SECTION 2. CORRECTION

METHODS AND EXAMPLES

. 01 ADP/ACP Failures.

(1) Correction Methods. (a) VCS Correction Method. Appendix A, section .03 sets forth the VCS correction method for a failure to satisfy the actual deferral percentage (“ADP”), actual contribution percentage (“ACP”), or multiple use test set forth in §§ 401(k)(3), 401(m)(2), and 401(m)(9), respectively. (b) One-to-One Correction Method. (i) General. In addition to the VCS correction method, a failure to satisfy the ADP, ACP, or multiple use test may be corrected using the one-to-one correction method set forth in this section 2.01(1)(b). Under the one-to-one correction method, an excess contribution amount is determined and assigned to highly compensated employees as provided in paragraph (1)(b)(ii) below. That excess contribution amount (adjusted for earnings) is either distributed to the highly compensated employees or forfeited from the highly compensated employees’ accounts as provided in paragraph (1)(b)(iii) below. That same dollar amount (i.e., the excess contribution amount, adjusted for earnings) is contributed to the plan and allocated to nonhighly compensated employees as provided in paragraph (1)(b)(iv) below.

(ii) Determination of the Excess Contribution Amount. The excess contribution amount for the year is equal to the excess of (A) the sum of the excess contributions (as defined in § 401(k)(8)(B)), the excess aggregate contributions (as defined in § 401(m)(6)(B)), and the amount treated as excess contributions or excess aggregate contributions under the multiple use test pursuant to § 401(m)(9) and § 1.401(m)–2(c) for the year, as assigned to each highly compensated employee in accordance with § 401(k)(8)(C) and (m)(6)(C), over (B) previous corrections that complied with § 401(k)(8), (m)(6), and (m)(9). See Notice 97–2, 1997–1 C.B. 348.

(iii) Distributions and Forfeitures of the Excess Contribution Amount. (A) The portion of the excess contribution amount assigned to a particular highly compensated employee under paragraph (1)(b)(ii) is adjusted for earnings through the date of correction. The amount assigned to a particular highly compensated employee, as adjusted, is distributed or, to the extent the amount

2001–7 I.R.B. 613 February 12, 2001

was forfeitable as of the close of the plan year of the failure, is forfeited. If the amount is forfeited, it is used in accordance with the plan provisions relating to forfeitures that were in effect for the year of the failure. If the amount so assigned to a particular highly compensated employee has been previously distributed; the amount is an Excess Amount within the meaning of section 5.01(3) of this revenue procedure. Thus, pursuant to section 6.05 of this revenue procedure, the employer must notify the employee that the Excess Amount was not eligible for favorable tax treatment accorded to distributions from qualified plans (and, specifically, was not eligible for tax-free rollover).

(B) If any matching contributions (adjusted for earnings) are forfeited in accordance with § 411(a)(3)(G), the forfeited amount is used in accordance with the plan provisions relating to forfeitures that were in effect for the year of the failure.

(C) If a payment was made to an employee and that payment is a forfeitable match described in either paragraph (1)(b)(iii)(A) or (B), then it is an Overpayment defined in section 5.01(6) of this revenue procedure that must be corrected (see sections 2.04 and 2.05 below).

(iv) Contribution and Allocation of Equivalent Amount. (A) The employer makes a contribution to the plan that is equal to the aggregate amounts distributed and forfeited under paragraph (1)(b)(iii)(A) (i.e., the excess contribution amount adjusted for earnings, as provided in paragraph (1)(b)(iii)(A), which does not include any matching contributions forfeited in accordance with § 411(a)(3)(G) as provided in paragraph (1)(b)(iii)(B)). The contribution must satisfy the vesting requirements and distribution limitations of § 401(k)(2)(B) and (C).

(B)( 1 ) This paragraph (1)(b)(iv) (B)( 1 ) applies to a plan that uses the current year testing method described in Notice 98–1, 1998–1 C.B. 327. The contribution made under paragraph (1)(b) (iv)(A) is allocated to the account balances of those individuals who were either (I) the eligible employees for the year of the failure who were not highly compensated employees for that year or (II) the eligible employees for the year of the failure who were not highly compen

sated employees for that year and who also are not highly compensated employees for the year of correction. Alternatively, the contribution is allocated to account balances of eligible employees described in (I) or (II) of the preceding sentence, except that the allocation is made only to the account balances of those employees who are employees on a date during the year of the correction that is no later than the date of correction. Regardless of which of these four options (described in the two preceding sentences) the employer selects, the contribution is allocated to each such employee either as the same percentage of the employee’s compensation for the year of the failure or as the same dollar amount for each employee. (See Examples 1, 2 and 3.) Under the one-to-one correction method, the amount allocated to the account balance of an employee (i.e., the employee’s share of the total amount contributed under paragraph (1)(b)(iv)(A)) is not further adjusted for earnings and is treated as an annual addition under § 415 for the year of the failure for the employee for whom it is allocated.

( 2 ) This paragraph (1)(b)(iv)(B)( 2 ) applies to a plan that uses the prior year testing method described in Notice 98–1. Paragraph (1)(b)(iv)(B)( 1 ) is applied by substituting “the year prior to the year of the failure” for “the year of the failure”.

(2) Examples.

Example 1:

Employer A maintains a profit-sharing plan with a cash or deferred arrangement that is intended to satisfy § 401(k) (“401(k) plan”) using the current year testing method described in Notice 98–1. The plan does not provide for matching contributions or employee after-tax contributions. In 1999, it was discovered that the ADP test for 1997 was not performed correctly. When the ADP test was performed correctly, the test was not satisfied for 1997. For 1997, the ADP for highly compensated employees was 9% and the ADP for nonhighly compensated employees was 4%. Accordingly, the ADP for highly compensated employees exceeded the ADP for nonhighly compensated employees by more than two percentage points (in violation of § 401(k)(3)). (The ADP for nonhighly compensated employees for 1996 also was 4%, so the ADP test for 1997 would not have been satisfied even if the plan had used the prior year testing method described in Notice 98–1.) There were two highly compensated employees eligible under the 401(k) plan during 1997, Employee P and Employee Q. Employee P made elective deferrals of $8,000, which is equal to 10% of Employee P’s compensation of $80,000 for 1997. Employee Q made

elective deferrals of $9,500, which is equal to 8% of Employee Q’s compensation of $118,750 for 1997.

