significant number of people will retire from our company during the next year. The company has a significant amount of cash on the balance sheet which might not be fully included in the valuation. The company and the trustee are unwilling to let anyone review the valuation report. Is there any way to dispute the valuation on the basis that it's too low? The ESOP owns over 70% of the company but the CEO and CFO seem to be hiding the cash until after the upcoming round of retirements.

Number of replies posted  5 replies      Number of times viewed  52 views      Add Reply
BenefitsLink.com, Inc.
1298 Minnesota Avenue, Suite H
Winter Park, Florida 32789
(407) 644-4146

Lois Baker, J.D., President  loisbaker@benefitslink.com
David Rhett Baker, J.D., Editor and Publisher  davebaker@benefitslink.com
Holly Horton, Business Manager  hollyhorton@benefitslink.com

Copyright 2019 BenefitsLink.com, Inc. All materials contained in this mailing are protected by United States copyright law and may not be reproduced, distributed, transmitted, displayed, published or broadcast without the prior written permission of BenefitsLink.com, Inc., or in the case of third party materials, the owner of those materials. You may not alter or remove any trademark, copyright or other notices from copies of the content.

Links to web sites other than BenefitsLink.com and EmployeeBenefitsJobs.com are offered as a service to our readers; we were not involved in their production and are not responsible for their content.

Unsubscribe | Privacy Policy