Source: http://news.wolterskluwerlb.com/news/combined-plans-must-satisfy-minimum-aggregate-allocation-gateway-for-nondiscrimination-testing-on-basis-of-equivalent-benefits/
Timestamp: 2018-05-22 02:10:16
Document Index: 764255969

Matched Legal Cases: ['§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1', '§1']

Combined plans must satisfy minimum aggregate allocation gateway for nondiscrimination testing on basis of equivalent benefits | Wolters Kluwer Law & Business News Center
You are here: Home / News / Combined plans must satisfy minimum aggregate allocation gateway for nondiscrimination testing on basis of equivalent benefits
Combined plans must satisfy minimum aggregate allocation gateway for nondiscrimination testing on basis of equivalent benefits
April 25, 2018 by Wolters Kluwer Legal & Regulatory
A combination of plans must satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation gateway of IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-9(b)(2)(v)(D) to be eligible for testing for nondiscrimination on the basis of equivalent benefits, according to an IRS Chief Counsel memorandum. The guidance was issued regarding a floor-offset arrangement where benefits under a defined benefit plan were offset by benefits under a defined contribution (DC) plan only for nonhighly compensated employees (NHCEs), so that for NHCEs who participated in both plans, benefits were eliminated under the defined benefit plan.
An employer maintains a cash balance plan and a profit-sharing plan. All employees are eligible to participate in the profit-sharing plan. The cash balance plan covered two groups of participants. The first group of participants consists of the owner-employees of the employer, all of whom are highly compensated employees. These participants receive the lesser of (1) the maximum pay credit so that the resulting annual benefit will not exceed the limitations of Code Sec. 415(b), and (2) the maximum pay credit that enables the plan to comply with Code Sec. 401(a)(4). The second group of participants (all of whom are NHCEs) consists of the lowest-paid group of employees who are not owner-employees and who perform at least one hour of service during the plan year. This lowest-paid group is limited to the number of employees necessary so that the plan covers the lesser of 40% of the total number of employees for the plan year or 50 employees. This second group of participants receives an annual pay credit of 1% of compensation.
The accrued benefit of an owner-employee under the cash balance plan is the single life annuity payable at age 65 that is the actuarial equivalent of the current balance of the cash balance account. For a participant who is not an owner-employee, the accrued benefit under the cash balance plan is the single life annuity payable at age 65 that is the actuarial equivalent of the current balance of the cash balance account, offset by the single life annuity payable at age 65 that is the actuarial equivalent of the participant’s vested account balance attributable to employer contributions under the profit-sharing plan. Because the benefits for this second group of participants attributable to employer contributions under the profit-sharing plan is larger than the benefits payable under the cash balance plan absent the offset, the offset for this second group of employees reduces the benefit under the cash balance plan to zero.
Nondiscrimination in contributions or benefits
The special rule of IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-3(f)(9) (under which an employee’s accrued benefit under a plan includes that portion of the benefit that is offset by benefits under another plan) applied only to the extent that the benefit was attributable to pre-participation service or past service. Therefore, the offset was taken into account in determining whether the combination of plans was primarily defined benefit in character within the meaning of IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-9(b)(2)(v)(B) or consisted of broadly available separate plans within the meaning of IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-9(b)(2)(v)(C). Because, after the offset, the NHCEs received no benefit under the defined benefit (DB) plan, the combination of plans was not primarily defined benefit in character. Similarly, the combination did not consist of broadly available separate plans because the defined benefit plan did not satisfy the applicable conditions set forth in IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-9(b)(2)(v)(C). Thus, the DB/DC plan must satisfy the minimum aggregate allocation gateway of IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(4)-9(b)(2)(v)(D) to be eligible for testing for nondiscrimination on the basis of equivalent benefits.
Moreover, the NHCEs were not taken into account for purposes of satisfying the requirements of Code Sec. 401(a)(26). The special rule of IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(26)-5(a)(2)(iii) (under which an offset of benefits under a defined benefit plan by benefits under another plan is disregarded) could not be used for an offset that applied only to a subset of participants in the defined benefit plan. Because the offset should be taken into account and reduced the benefits of NHCEs under the defined benefit plan to zero, the NHCEs did not benefit under the defined benefit plan within the meaning of Code Sec. 401(a)(26)(A) and IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(26)-2(a), and did not have meaningful benefits under the plan’s prior benefit structure as specified in IRS Reg. §1.401(a)(26)-3(c).
Source: Chief Counsel Advice Memorandum 201810008
Filter by Month Select Month May 2018 April 2018 March 2018 February 2018 January 2018 December 2017 November 2017 October 2017 September 2017 August 2017 July 2017 June 2017 May 2017 April 2017 March 2017 February 2017 January 2017 December 2016 November 2016 October 2016 September 2016 August 2016 July 2016 June 2016 May 2016 April 2016 March 2016 February 2016 January 2016 December 2015 November 2015 October 2015 September 2015 August 2015 July 2015 June 2015 May 2015 April 2015 March 2015 February 2015 January 2015 December 2014 November 2014 October 2014 September 2014 August 2014 July 2014 June 2014 May 2014 April 2014 March 2014 February 2014 January 2014 December 2013 November 2013 October 2013 September 2013 August 2013 July 2013 June 2013 May 2013 April 2013 March 2013 February 2013 January 2013 December 2012 November 2012 October 2012 September 2012 August 2012 July 2012 June 2012 May 2012 April 2012 March 2012 February 2012 January 2012 November 2011 October 2011 September 2011 August 2011 July 2011 June 2011 May 2011 April 2011 March 2011 February 2011 January 2011 December 2010 November 2010 October 2010 September 2010 August 2010 July 2010 June 2010 May 2010 April 2010 March 2010 February 2010 January 2010 December 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009
IRS issues 2019 HSA inflation adjustments
IRS grants tax relief to victims of severe storms and tornadoes in Alabama
IRS issues 2019 HSA inflation amounts
Payroll Daily News – 5/21/18
Pension Daily News – 5/21/18