Correction:

On June 30, 1999, Employer A uses the one-toone correction method to correct the failure to satisfy the ADP test for 1997. Accordingly, Employer A calculates the dollar amount of the excess contributions for the two highly compensated employees in the manner described in § 401(k)(8)(B). The amount of the excess contribution for Employee P is $3,200 (4% of $80,000) and the amount of the excess contribution for Employee Q is $2,375 (2% of $118,750), or a total of $5,575. In accordance with § 401(k)(8)(C), $5,575, the excess contribution amount, is assigned $2,037.50 to Employee P and $3,537.50 to Employee Q. It is determined that the earnings on the assigned amounts through June 30, 1999 are $407 and $707 for Employees P and Q, respectively. The assigned amounts and the earnings are distributed to Employees P and Q. Therefore, Employee P receives $2,444.50 ($2,037.50 + $407) and Employee Q receives $4,244.50 ($3,537.50 + $707). In addition, on the same date, a corrective contribution is made to the 401(k) plan equal to $6,689 (the sum of the $2,444.50 distributed to Employee P and the $4,244.50 distributed to Employee Q). The corrective contribution is allocated to the account balances of eligible nonhighly compensated employees for 1997, pro rata based on their compensation for 1997 (subject to § 415 for 1997).

Example 2:

The facts are the same as in Example 1.

Correction:

The correction is the same as in Example 1, except that the corrective contribution of $6,689 is allocated in an equal dollar amount to the account balances of eligible nonhighly compensated employees for 1997 who are employees on June 30, 1999, and who are nonhighly compensated employees for 1999 (subject to § 415 for 1997).

Example 3:

The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that for 1997 the plan also provides (1) for employee after-tax contributions and (2) for matching contributions equal to 50% of the sum of an employee’s elective deferrals and employee after-tax contributions that do not exceed 10% of the employee’s compensation. The plan provides that matching contributions are subject to the plan’s 5-year graded vesting schedule and that matching contributions are forfeited and used to reduce employer contributions if associated elective deferrals or employee after-tax contributions are distributed to correct an ADP, ACP or multiple use test failure. For 1997, nonhighly compensated employees made employee after-tax contributions and no highly compensated employee made any employee after-tax contributions. Employee P received a matching contribution of $4,000 (50% of $8,000) and Employee Q

February 12, 2001 614 2001–7 I.R.B.

received a matching contribution of $4,750 (50% of $9,500). Employees P and Q were 100% vested in 1997. It is determined that, for 1997, the ACP for highly compensated employees was not more than 125% of the ACP for nonhighly compensated employees, so that the ACP and multiple use tests would have been satisfied for 1997 without any corrective action.

Correction:

The same corrective actions are taken as in Example 1. In addition, in accordance with the plan’s terms, corrective action is taken to forfeit Employee P’s and Employee Q’s matching contributions associated with their distributed excess contributions. Employee P’s distributed excess contributions and associated matching contributions are $2,037.50 and $1,018.75, respectively. Employee Q’s distributed excess contributions and associated matching contributions are $3,537.50 and $1,768.75, respectively. Thus, $1,018.75 is forfeited from Employee P’s account and $1,768.75 is forfeited from Employee Q’s account. In addition, the earnings on the forfeited amounts are also forfeited. It is determined that the respective earnings on the forfeited amount for Employee P is $150 and for Employee Q is $204. The total amount of the forfeitures of $3,141.50 (Employee P’s $1,018.75 + $150 and Employee Q’s $1,768.75 + $204) is used to reduce contributions for 1999 and subsequent years.

. 02 Exclusion of Eligible Employees.

(1) Exclusion of Eligible Employees in a 401(k) or (m) Plan. (a) Correction Method. (i) VCS Correction Method for Full Year Exclusion. Appendix A, section .05 sets forth the VCS correction method for the exclusion of an eligible employee from all contributions under a 401(k) or (m) plan for one or more full plan years. (See Example 4.) In section 2.02(1)(a)(ii) below, the VCS correction method for the exclusion of an eligible employee from all contributions under a 401(k) or (m) plan for a full year is expanded to include correction for the exclusion of an eligible employee from all contributions under a 401(k) or (m) plan for a partial plan year. This correction for a partial year exclusion may be used in conjunction with the correction for a full year exclusion.

(ii) Expansion of VCS Correction Method to Partial Year Exclusion. (A) In General. The correction method in Appendix A, section .05 is expanded to cover an employee who was improperly excluded from making elective deferrals or employee after-tax contributions for a portion of a plan year or from receiving matching contributions

(on either elective deferrals or employee after-tax contributions) for a portion of a plan year. In such case, a permitted correction method for the failure is for the employer to satisfy this section 2.02(1)(a)(ii). The employer makes a corrective contribution on behalf of the excluded employee that satisfies the vesting requirements and distribution limitations of § 401(k)(2)(B) and (C).

(B) Elective Deferral Failures. The appropriate corrective contribution for the failure to allow employees to make elective deferrals for a portion of the plan year is equal to the ADP of the employee’s group (either highly or nonhighly compensated), determined prior to correction under this section 2.02(1)(a)(ii), multiplied by the employee’s plan compensation for the portion of the year during which the employee was improperly excluded. The corrective contribution for the portion of the plan year during which the employee was improperly excluded from being eligible to make elective deferrals is reduced to the extent that ( 1 ) the sum of that contribution and any elective deferrals actually made by the employee for that year would exceed ( 2 ) the maximum elective deferrals permitted under the plan for the employee for that plan year (including the § 402(g) limit). The corrective contribution is adjusted for earnings. (See Examples 5 and 6.)

(C) Employee After-tax and Matching Contribution Failures. The appropriate corrective contribution for the failure to allow employees to make employee after-tax contributions or to receive matching contributions because the employee was precluded from making employee after-tax contributions or elective deferrals for a portion of the plan year is equal to the ACP of the employee’s group (either highly or nonhighly compensated), determined prior to correction under this section 2.02(1)(a)(ii), multiplied by the employee’s plan compensation for the portion of the year during which the employee was improperly excluded. The corrective contribution is reduced to the extent that ( 1 ) the sum of that contribution and the actual total employee after-tax and matching contributions made by and for the employee for the plan year would exceed ( 2 ) the sum of the maximum employee after-tax contributions permitted under the plan for the employee for the plan year and the match

ing contributions that would have been made if the employee had made the maximum matchable contributions permitted under the plan for the employee for that plan year. The corrective contribution is adjusted for earnings.

