Skip to content

Amendments to come for more flexibility to correct contribution errors in defined contribution plans

Level Chan and Rachel Abi Daoud

On February 4, 2022 the federal government released a set of draft legislative proposals (“Draft Legislation”) amending the Income Tax Act (“Act“) and Income Tax Regulations (“Regulations“). The draft amendments would implement certain personal income tax measures previously announced in the 2021 Federal Budget, which included more flexibility for defined contribution pension plan (“DCPP”) administrators to correct for both under-contributions and over-contributions. With completion of the consultation period on March 7, 2022, we hope to see these measures implemented this year.

The Act does not currently address issues arising out of historical over-contributions and under-contributions, nor does it propose any remedies. If an under-contribution is discovered in a subsequent year, the Act does not allow plan administrators to accept contributions to correct the error. The only option is to amend the plan to allow for catch-up contributions or make payments outside of the plan. In addition, while the rules allow some over-contribution errors to be corrected by refunding the excess to the contributor, the procedural requirements are onerous and often impractical.

The Draft Legislation proposes the following changes to the Act to address these issues.

Correcting under-contribution errors in DCPPs

The amendments permit certain errors to be corrected by allowing plan administrators to make additional contributions (i.e. – “permitted corrective contributions”) to a member’s money purchase account, in order to compensate the member for an under-contribution error in any of the preceding five years of the additional contribution, subject to a dollar limit.

The Draft Legislation would accomplish this through a new subsection 147.1(2) to the Act, which permits a correction by an individual or an employer under a money purchase provision of an individual’s registered pension plan if:

  1. it is a permitted corrective contribution; and
  2. the money purchase provision was a designated money purchase provision in each of the five immediately preceding years.

Permitted corrective contribution

In a calendar year, this is a contribution that would have been made to a money purchase provision of a registered pension plan in any of the five immediately preceding years in accordance with the plan terms, but for a failure to enroll the individual in the plan or a failure to contribute as required by the terms of the plan.

Designated money purchase provision

A money purchase provision is considered a “designated money purchase provision” in a calendar year if it meets one of the following conditions:

  1. the pension plan has ten or more members throughout the year; or
  2. not more than 50% of the contributions made to the provision in the year are with respect to “connected persons” and employees whose remuneration for the year exceeds 2.5 times the year’s maximum pensionable earnings (under the Canada Pension Plan).

Correcting over-contribution errors in DCPPs

The draft amendments would also enable plan administrators to correct for pension over-contribution errors through an employer or member refund. Similar to under-contributions, the relief would be available only to over-contributions made in the five years preceding the year of the refund. Refunds of over-contributions would restore an employee’s contribution room for the taxation year in which the refund is made.

Simplifying reporting requirements

Under the Act in its current form, a return of an over-contribution does not automatically restore the affected member’s Registered Retirement Savings Plan (“RRSP”) contribution room. Retroactive amendments to a member’s historical T4 slip(s) are required in order to do this, which is a cumbersome process.

In addition to permitting corrections for over-contribution errors, the proposed amendments would also implement an easier process for reporting pension adjustment corrections related to over-contributions and under-contributions. Rather than filing amended T4 slips, a plan administrator would simply have to file an information return in prescribed form with the Canada Revenue Agency, with respect to each affected plan member.

Adding a reasonable rate of interest to a return of contributions

A registered pension plan becomes a revocable plan when it is not administered in accordance with the terms of the plan as registered, for example where an over-contribution has been made.

Under the current Regulations, the distribution rules permit the return of all or a portion of contributions made when the payment is done to avoid the revocation of the registration of the plan. The draft amendments, if enacted, will allow plan administrators to add a reasonable rate of interest to a return of contributions, in order to avoid the revocation of plan registration. A “reasonable rate” is not defined and more guidance may be provided at a later date.

General

The Department of Finance is receiving comments on the Draft Legislation up to March 7, 2022. Comments may be sent to Consultation-Legislation@fin.gc.ca.

