Leaderboard

If you use this, you'll be good with most situations. There will be some changes in 2024. https://www.lfg.com/wcs-static/pdf/Attribution of Ownership in Retirement Plans - PDF.pdf

The trick is to keep track of which Code section's attribution rules govern which determinations. For CGs it's 1563 and so that's where the "minor child" trip-up has happened so often they finally legislated it out in Secure 2.

Check out the preamble to regulations regarding Retirement Plans; Cash or Deferred Arrangements Under Section 401(k) and Matching Contributions or Employee Contributions Under Section 401(m) Regulations published in the Federal Register / Vol. 69, No. 249 / Wednesday, December 29, 2004 page 78151 "The proposed regulations did not include any exception to the requirements for safe harbor matching contributions with respect to catch-up contributions. As part of the proposed regulations the IRS and Treasury solicited comments on the specific circumstances under which elective contributions by an NHCE to a safe harbor plan would be less than the amount required to be matched, e.g., less than 5% of safe harbor compensation, but would be treated by the plan as catch-up contributions, and on the extent to which a safe harbor plan should be required to match catch-up contributions under such circumstances. After reviewing the comments and the applicable statutory provisions (including the amendments to section 414(v)(3)(B) made by the Job Creation and Worker Assistance Act of 2002, (JCWAA) (Public Law 107–147)), the IRS and Treasury have determined that no such exception is appropriate." Basically, the safe harbor match applies to all deferrals and, the IRS having thought about it, decided not to make an exception for catch-up contributions.

Depending upon the individual's perspectives and priorities on taxes, generational wealth, Social Security and current income level: Elective deferrals are not included in the calculation of the deductible limit on contributions to the plan, so an individual with relatively low net income can get a disproportionately larger tax deduction. On the other side, mega Roth deferrals/Roth conversions/Roth NECs start laying the foundation for no RMDs. If the entire amount in the plan is Roth, then there is no taxable income on payments. When the individual begins taking Social Security benefits, the payments will not count as income that could trigger income taxes on those Social Security benefits. Payroll taxes apply to elective deferrals which, if the individual's net income is below the SSTWB, adds to the individual's Social Security retirement benefit (and possibly to a spousal benefit. These things can work against each other, so the individual needs to decide what is more important.

The match formula cannot be based on more than 6% of deferred compensation. The match cannot exceed 4% of deferred compensation in total. So, a discretionary 50% match on the first 6% of deferred compensation (3% total) would be exempt from the ACP test, while 25% match on the first 10% of deferred compensation (2.5% total) would not.

It sounds like the match fits the exception §401(m)(11) and does not require ACP testing but you can double check to make sure you meet all the requirements.

There is not a great answer for this question. I actually wrote how the IRS should change the Form that would allow an employer to provide these details. You can read my thoughts here - https://accord-aca.com/articles/more-detail-and-further-clarity-required-for-part-iv-of-the-form-1094-c . If this is still an issue, send me an email and we can try to find a time to discuss over the phone rmoulder@healthcare-attorneys.com . It is an interesting question.

No they can not. Employee deferrals that are refunded as part of a failed ADP test are still included in the employee's 415 limit.