(D) Use of Prorated Compensation. For purposes of this paragraph (1)(a)(ii), for administrative convenience, in lieu of using the employee’s actual plan compensation for the portion of the year during which the employee was improperly excluded, a pro rata portion of the employee’s plan compensation that would have been taken into account for the plan year, if the employee had not been improperly excluded, may be used.

(E) Special Rule for Brief Exclusion from Elective Deferrals. An employer is not required to make a corrective contribution with respect to elective deferrals, as provided in section 2.02(1)(a)(ii)(B), (but is required to make a corrective contribution with respect to any employee after-tax and matching contributions, as provided in section 2.02(1)(a)(ii)(C)) for an employee for a plan year if the employee has been provided the opportunity to make elective deferrals under the plan for a period of at least the last 9 months in that plan year and during that period the employee had the opportunity to make elective deferrals in an amount not less than the maximum amount that would have been permitted if no failure had occurred. (See Example 7.)

(b) Examples.

Example 4:

Employer B maintains a 401(k) plan. The plan provides for matching contributions for eligible employees equal to 100% of elective deferrals that do not exceed 3% of an employee’s compensation. The plan provides that employees who complete one year of service are eligible to participate in the plan on the next January 1 or July 1 entry date. Twelve employees (8 nonhighly compensated employees and 4 highly compensated employees) who had met the one year eligibility requirement after July 1, 1995, and before January 1, 1996, were inadvertently excluded from participating in the plan beginning on January 1, 1996. These employees were offered the opportunity to begin participating in the plan on January 1, 1997. For 1996, the ADP for the highly compensated employees was 8% and the ADP for the nonhighly compensated employees was 6%. In addition, for 1996, the ACP for the highly compensated employees was 2.5% and the ACP for the nonhighly compensated employees

2001–7 I.R.B. 615 February 12, 2001

was 2%. The failure to include the 12 employees was discovered during 1998.

Correction:

Employer B uses the VCS correction method for full year exclusions to correct the failure to include the 12 eligible employees in the plan for the full plan year beginning January 1, 1996. Thus, Employer B makes a corrective contribution (that satisfies the vesting requirements and distribution limitations of § 401(k)(2)(B) and (C)) for each of the excluded employees. The contribution for each of the improperly excluded highly compensated employees is 10.5% (the highly compensated employees’ ADP of 8% plus ACP of 2.5%) of the employee’s plan compensation for the 1996 plan year (adjusted for earnings). The contribution for each of the improperly excluded nonhighly compensated employees is 8% (the nonhighly compensated employees,’ ADP of 6% plus ACP of 2%) of the employee’s plan compensation for the 1996 plan year (adjusted for earnings).

Example 5:

Employer C maintains a 401(k) plan. The plan provides for matching contributions for each payroll period that are equal to 100% of an employee’s elective deferrals that do not exceed 2% of the eligible employee’s plan compensation during the payroll period. The plan does not provide for employee after-tax contributions. The plan provides that employees who complete one year of service are eligible to participate in the plan on the next January 1 or July 1 entry date. A nonhighly compensated employee who met the eligibility requirements and should have entered the plan on January 1, 1996, was not offered the opportunity to participate in the plan. In August of 1996, the error was discovered and Employer C offered the employee an election opportunity as of September 1, 1996. The employee made elective deferrals equal to 4% of the employee’s plan compensation for each payroll period from September 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, (resulting in elective deferrals of $500). The employee’s plan compensation for 1996, was $36,000 ($23,500 for the first eight months and $12,500 for the last four months). Employer C made matching contributions equal to $250 for the excluded employee, which is 2% of the employee’s plan compensation for each payroll period from September 1, 1996, through December 31, 1996, ($12,500). The ADP for nonhighly compensated employees for 1996 was 3% and the ACP for nonhighly compensated employees for 1996 was 1.8%.

Correction:

Employer C uses the VCS correction method for partial year exclusions to correct the failure to include the eligible employee in the plan. Thus, Employer C makes a corrective contribution (that satisfies the vesting requirements and distribution limitations of § 401(k)(2)(B) and (C)) for the excluded employee. In determining the amount of corrective contributions (both for the elective deferral and for the matching contribution), for

administrative convenience, in lieu of using actual plan compensation of $23,500 for the period the employee was excluded, the employee’s annual plan compensation is pro rated for the eight-month period that the employee was excluded from participating in the plan. The failure to provide the excluded employee the right to make elective deferrals is corrected by the employer making a corrective contribution on behalf of the employee that is equal to $720 (the 3% ADP percentage for nonhighly compensated employees multiplied by $24,000, which is 8/12ths of the employee’s 1996 plan compensation of $36,000), adjusted for earnings. In addition, to correct for the failure to receive the plan’s matching contribution, a corrective contribution is made on behalf of the employee that is equal to $432 (the 1.8% ACP for the nonhighly compensated group multiplied by $24,000, which is 8/12ths of the employee’s 1996 plan compensation of $36,000), adjusted for earnings. Employer C determines that $682, the sum of the actual matching contribution received by the employee for the plan year ($250) and the corrective contribution to correct the matching contribution failure ($432), does not exceed $720, the maximum matching contribution available to the employee under the plan (2% of $36,000) determined as if the employee had made the maximum matchable contributions. In addition to correcting the failure to include the eligible employee in the plan, Employer C reruns the ADP and ACP tests for 1996 (taking into account the corrective contribution and plan compensation for 1996 for the excluded employee) and determines that the tests were satisfied.

Example 6:

The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that the plan provides for matching contributions that are equal to 100% of an eligible employee’s elective deferrals that do not exceed 2% of the employee’s plan compensation for the plan year. Accordingly, the actual matching contribution made by Employer C for the excluded employee for the last four months of 1996 is $500 (which is equal to 100% of the $500 of elective deferrals made by the employee for the last four months of 1996).

Correction:

The correction is the same as in Example 5, except that the corrective contribution made for the first 8 months of 1996 to correct the failure to make matching contributions is equal to $220 (adjusted for earnings), instead of the $432 (adjusted for earnings) in Example 5, because the corrective contribution is limited to the maximum matching contributions available under the plan for the employee for the plan year, $720 (2% of $36,000), reduced by the actual matching contributions made for the employee for the plan year, $500.

