Search the Community

A colleague of mine and I are disagreeing over a plan's ability to provide a disproportionate match as a Safe Harbor contribution. A disproportionate match, defined at 1.401(m)-2(a)(5)(ii), occurs, generally, where an NHCE receives a match that is greater than both (a) 100% of deferrals and (b) 5% of compensation. So, for example, a match of 200% up to 3% of comp would be fine until you defer past 2.5% of comp (at which point the contribution exceeds 5%). Generally, the consequence is that the disproportionate portion is ignored for testing purposes. Because only NHCE amounts can be disproportionate, it's meant to prevent trying to game the ADP/ACP test with weird matches. Here's the issue: In defining a safe harbor match, 1.401(m)-3(j) says the contribution will only be taken into account if it meets 1.401(k)-3(h)(1), which, in turn, says the contribution needs to meet the requirements of 1.401(m)-2(a), which of course includes our friend the disproportionate match rules. The implication, then, is that you couldn't have a safe harbor matching formula that could produce a disproportionate match. However, there doesn't seem to be any other support such a position. There's been no guidance that I can find on the interplay one way or the other. In all the articles/resources on permissible safe harbor matching formulas, nobody's mentioned the disproportionate match rules as an issue. Further, in laying out proposed safe harbor matching contributions, a number of the big-name providers have included formulas which would run afoul of the disproportionate match rules. Of course, none address the issue explicitly. Has anybody ever heard of this analysis? Have you dealt with safe harbor formulas that may trigger disproportionate matching contributions?