SECTION 8. SELF-CORRECTION OF

INSIGNIFICANT OPERATIONAL FAILURES

.01 Requirements . The requirements of this section 8 are satisfied with respect to an Operational Failure if the Operational Failure is corrected and, given all the facts and circumstances, the Operational Failure is insignificant. This section 8 is available for correcting an insignificant Operational Failure even if the plan or Plan Sponsor is Under Examination and even if the Operational Failure is discovered by an agent on examination.

.02 Factors . The factors to be considered in determining whether or not an Op

ures relating to deferral percentages, discontinuance of contributions to a SARSEP or SIMPLE IRA Plan, and retention of Excess Amounts for cases in which there has been no violation of a statutory limitation), the Service may provide for a different correction. See section 12.05(2) for a special fee that may apply in such a case.

(3) Correction of failure to satisfy de- ferral percentage test . If the failure involves a violation of the deferral percentage test under § 408(k)(6)(A)(iii) applicable to a SARSEP, there are several methods to correct the failure. This failure may be corrected in one of the following ways:

(a) The Plan Sponsor may make contributions that are 100% vested to all eligible nonhighly compensated employees (to the extent permitted by § 415) necessary to raise the deferral percentage needed to pass the test. This amount may be calculated as either the same percentage of compensation or the same flat dollar amount (regardless of the terms of the SEP).

(b) The Plan Sponsor may effect distribution of excess contributions, adjusted for earnings through the date of correction, to highly compensated employees to correct the failure. The Plan Sponsor must also contribute to the SEP an amount equal to the total amount distributed. This amount must be allocated to (i) current employees who were nonhighly compensated employees in the year of the failure, (ii) current nonhighly compensated employees who were nonhighly compensated employees in the year of the failure, or (iii) employees (both current and former) who were nonhighly compensated employees in the year of the failure.

(4) Treatment of undercontributions to a SEP or a SIMPLE IRA Plan . (a) Make-up contributions; earnings . The Plan Sponsor should correct undercontributions to a SEP or a SIMPLE IRA Plan by contributing make-up amounts that are fully vested, adjusted for earnings credited from the date of the failure to the date of correction.

(b) Earnings adjustment methods . (i) The earnings rate generally is based on the investment results that would have applied to the corrective contribution if the failure had not occurred.

(ii) Insofar as SEP and SIMPLE IRA Plan assets are held in IRAs, there is no earnings rate under the SEP or SIMPLE IRA Plan as a whole. If the Plan Sponsor

is unable to determine what the actual investment results would have been, a reasonable interest rate may be used.

(5) Treatment of Excess Amounts un- der a SEP or a SIMPLE IRA Plan . (a) Dis- tribution of Excess Amounts . For purposes of section 6.10, an Excess Amount is an amount contributed on behalf of an employee that is in excess of an employee’s benefit under the plan, or an elective deferral in excess of the limitations of §§ 402(g) or 408(k)(6)(A)(iii). If an Excess Amount is attributable to elective deferrals, the Plan Sponsor may effect distribution of the Excess Amount, adjusted for earnings through the date of correction, to the affected participant. The amount distributed to the affected participant is includible in gross income in the year of distribution. The distribution is reported on Form 1099–R for the year of distribution with respect to each participant receiving the distribution. In addition, the Plan Sponsor must inform affected participants that the distribution of an Excess Amount is not eligible for favorable tax treatment accorded to distributions from a SEP or a SIMPLE IRA Plan (and, specifically, is not eligible for tax-free rollover). If the Excess Amount is attributable to employer contributions, the Plan Sponsor may effect distribution of the employer Excess Amount, adjusted for earnings through the date of correction, to the Plan Sponsor. The amount distributed to the Plan Sponsor is not includible in the gross income of the affected participant. The Plan Sponsor is not entitled to a deduction for such employer Excess Amount. The distribution is reported on Form 1099–R issued to the participant indicating the taxable amount as zero.