Example 7:

The facts are the same as in Example 5, except that the error is discovered in March of 1996 and the employee was given the opportunity to make

elective deferrals beginning on April 1, 1996. The amount of elective deferrals that the employee was given the opportunity to make during 1996 was not less than the maximum elective deferrals that the employee could have made if the employee had been given the opportunity to make elective deferrals beginning on January 1, 1996. The employee made elective deferrals equal to 4% of the employee’s plan compensation for each payroll period from April 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 of $28,000 (resulting in elective deferrals of $1,120). Employer C made a matching contribution equal to $560, which is 2% of the employee’s plan compensation for each payroll period from April 1, 1996 through December 31, 1996 ($28,000). The employee’s plan compensation for 1996 was $36,000 ($8,000 for the first three months and $28,000 for the last nine months).

Correction:

Employer C uses the VCS correction method for partial year exclusions to correct the failure to include an eligible employee in the plan. Because the employee was given an opportunity to make elective deferrals to the plan for at least the last 9 months of the plan year (and the amount of the elective deferrals that the employee had the opportunity to make was not less than the maximum elective deferrals that the employee could have made if the employee had been given the opportunity to make elective deferrals beginning on January 1, 1996), under the special rule set forth in section 2.02(1)(a)(ii)(E), Employer C is not required to make a corrective contribution for the failure to allow the employee to make elective deferrals. In determining the amount of corrective contribution with respect to the failure to allow the employee to receive matching contributions, in lieu of using actual plan compensation of $8,000 for the period the employee was excluded, the employee’s annual plan compensation is pro rated for the three-month period that the employee was excluded from participating in the plan. Accordingly, a corrective contribution is made on behalf of the employee that is equal to $160, which is the lesser of (i) $162 (a matching contribution of 1.8% of $9,000, which is 3/12ths of the employee’s 1996 plan compensation of $36,000), and (ii) $160 (the excess of the maximum matching contribution for the entire plan year, which is equal to 2% of $36,000, or $720, over the matching contributions made after March 31, 1996, $560). The contribution is adjusted for earnings.

(2) Exclusion of Eligible Employees In a Profit-Sharing Plan.

(a) Correction Methods. (i) VCS Correction Method. Appendix A, section .05 sets forth the VCS correction method for correcting the exclusion of an eligible employee. In the case of a defined contribution plan, the VCS correction method is to make a contribution on behalf of the excluded employee. Section 2.02(2)(a) (ii) below clarifies the VCS correction method in the case of a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan that provides for non

February 12, 2001 616 2001–7 I.R.B.

elective contributions (within the meaning of § 1.401(k)–1(g)(10)).

(ii) Clarification of VCS Correction Method for Profit-Sharing Plans. To correct for the exclusion of an eligible employee from nonelective contributions in a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan under the VCS correction method, an allocation amount is determined for each excluded employee on the same basis as the allocation amounts were determined for the other employees under the plan’s allocation formula (e.g., the same ratio of allocation to compensation), taking into account all of the employee’s relevant factors (e.g., compensation) under that formula for that year. The employer makes a corrective contribution on behalf of the excluded employee that is equal to the allocation amount for the excluded employee. The corrective contribution is adjusted for earnings. If, as a result of excluding an employee, an amount was improperly allocated to the account balance of an eligible employee who shared in the original allocation of the nonelective contribution, no reduction is made to the account balance of the employee who shared in the original allocation on account of the improper allocation. (See Example 8.)

(iii) Reallocation Correction Method. (A) In General. Subject to the limitations set forth in section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(F) below, in addition to the VCS correction method, the exclusion of an eligible employee for a plan year from a profit-sharing or stock bonus plan that provides for nonelective contributions may be corrected using the reallocation correction method set forth in this section 2.02(2)(a)(iii). Under the reallocation correction method, the account balance of the excluded employee is increased as provided in paragraph (2)(a)(iii)(B) below, the account balances of other employees are reduced as provided in paragraph (2)(a)(iii)(C) below, and the increases and reductions are reconciled, as necessary, as provided in paragraph (2)(a)(iii)(D) below. (See Examples 9 and 10.) (B) Increase in Account Balance of Excluded Employee. The account balance of the excluded employee is increased by an amount that is equal to the allocation the employee would have received had the employee shared in the

allocation of the nonelective contribution. The amount is adjusted for earnings.

(C) Reduction in Account Balances of Other Employees. ( 1 ) The account balance of each employee who was an eligible employee who shared in the original allocation of the nonelective contribution is reduced by the excess, if any, of (I) the employee’s allocation of that contribution over (II) the amount that would have been allocated to that employee had the failure not occurred. This amount is adjusted for earnings taking into account the rules set forth in section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 2 ) and ( 3 ) below. The amount after adjustment for earnings is limited in accordance with section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 4 ) below.

( 2 ) This paragraph (2)(a)(iii)(C)( 2 ) applies if most of the employees with account balances that are being reduced are nonhighly compensated employees. If there has been an overall gain for the period from the date of the original allocation of the contribution through the date of correction, no adjustment for earnings is required to the amount determined under section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 1 ) for the employee. If the amount for the employee is being adjusted for earnings and the plan permits investment of account balances in more than one investment fund, for administrative convenience, the reduction to the employee’s account balance may be adjusted by the lowest earnings rate of any fund for the period from the date of the original allocation of the contribution through the date of correction.

( 3 ) If an employee’s account balance is reduced and the original allocation was made to more than one investment fund or there was a subsequent distribution or transfer from the fund receiving the original allocation, then reasonable, consistent assumptions are used to determine the earnings adjustment.

( 4 ) The amount determined in section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 1 ) for an employee after the application of section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 2 ) and ( 3 ) may not exceed the account balance of the employee on the date of correction, and the employee is permitted to retain any distribution made prior to the date of correction.

(D) Reconciliation of Increases and Reductions. If the aggregate amount of the increases under section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(B) exceeds the aggregate

amount of the reductions under section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C), the employer makes a corrective contribution to the plan for the amount of the excess. If the aggregate amount of the reductions under section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C) exceeds the aggregate amount of the increases under section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(B), then the amount by which each employee’s account balance is reduced under section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C) is decreased on a pro rata basis.

