Effen Posted December 29, 2003 Posted December 29, 2003 I know that you can not tie a defined benefit accrual to participation in a 401(k) plan (1.401-1(e)(6)), but I couldn't find anything specifically precluding it with a 403(b) Plan. In other words, can I have a defined benefit formula that is partially tied to participation in a 403(b) Plan? ie: 1% of compensation per year of service, plus .5% per year of service if contributing to the 403(b) plan The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.
IRC401 Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 Yes, the client may do it (subject to the plan's complying with 401(a)(4)), but why? I strongly recommend explaining to the client all of the nondiscrimination testing issues (and associated fees) that go with that type of plan design. It would also be a good idea to discuss the plan design with the actuary.
MWeddell Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 I've seen this plan design a few times. In essence, it's communicated as a match where the additional benefit is provided in the pension plan, but it's subject to 401(a)(4) not 401(m) testing. It only makes sense for large employers -- otherwise the actuarial and administrative issues it introduces offset any advantages.
Effen Posted January 5, 2004 Author Posted January 5, 2004 That is exactly what they were doing - using a cash balance plan as a vehicle to provide a match from a 403(b) plan. It just seems strange that 401(k)s and 403(b)s are so similar, yet this tactic is expressly forbidden in 401(k)s and permitted in 403(b)s. It just doesn't make any sense. The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.
david rigby Posted January 5, 2004 Posted January 5, 2004 It just doesn't make any sense. We are talking about the Internal Revenue Code, aren't we? I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now