BenefitsLink logo
EmployeeBenefitsJobs logo
Get the BenefitsLink app for iPhone and iPad LinkedIn
Twitter
Facebook
Search the News


Featured Jobs
Senior Plan Administrator
Client Relationship Manager
Retirement Plan Services Administrator
Client Service Manager
Client Service Manager
Account Manager
Vice-President of Sales
Compliance Manager
Retirement Plan Administrator
Search all jobs
 

 
 
 

Jump to content


Photo

In-Service Withdrawals (under 59 1/2)


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

#1 Brian Gallagher

Brian Gallagher

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 415 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 09:59 AM

Our current Prototype allows for in-service distributions under 59 1/2 for match and profit sharing. Is there any material out there that may discuss the pro's and cons of 1) actually choosing that option for a plan or 2) benefits/drawbacks for participants?

Your thoughts are appreciated.
Remember: two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

#2 Tom Poje

Tom Poje

    Moderator

  • Sitewide Moderator
  • 5,687 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 10:52 AM

can you say 10% early withdrawal penalty?
(Or maybe put another,
people grumbled
when the stock market tumbled
that 10% fee
looks like another loss to me)

bah. I must find a way to stop filing dead lines from coming


#3 MGB

MGB

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 1,049 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 10:59 AM

The only benefit I see is to increase participation (if that is a problem). It isn't a good way to do it, but might induce some to participate that otherwise wouldn't have.

The person puts money in, gets a match, and then withdraws the match. It doesn't make any difference to that person that there is a 10% additional tax, because the other 90% is money they otherwise wouldn't have gotten.

#4 Mary Kay Foss

Mary Kay Foss

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 246 posts

Posted 04 June 2003 - 08:51 PM

I'm confused, I ordinarily only deal with retirement distributions not 401k administration, but......

Sec 401 (k)(2)(B)(i) says that employer contributions made pursuant to the employee's election may not be distributable earlier than age 59.5.

I thought that meant that the employee deferrals could be distributed as part of an in-service withdrawal but I thought that employer match and profit sharing could not.

Could someone please explain this?
Mary Kay Foss CPA

#5 Kirk Maldonado

Kirk Maldonado

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 2,346 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 12:35 AM

Mary Kay:

That is a very common misunderstanding, attributable to the use of very unfortunate wording in Section 401(k).

Because the employee is not taxed on his or her Section 401(k) contributions; those amounts are treated as (and labeled) employer contributions.

Thus, the provision that you cited merely states that the employee deferrals cannot be distributed prior to age 59-1/2; it does not operate to be a limitation upon when matching and profit sharing contributions can be distributed.
Kirk Maldonado

#6 Brian Gallagher

Brian Gallagher

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 415 posts

Posted 05 June 2003 - 02:22 PM

401(k) contribs (aka elective deferrals) are not allowed to be withdrawn before 59 1/2 (with a couple of exceptions--hardship, corrective distrib), but other employer contribs (401(m), 401(a)) may be allowed, if the document so permits.

(safe harbor match or non-elective or QNEC/QMAC's are not)
Remember: two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

#7 Paul Kelly

Paul Kelly

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 3 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 01:49 AM

Mary Kay -- As to the match and "regular" PS contribs by the ER, the plan must still have some strings attached to in-service withdrawals. This is because some of the orig 401(a) regs, older than dirt but still effective, require that a PS plan essentially be for the deferral of money for some years (plural) and the Service in RR's says that means at least two years' aging is required. The resulting evolution of that reg will have the plan doc requiring that those money sources (which are technically PS ER contribs, but not k-deferrals for this purpose) be at least two years old before withdrawing, or that the participant have been in the plan for at least five years.

Brian -- I think MGB's point about increasing participation is most important. I'd take the consulting even further and suggest that all the in-service distribution features be considered together while mulling the plan design. E.g., They should be consulted about participant loan features (yes or no; how many loans; etc.) as part of that discussion. That plan feature speaks to availibility of money, too. And, of course, the immediate tax bite and the extra 10% problems as noted in Tom P.'s good point are not problems with many loans.

Also, the admin aspects of all the in-service access could be troubling. Which money sources are available for this; vesting schedules; loan maintenance?? I don't do that stuff, but I'll bet that lots of the folks here might report that the admin aspect is key.

#8 Brian Gallagher

Brian Gallagher

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 415 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 10:26 AM

Honestly,

I think the only reason this came up is because one of the partners in the company is having money problems. He maxed out hardships and loans and he's being a pain in the ass (pardon my French) about getting as much money as he can.

The PA was concerned mainly about fiduciary exposure of letting people take almost all of their money out whenever they wanted. I told him that as long as he is pretty much following 404c, he'd probably be okay.
Remember: two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

#9 KJohnson

KJohnson

    Registered User

  • Sitewide Moderator
  • 1,513 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 10:53 AM

Paul,

For the 401(a) and 401(m) moneys if the plan provides for distribution at a "stated age" that is sufficient even if you have not satisfied the "seasoned money" requirement (2 years or more) or the five years of participation. Thus, I have had no problems with the IRS approving in-service distributions at age 35 or over as a design feature (admittedly not a design feature I would typically recommend). Arguably even more events than stated age, hardship, seasoned money or five years of participation could be allowed as permissible in-service events under 1.401-1(b)(1)(ii), but I don't think the IRS takes such a broad view. Rul 71-295, 73-553.

Edited by KJohnson, 06 June 2003 - 03:41 PM.


#10 Mary Kay Foss

Mary Kay Foss

    Registered User

  • Registered
  • 246 posts

Posted 06 June 2003 - 03:22 PM

Thanks to everyone who helped clear up my misunderstanding. You made it clear without treating me like a dummy! That shows you really know your stuff.
Mary Kay Foss CPA