(E) Reductions Among Multiple Investment Funds. If an employee’s account balance is reduced and the employee’s account balance is invested in more than one investment fund, then the reduction may be made from the investment funds selected in any reasonable manner.

(F) Limitations on Use of Reallocation Correction Method. If any employee would be permitted to retain any distribution pursuant to section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 4 ), then the reallocation correction method may not be used unless most of the employees who would be permitted to retain a distribution are nonhighly compensated employees.

(b) Examples.

Example 8:

Employer D maintains a profit-sharing plan that provides for discretionary nonelective employer contributions. The plan provides that the employer’s contributions are allocated to account balances in the ratio that each eligible employee’s compensation for the plan year bears to the compensation of all eligible employees for the plan year and, therefore, the only relevant factor for determining an allocation is the employee’s compensation. The plan provides for self-directed investments among four investment funds and daily valuations of account balances. For the 1997 plan year, Employer D made a contribution to the plan of a fixed dollar amount. However, five employees who met the eligibility requirements were inadvertently excluded from participating in the plan. The contribution resulted in an allocation on behalf of each of the eligible employees, other than the excluded employees, equal to 10% of compensation. Most of the employees who received allocations under the plan for the year of the failure were nonhighly compensated employees. No distributions have been made from the plan since 1997. If the five excluded employees had shared in the original allocation, the allocation made on behalf of each employee would have equaled 9% of compensation. The excluded employees began participating in the plan in the 1998 plan year.

Correction:

Employer D uses the VCS correction method to correct the failure to include the five eligible

2001–7 I.R.B. 617 February 12, 2001

employees. Thus, Employer D makes a corrective contribution to the plan. The amount of the corrective contribution on behalf of the five excluded employees for the 1997 plan year is equal to 10% of compensation of each excluded employee, the same allocation that was made for other eligible employees, adjusted for earnings. The excluded employees receive an allocation equal to 10% of compensation (adjusted for earnings) even though, had the excluded employees originally shared in the allocation for the 1997 contribution, their account balances, as well as those of the other eligible employees, would have received an allocation equal to only 9% of compensation.

Example 9:

The facts are the same as in Example 8.

Correction:

Employer D uses the reallocation correction method to correct the failure to include the five eligible employees. Thus, the account balances are adjusted to reflect what would have resulted from the correct allocation of the employer contribution for the 1997 plan year among all eligible employees, including the five excluded employees. The inclusion of the excluded employees in the allocation of that contribution would have resulted in each eligible employee, including each excluded employee, receiving an allocation equal to 9% of compensation. Accordingly, the account balance of each excluded employee is increased by 9% of the employee’s 1997 compensation, adjusted for earnings. The account balance of each of the eligible employees other than the excluded employees is reduced by 1% of the employee’s 1997 compensation, adjusted for earnings. Employer D determines the adjustment for earnings using the earnings rate of each eligible employee’s excess allocation (using reasonable, consistent assumptions). Accordingly, for an employee who shared in the original allocation and directed the investment of the allocation into more than one investment fund or who subsequently transferred a portion of a fund that had been credited with a portion of the 1997 allocation to another fund, reasonable, consistent assumptions are followed to determine the adjustment for earnings. It is determined that the total of the initially determined reductions in account balances exceeds the total of the required increases in account balances. Accordingly, these initially determined reductions are decreased pro rata so that the total of the actual reductions in account balances equals the total of the increases in the account balances, and Employer D does not make any corrective contribution. The reductions from the account balances are made on a pro rata basis among all of the funds in which each employee’s account balance is invested.

Example 10:

The facts are the same as in Example 8.

Correction:

The correction is the same as in Example 9, except that, because most of the employees

whose account balances are being reduced are nonhighly compensated employees, for administrative convenience, Employer D uses the earnings rate of the fund with the lowest earnings rate for the period of the failure to adjust the reduction to each account balance. It is determined that the aggregate amount (adjusted for earnings) by which the account balances of the excluded employees is increased exceeds the aggregate amount (adjusted for earnings) by which the other employees’ account balances are reduced. Accordingly, Employer D makes a contribution to the plan in an amount equal to the excess. The reduction from account balances is made on a pro rata basis among all of the funds in which each employee’s account balance is invested.

.03 Vesting Failures.

(1) Correction Methods. (a) Contribution Correction Method. A failure in a defined contribution plan to apply the proper vesting percentage to an employee’s account balance that results in forfeiture of too large a portion of the employee’s account balance may be corrected using the contribution correction method set forth in this paragraph. The employer makes a corrective contribution on behalf of the employee whose account balance was improperly forfeited in an amount equal to the improper forfeiture. The corrective contribution is adjusted for earnings. If, as a result of the improper forfeiture, an amount was improperly allocated to the account balance of another employee, no reduction is made to the account balance of that employee. (See Example 11.)

(b) Reallocation Correction Method. In addition to the contribution correction method, in a defined contribution plan under which forfeitures of account balances are reallocated among the account balances of the other eligible employees in the plan, a failure to apply the proper vesting percentage to an employee’s account balance which results in forfeiture of too large a portion of the employee’s account balance may be corrected under the reallocation correction method set forth in this paragraph. A corrective reallocation is made in accordance with the reallocation correction method set forth in section 2.02(2)(a)(iii), subject to the limitations set forth in section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(F). In applying section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(B), the account balance of the employee who incurred the improper forfeiture is increased by an amount equal to the amount of the improper forfeiture

and the amount is adjusted for earnings. In applying section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 1 ), the account balance of each employee who shared in the allocation of the improper forfeiture is reduced by the amount of the improper forfeiture that was allocated to that employee’s account. The earnings adjustments for the account balances that are being reduced are determined in accordance with sections 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 2 ) and ( 3 ) and the reductions after adjustments for earnings are limited in accordance with section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(C)( 4 ). In accordance with section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(D), if the aggregate amount of the increases exceeds the aggregate amount of the reductions, the employer makes a corrective contribution to the plan for the amount of the excess. In accordance with section 2.02(2)(a)(iii)(D), if the aggregate amount of the reductions exceeds the aggregate amount of the increases, then the amount by which each employee’s account balance is reduced is decreased on a pro rata basis. (See Example 12.)