If successfully implemented, the amendments will come into force retroactively – as of January 1, 2021. While the Draft Legislation will make changes to the Act and the Regulations, correction of under- and over-contributions for registered pension plans will still need to comply with applicable pension benefits standards legislation.


This client update is provided for general information only and does not constitute legal advice. If you have any questions about the above, please contact a member of our Pensions and Benefits group.

 

Click here to subscribe to Stewart McKelvey Thought Leadership.

SHARE

Archive

Search Archive


 
 

Client Update: “Lien”-ing Towards Efficiency: Upcoming Amendments to the Builders’ Lien Act

June 29, 2017

By Brian Tabor, QC and Colin Piercey Bill 81 and Bill 15, receiving Royal Assent in 2013 and 2014 respectively, are due to take effect this month. On June 30, 2017, amendments to the Builders’…

Read More

Weeding Through New Brunswick’s Latest Cannabis Recommendations

June 26, 2017

New Brunswick continues to be a thought leader in the field of regulation of recreational cannabis and provides us with a first look at what the provincial regulation of recreational cannabis might look like. New…

Read More

Client Update: Elk Valley Decision – SCC Finds that Enforcement of “No Free Accident” Rule in Workplace Drug and Alcohol Policy Does Not Violate Human Rights Legislation

June 23, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Richard Jordan In Stewart v. Elk Valley Coal Corporation, 2017 SCC 30, a six-judge majority of the Supreme Court of Canada (“SCC”) confirmed a Tribunal decision which concluded that the dismissal of an…

Read More

Client Update: The Grass is Always Greener in the Other Jurisdiction – Provincial Acts and Regulations under the Cannabis Act

June 22, 2017

By Kevin Landry New Brunswick’s Working Group on the Legalization of Cannabis released an interim report on June 20, 2017. It is a huge step forward in the legalization process and the first official look at how legalization…

Read More

Client Update: Cannabis Act regulations – now we are really getting into the weeds!

June 15, 2017

Rick Dunlop and Kevin Landry As we explained in The Cannabis Act- Getting into the Weeds, the Cannabis Act introduces a regulatory regime for recreational marijuana in Canada. The regime promises to be complex. The details of legalization will be…

Read More

Client Update: Requirement to register as a lobbyist in New Brunswick

June 15, 2017

On April 1, 2017, the New Brunswick Lobbyists’ Registration Act was proclaimed into force (the “Act”), requiring active professional consultant or in-house lobbyists to register and file returns with the Office of the Integrity Commissioner of New…

Read More

How much is too much?: Disclosure in multiple accident litigation in English v House, 2017 NLTD(G) 93

June 14, 2017

Joe Thorne and Jessica Habet How far can an insurer dig into the Plaintiff’s history to defend a claim? And how much information is an insurer entitled to have in order to do so? In English v.…

Read More

Client Update: Court of Appeal confirms accounting firms may take on multiple mandates for the same company

June 14, 2017

Neil Jacobs, QC, Joe Thorne and Meaghan McCaw The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal recently confirmed that accounting/auditing firms may take on several mandates in respect of companies that may or do become insolvent in Wabush Hotel Limited…

Read More

Negligence claims in paper-only independent medical examinations: Rubens v Sansome, 2017 NLCA 32

June 13, 2017

Joe Thorne and Brandon Gillespie An independent medical examination (“IME”) is a useful tool for insurers. An IME is an objective assessment of the claimant’s condition for the purpose of evaluating coverage and compensation. Where a…

Read More

Client Update: Mental injury? Expert diagnosis not required

June 12, 2017

On June 2, 2017 the Supreme Court of Canada released its decision in Saadati v. Moorhead, 2017 SCC 28, clarifying the evidence needed to establish mental injury. Neither expert evidence nor a diagnosed psychiatric illness…

Read More

Search Archive


Scroll To Top