One of the common mistakes resulting in erroneous IRS 2015 ESRP assertions is failure to properly report eligibility for 50-99 or 100+ transition relief on the 2015 Form 1094-C. I know that box C in line 22 (Section 4980H Transition Relief) needed to be checked along with either code A or B entered in line 23 column (e). What I'm questioning is whether the Yes or No box (MEC Offer Indicator) was supposed to be checked in line 23 column (a)? Page 8 of the 2015 instructions could be interpreted either way. What are others doing?

Be prepared this Compliance Testing Season. John Griffin, J.D., LL.M., will discuss common errors related to compliance testing, methods for improving test results, how to deal with testing errors and more. Register here!

A one-person defined benefit plan terminated 10/31/2017. The plan assets will be distributed during the 2018 plan year. A participant who has more than 10 years of participation and average compensation in excess of $265,000 is at the 415 dollar limit ($215,000/12, or $17,916.67). The plan's actuarial equivalence factors are 5% pre-retirement interest and 5% post-retirement interest and the 1994 GAR mortality table. The maximum lump sum for the participant at the current date (age [65] is limited to the lesser of the PVAB calculated using the plan's actuarial equivalence factors or the 2018 applicable mortality table at 5.5%. The PVAB using the plan rates is $2,535,730 ($17,916.67 x 141.5291). The PVAB using the 2018 applicable mortality at 5.5% is $2,601,698 ($17,916.67 x 145.2110). Therefore the maximum lump sum is limited to $2,535,730. Although the plan terminated 10/31/2017, Can an amendment be adopted in 2018 before the cashout date, in order to change the plan's actuarial equivalence factors to a more current mortality table? The goal is to increase the maximum lump sum to $2,601,698 and not have the plan's actuarial equivalence be the limiting factors.