(2) Examples.

Example 11:

Employer E maintains a profit-sharing plan that provides for nonelective contributions. The plan provides for self-directed investments among four investment funds and daily valuation of account balances. The plan provides that forfeitures of account balances are reallocated among the account balances of other eligible employees on the basis of compensation. During the 1997 plan year, Employee R terminated employment with Employer E and elected and received a single-sum distribution of the vested portion of his account balance. No other distributions have been made since 1997. However, an incorrect determination of Employee R’s vested percentage was made resulting in Employee R receiving a distribution of less than the amount to which he was entitled under the plan. The remaining portion of Employee R’s account balance was forfeited and reallocated (and these reallocations were not affected by the limitations of § 415). Most of the employees who received allocations of the improper forfeiture were nonhighly compensated employees.

Correction:

Employer E uses the contribution correction method to correct the improper forfeiture. Thus, Employer E makes a contribution on behalf of Employee R equal to the incorrectly forfeited amount (adjusted for earnings) and Employee R’s account balance is increased accordingly. No reduction is made from the account balances of the employees who received an allocation of the improper forfeiture.

February 12, 2001 618 2001–7 I.R.B.

Example 12:

The facts are the same as in Example 11.

Correction:

Employer E uses the reallocation correction method to correct the improper forfeiture. Thus, Employee R’s account balance is increased by the amount that was improperly forfeited (adjusted for earnings). The account of each employee who shared in the allocation of the improper forfeiture is reduced by the amount of the improper forfeiture that was allocated to that employee’s account (adjusted for earnings). Because most of the employees whose account balances are being reduced are nonhighly compensated employees, for administrative convenience, Employer E uses the earnings rate of the fund with the lowest earnings rate for the period of the failure to adjust the reduction to each account balance. It is determined that the amount (adjusted for earnings) by which the account balance of Employee R is increased exceeds the aggregate amount (adjusted for earnings) by which the other employees’ account balances are reduced. Accordingly, Employer E makes a contribution to the plan in an amount equal to the excess. The reduction from the account balances is made on a pro rata basis among all of the funds in which each employee’s account balance is invested.

.04 § 415 Failures.

(1) Failures Relating to a § 415(b) Excess.

(a) Correction Methods. (i) Return of Overpayment Correction Method. Overpayments as a result of amounts being paid in excess of the limits of § 415(b) may be corrected using the return of Overpayment correction method set forth in this paragraph (1)(a)(i). The employer takes reasonable steps to have the Overpayment (with appropriate interest) returned by the recipient to the plan and reduces future benefit payments (if any) due to the employee to reflect § 415(b). To the extent the amount returned by the recipient is less than the Overpayment, adjusted for earnings at the plan’s earnings rate, then the employer or another person contributes the difference to the plan. In addition, in accordance with section 6.05 of this revenue procedure, the employer must notify the recipient that the Overpayment was not eligible for favorable tax treatment accorded to distributions from qualified plans (and, specifically, was not eligible for tax-free rollover). (See Examples 15 and 16.)

(ii) Adjustment of Future Payments Correction Method. (A) In General. In addition to the return of overpayment correction method, in the case of

plan benefits that are being distributed in the form of periodic payments, Overpayments as a result of amounts being paid in excess of the limits in § 415(b) may be corrected by using the adjustment of future payments correction method set forth in this paragraph (1)(a)(ii). Future payments to the recipient are reduced so that they do not exceed the § 415(b) maximum limit and an additional reduction is made to recoup the Overpayment (over a period not longer than the remaining payment period) so that the actuarial present value of the additional reduction is equal to the Overpayment plus interest at the interest rate used by the plan to determine actuarial equivalence. (See Examples 13 and 14.)

(B) Joint and Survivor Annuity Payments. If the employee is receiving payments in the form of a joint and survivor annuity, with the employee’s spouse to receive a life annuity upon the employee’s death equal to a percentage (e.g., 75%) of the amount being paid to the employee, the reduction of future annuity payments to reflect § 415(b) reduces the amount of benefits payable during the lives of both the employee and spouse, but any reduction to recoup Overpayments made to the employee does not reduce the amount of the spouse’s survivor benefit. Thus, the spouse’s benefit will be based on the previous specified percentage (e.g., 75%) of the maximum permitted under § 415(b), instead of the reduced annual periodic amount payable to the employee.

(C) Overpayment Not Treated as an Excess Amount. An Overpayment corrected under this adjustment of future payment correction method is not treated as an Excess Amount as defined in section 5.01(3) of this revenue procedure. (b) Examples.

Example 13:

Employer F maintains a defined benefit plan funded solely through employer contributions. The plan provides that the benefits of employees are limited to the maximum amount permitted under § 415(b), disregarding cost-of-living adjustments under § 415(d) after benefit payments have commenced. At the beginning of the 1998 plan year, Employee S retired and started receiving an annual straight life annuity of $140,000 from the plan. Due to an administrative error, the annual amount received by Employee S for 1998 included an Overpayment of $10,000 (because the § 415(b)(1)(A) limit for 1998 was $130,000). This error was discovered at the beginning of 1999.

Correction:

Employer F uses the adjustment of future payments correction method to correct the failure to satisfy the limit in § 415(b). Future annuity benefit payments to Employee S are reduced so that they do not exceed the § 415(b) maximum limit, and, in addition, Employee S’s future benefit payments from the plan are actuarially reduced to recoup the Overpayment. Accordingly, Employee S’s future benefit payments from the plan are reduced to $130,000 and further reduced by $1,000 annually for life, beginning in 1999. The annual benefit amount is reduced by $1,000 annually for life because, for Employee S, the actuarial present value of a benefit of $1,000 annually for life commencing in 1999 is equal to the sum of $10,000 and interest at the rate used by the plan to determine actuarial equivalence beginning with the date of the first Overpayment and ending with the date the reduced annuity payment begins. Thus, Employee S’s remaining benefit payments are reduced so that Employee S receives $129,000 for 1999, and for each year thereafter.

Example 14:

The facts are the same as in Example 13.

Correction:

Employer F uses the adjustments of future payments correction method to correct the § 415(b) failure, by recouping the entire excess payment made in 1998 from Employee S’s remaining benefit payments for 1999. Thus, Employee S’s annual annuity benefit for 1999 is reduced to $119,400 to reflect the excess benefit amounts (increased by interest) that were paid from the plan to Employee S during the 1998 plan year. Beginning in 2000, Employee S begins to receive annual benefit payments of $130,000.

