SECTION 8. — Internal Revenue Bulletin 2019-19

.01 Requirements. The requirements of this section 8 are satisfied with respect to an Operational Failure if the Plan Sponsor of a Qualified Plan, a 403(b) Plan, a SEP, or a SIMPLE IRA Plan corrects the Operational Failure 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 on examination.

.02 Factors. The factors to be considered in determining whether an Operational 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 Fail

May 6, 2019 1118 Bulletin No. 2019–19

ures 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. (1) In general . The following examples illustrate the application of this section 8. The IRS plans to provide additional examples illustrating whether an Operational Failure is insignificant. The additional examples will be provided on the IRS.gov website. It is expected that a link to these examples will appear on the “Correcting Plan Errors” webpage on the IRS.gov website.

(2) Assumptions for examples in section 4.04 . It is assumed, in each example, that the eligibility requirements of section 4 relating to SCP (for example, the requirements of section 4.04 relating to established practices and procedures) have been satisfied and that no Operational Failures occurred other than the Operational Failures identified below.

Example 1: In 1991, Employer X established Plan A, a profit-sharing plan that satisfies the requirements of § 401(a) in form. In 2005, the benefits of 50 of the 250 participants in Plan A were limited by § 415(c). However, when the IRS examined Plan A in 2008, it discovered that, during the 2005 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 total employer contribution to the plan for the 2005 plan year, are insignificant, the § 415(c) failure in Plan A that occurred in 2005 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 2005 and 2007 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 does 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 2005 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 2005 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 2005 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). 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 2005 plan year, the IRS 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 2005 is 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 (“Plan B”) that is intended to satisfy the requirements of § 403(b). The business manager has primary responsibility for administering Plan B, in addition to other administrative functions within Public School. During the 2005 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 which $1,000 was in excess of the § 402(g) limit. Under these facts, even though multiple failures occurred in a single plan year, the failures are eligible for correction under this section 8 because in the aggregate the failures are insignificant.