(b) Retention of Excess Amounts . If an Excess Amount is retained in the SEP or SIMPLE IRA Plan under section 6.10(5), a special fee, in addition to the VCP submission fee, will apply. See section 12.05(2) for the special fee. The Plan Sponsor is not entitled to a deduction for an Excess Amount retained in the SEP or SIMPLE IRA Plan. In the case of an Excess Amount retained in a SEP that is attributable to a § 415 failure, the Excess Amount, adjusted for earnings through the date of correction, must reduce affected participants’ applicable § 415 limit for the year following the year of correction (or for the year

June 23, 2003 1063 2003–25 I.R.B.

erational Failure under a plan is insignificant include, but are not limited to: (1) whether other failures occurred during the period being examined (for this purpose, a failure is not considered to have occurred more than once merely because more than one participant is affected by the failure); (2) the percentage of plan assets and contributions involved in the failure; (3) the number of years the failure occurred; (4) the number of participants affected relative to the total number of participants in the plan; (5) the number of participants affected as a result of the failure relative to the number of participants who could have been affected by the failure; (6) whether correction was made within a reasonable time after discovery of the failure; and (7) the reason for the failure (for example, data errors such as errors in the transcription of data, the transposition of numbers, or minor arithmetic errors). No single factor is determinative. Additionally, factors (2), (4), and (5) should not be interpreted to exclude small businesses.

.03 Multiple failures . In the case of a plan with more than one Operational Failure in a single year, or Operational Failures that occur in more than one year, the Operational Failures are eligible for correction under this section 8 only if all of the Operational Failures are insignificant in the aggregate. Operational Failures that have been corrected under SCP in section 9 and VCP in sections 10 and 11 are not taken into account for purposes of determining if Operational Failures are insignificant in the aggregate.

.04 Examples . The following examples illustrate the application of this section 8. It is assumed, in each example, that the eligibility requirements of section 4 relating to SCP have been satisfied and that no Operational Failures occurred other than the Operational Failures identified below.

Example 1 : In 1984, Employer X established Plan A, a profit-sharing plan that satisfies the requirements of § 401(a) in form. In 1999, the benefits of 50 of the 250 participants in Plan A were limited by § 415(c). However, when the Service examined Plan A in 2002, it discovered that, during the 1999 limitation year, the annual additions allocated to the accounts of 3 of these employees exceeded the maximum limitations under § 415(c). Employer X contributed $3,500,000 to the plan for the plan year. The amount of the excesses totaled $4,550. Under these facts, because the number of participants affected by the failure relative to the total number of participants who could have been affected by the failure, and the monetary amount of the failure relative to the to

tal employer contribution to the plan for the 1999 plan year, are insignificant, the § 415(c) failure in Plan A that occurred in 1999 would be eligible for correction under this section 8.

Example 2 : The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that the failure to satisfy § 415 occurred during each of the 1998, 1999, and 2000 limitation years. In addition, the three participants affected by the § 415 failure were not identical each year. The fact that the § 415 failures occurred during more than one limitation year did not cause the failures to be significant; accordingly, the failures are still eligible for correction under this section 8.

Example 3 : The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that the annual additions of 18 of the 50 employees whose benefits were limited by § 415(c) nevertheless exceeded the maximum limitations under § 415(c) during the 1999 limitation year, and the amount of the excesses ranged from $1,000 to $9,000, and totaled $150,000. Under these facts, taking into account the number of participants affected by the failure relative to the total number of participants who could have been affected by the failure for the 1999 limitation year (and the monetary amount of the failure relative to the total employer contribution), the failure is significant. Accordingly, the § 415(c) failure in Plan A that occurred in 1999 is ineligible for correction under this section 8 as an insignificant failure.

Example 4 : Employer J maintains Plan C, a money purchase pension plan established in 1992. The plan document satisfies the requirements of § 401(a) of the Code. The formula under the plan provides for an employer contribution equal to 10% of compensation, as defined in the plan. During its examination of the plan for the 1999 plan year, the Service discovered that the employee responsible for entering data into the employer’s computer made minor arithmetic errors in transcribing the compensation data with respect to 6 of the plan’s 40 participants, resulting in excess allocations to those 6 participants’ accounts. Under these facts, the number of participants affected by the failure relative to the number of participants that could have been affected is insignificant, and the failure is due to minor data errors. Thus, the failure occurring in 1999 would be insignificant and therefore eligible for correction under this section 8.

Example 5 : Public School maintains for its 200 employees a salary reduction 403(b) Plan (the “Plan”) that satisfies the requirements of § 403(b). The business manager has primary responsibility for administering the Plan, in addition to other administrative functions within Public School. During the 1998 plan year, a former employee should have received an additional minimum required distribution of $278 under § 403(b)(10). Another participant received an impermissible hardship withdrawal of $2,500. Another participant made elective deferrals of $11,000, $1,000 of which was in excess of the § 402(g) limit. Under these facts, even though multiple failures occurred in a single plan year, the failures will be eligible for correction under this section 8 because in the aggregate the failures are insignificant.