Example 15:

The facts are the same as in Example 13, except that the benefit was paid to Employee S in the form of a single-sum distribution in 1998, which exceeded the maximum § 415(b) limits by $110,000.

Correction:

Employer F uses the return of overpayment correction method to correct the § 415(b) failure. Thus, Employer F notifies Employee S of the $110,000 Overpayment and that the Overpayment was not eligible for favorable tax treatment accorded to distributions from qualified plans (and, specifically, was not eligible for taxfree rollover). The notice also informs Employee S that the Overpayment (with interest at the rate used by the plan to calculate the single-sum payment) is owed to the plan. Employer F takes reasonable steps to have the Overpayment (with interest at the rate used by the plan to calculate the single-sum payment) paid to the plan. Employee S pays the $110,000 (plus the requested interest) to the plan. It is determined that the plan’s earnings rate for the relevant period was 2 percentage points more than the rate used by the plan to calculate the single-sum payment. Accordingly, Employer F contributes the difference to the plan.

2001–7 I.R.B. 619 February 12, 2001

the difference to the plan. The Overpayment, adjusted for earnings at the plan’s earnings rate to the date of the repayment, is to be placed in an unallocated account, similar to the suspense account described in § 1.415–6(b)(6)(iii), to be used to reduce employer contributions in succeeding year(s) (or if the amount would have been allocated to other eligible employees who were in the plan for the year of the failure if the failure had not occurred, then that amount is reallocated to the other eligible employees in accordance with the plan’s allocation formula). In addition, the employer must notify the employee that the Overpayment was not eligible for favorable tax treatment accorded to distributions from qualified plans (and, specifically, was not eligible for tax-free rollover).

(b) Examples.

Example 17:

Employer G maintains a 401(k) plan. The plan provides for nonelective employer contributions, elective deferrals, and employee after-tax contributions. The plan provides that the nonelective contributions vest under a 5-year cliff vesting schedule. The plan provides that when an employee terminates employment, the employee’s nonvested account balance is forfeited five years after a distribution of the employee’s vested account balance and that forfeitures are used to reduce employer contributions. For the 1998 limitation year, the annual additions made on behalf of two nonhighly compensated employees in the plan, Employees T and U, exceeded the limit in § 415(c). For the 1998 limitation year, Employee T had § 415 compensation of $60,000, and, accordingly, a § 415(c)(1)(B) limit of $15,000. Employee T made elective deferrals and employee after-tax contributions. For the 1998 limitation year, Employee U had § 415 compensation of $40,000, and, accordingly, a § 415(c)(1)(B) limit of $10,000. Employee U made elective deferrals. Also, on January 1, 1999, Employee U, who had three years of service with Employer G, terminated his employment and received his entire vested account balance (which consisted of his elective deferrals). The annual additions for Employees T and U consisted of:

Example 16:

The facts are the same as in Example 15.

Correction:

Employer F uses the return of overpayment correction method to correct the § 415(b) failure. Thus, Employer F notifies Employee S of the $110,000 Overpayment and that the Overpayment was not eligible for favorable tax treatment accorded to distributions from qualified plans (and, specifically, was not eligible for taxfree rollover). The notice also informs Employee S that the Overpayment (with interest at the rate used by the plan to calculate the single-sum payment) is owed to the plan. Employer F takes reasonable steps to have the Overpayment (with interest at the rate used by the plan to calculate the single-sum payment) paid to the plan. As a result of Employer F’s recovery efforts, some, but not all, of the Overpayment (with interest) is recovered from Employee S. It is determined that the amount returned by Employee S to the plan is less than the Overpayment adjusted for earnings at the plan’s earnings rate. Accordingly, Employer F contributes the difference to the plan.

(2) Failures Relating to a § 415(c) Excess.

(a) Correction Methods. (i) VCS Correction Method. Appendix A, section .08 sets forth the VCS correction method for correcting the failure to satisfy the § 415(c) limits on annual additions.

(ii) Forfeiture Correction Method. In addition to the VCS correction method, the failure to satisfy § 415(c) with respect to a nonhighly compensated employee (A) who in the limitation year of the failure had annual additions consisting of both (I) either elective deferrals or employee after-tax contributions or both and (II) either matching or nonelective contributions or both, (B) for whom the matching and nonelective contributions equal or exceed the portion of the employee’s annual addition that exceeds the limits under § 415(c) (“§ 415(c) excess”) for the limitation year, and (C) who has terminated with no vested interest in the matching and nonelective contributions (and has not been reemployed at the time of the correction), may

be corrected by using the forfeiture correction method set forth in this paragraph. The § 415(c) excess is deemed to consist solely of the matching and nonelective contributions. If the employee’s § 415(c) excess (adjusted for earnings) has previously been forfeited, the § 415(c) failure is deemed to be corrected. If the § 415(c) excess (adjusted for earnings) has not been forfeited, that amount is placed in an unallocated account, similar to the suspense account described in § 1.415–6(b)(6)(iii), to be used to reduce employer contributions in succeeding year(s) (or if the amount would have been allocated to other employees who were in the plan for the year of the failure if the failure had not occurred, then that amount is reallocated to the other employees in accordance with the plan’s allocation formula). Note that while this correction method will permit more favorable tax treatment of elective deferrals for the employee than the VCS correction method, this correction method could be less favorable to the employee in certain cases, for example, if the employee is subsequently reemployed and becomes vested. (See Examples 17 and 18.) (iii) Return of Overpayment Correction Method. A failure to satisfy § 415(c) that includes a distribution of the § 415(c) excess attributable to nonelective contributions and matching contributions may be corrected using the return of overpayment correction method set forth in this paragraph. The employer takes reasonable steps to have the Overpayment (i.e., the distribution of the § 415(c) excess adjusted for earnings to the date of the distribution), plus appropriate interest from the date of the distribution to the date of the repayment, returned by the employee to the plan. To the extent the amount returned by the employee is less than the Overpayment adjusted for earnings at the plan’s earnings rate, then the employer or another person contributes

T U Nonelective $7,500 $4,500 Contributions

Elective 10,000 5,800 Deferrals

After-tax 500 0 Contributions

Total Contributions $18,000 $10,300 § 415(c) Limit $15,000 $10,000 § 415(c) Excess $3,000 $300

February 12, 2001 620 2001–7 I.R.B.

is entitled to an employer contribution of 8% of the employee’s compensation up to the § 401(a)(17) limit ($160,000 for 1998). During the 1998 plan year, an eligible employee, Employee W, inadvertently was credited with a contribution based on compensation above the § 401(a)(17) limit. Employee W’s compensation for 1998 was $220,000. Employee W received a contribution of $17,600 for 1998 (8% of $220,000), rather than the contribution of $12,800 (8% of $160,000) provided by the plan for that year, resulting in an improper allocation of $4,800.

Correction:

The § 401(a)(17) failure is corrected using the reduction of account balance method by reducing Employee W’s account balance by $4,800 (adjusted for earnings) and crediting that amount to an unallocated account, similar to the suspense account described in § 1.415–6(b)(6)(iii), to be used to reduce employer contributions in succeeding year(s).

.07 Correction by Amendment Under VCP and SCP.

(1) § 401(a)(17) Failures. (a) Contribution Correction Method. In addition to the reduction of account balance correction method under section 2.06 of this Appendix B, an employer may correct a § 401(a)(17) failure for a plan year under a defined contribution plan under VCP and SCP (in accordance with the requirements of sections 8, 10, and 11) by using the contribution correction method set forth in this paragraph. The employer contributes an additional amount on behalf of each of the other employees (excluding each employee for whom there was a § 401(a)(17) failure) who received an allocation for the year of the failure, amending the plan (as necessary) to provide for the additional allocation. The amount contributed for an employee is equal to the employee’s plan compensation for the year of the failure multiplied by a fraction, the numerator of which is the improperly allocated amount made on behalf of the employee with the largest improperly allocated amount, and the denominator of which is the limit under § 401(a)(17) applicable to the year of the failure. The resulting additional amount for each of the other employees is adjusted for earnings. (See Example 20.)

(b) Examples.

Example 20:

The facts are the same as in Example 19.

Correction:

Employer G uses the VCS correction method to correct the § 415(c) excess with respect to Employee T (i.e., $3,000). Thus, a distribution of plan assets (and corresponding reduction of the account balance) consisting of $500 (adjusted for earnings) of employee after-tax contributions and $2,500 (adjusted for earnings) of elective deferrals is made to Employee T. Employer G uses the forfeiture correction method to correct the § 415(c) excess with respect to Employee U. Thus, the § 415(c) excess is deemed to consist solely of the nonelective contributions. Accordingly, Employee U’s nonvested account balance is reduced by $300 (adjusted for earnings) which is placed in an unallocated account, similar to the suspense account described in § 1.415–6(b)(6)(iii), to be used to reduce employer contributions in succeeding year(s). After correction, it is determined that the ADP and ACP tests for 1998 were satisfied.

Example 18:

Employer H maintains a 401(k) plan. The plan provides for nonelective employer contributions, matching contributions and elective deferrals. The plan provides for matching contributions that are equal to 100% of an employee’s elective deferrals that do not exceed 8% of the employee’s plan compensation for the plan year. For the 1998 limitation year, Employee V had § 415 compensation of $50,000, and, accordingly, a § 415(c)(1)(B) limit of $12,500. During that limitation year, the annual additions for Employee V totaled $15,000, consisting of $5,000 in elective deferrals, a $4,000 matching contribution (8% of $50,000), and a $6,000 nonelective employer contribution. Thus, the annual additions for Employee V exceeded the § 415(c) limit by $2,500.

Correction:

Employer H uses the VCS correction method to correct the § 415(c) excess with respect to Employee V (i.e., $2,500). Accordingly, $1,000 of the unmatched elective deferrals (adjusted for earnings) are distributed to Employee V. The remaining $1,500 excess is apportioned equally between the elective deferrals and the associated matching employer contributions, so Employee V’s account balance is further reduced by distributing to Employee V $750 (adjusted for earnings) of the elective deferrals and forfeiting $750 (adjusted for earnings) of the associated employer matching contributions. The forfeited matching contributions are placed in an unallocated account; similar to the suspense account described in § 1.415–6(b)(6)(iii), to be used to reduce employer contributions in succeeding year(s). After correction, it is determined that the ADP and ACP tests for 1998 were satisfied.

.05 Correction of Other Overpayment Failures.

An Overpayment, other than one described in section 2.04(1) (relating to a

§ 415(b) excess) or section 2.04(2) (relating to a § 415(c) excess), may be corrected in accordance with this section 2.05. An Overpayment from a defined benefit plan is corrected in accordance with the rules in section 2.04(1). An Overpayment from a defined contribution plan is corrected in accordance with the rules in section 2.04(2)(a)(iii).

. 06 § 401(a)(17) Failures.

(1) Reduction of Account Balance Correction Method. The allocation of contributions or forfeitures under a defined contribution plan for a plan year on the basis of compensation in excess of the limit under § 401(a)(17) for the plan year may be corrected using the reduction of account balance correction method set forth in this paragraph. The account balance of an employee who received an allocation on the basis of compensation in excess of the § 401(a)(17) limit is reduced by this improperly allocated amount (adjusted for earnings). If the improperly allocated amount would have been allocated to other employees in the year of the failure if the failure had not occurred, then that amount (adjusted for earnings) is reallocated to those employees in accordance with the plan’s allocation formula. If the improperly allocated amount would not have been allocated to other employees absent the failure, that amount (adjusted for earnings) is placed in an unallocated account, similar to the suspense account described in § 1.415–6(b)(6)(iii), to be used to reduce employer contributions in succeeding year(s). For example, if a plan provides for a fixed level of employer contributions for each eligible employee, and the plan provides that forfeitures are used to reduce future employer contributions, the improperly allocated amount (adjusted for earnings) would be used to reduce future employer contributions. (See Example 19.) If a payment was made to an employee and that payment was attributable to an improperly allocated amount, then it is an Overpayment defined in section 5.01(6) of this revenue procedure that must be corrected (see sections 2.04 and 2.05).

(2) Example.

Example 19:

Employer J maintains a money purchase pension plan. Under the plan, an eligible employee

2001–7 I.R.B. 621 February 12, 2001

Correction :