masteff Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 If the plan is truly silent, then you have no grounds on which to limit comp by pay period. Kurt Vonnegut: 'To be is to do'-Socrates 'To do is to be'-Jean-Paul Sartre 'Do be do be do'-Frank Sinatra
Guest ojs000 Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 What is the correct way to administer the compensation limit for a 401k plan match? The plan appears to be silent on this. Is the company match (1) capped on an annual basis or (2) should the compensation recognised each payperiod be capped so that the employee receives the full company match over the entire year? For example an employee earning $460K (two times the 401(a)(17) limit) could receive their full match in the first six months of the year under (1) or spread out the entire year under (2). What is the correct way to adminster the plan? Thanks for your help..
QDROphile Posted June 2, 2008 Posted June 2, 2008 You may be able to match by pay period, but you would have to true up the match for the year's compensation and deferrals. Best not to slice anything without plan terms to support the action.
austin3515 Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Little known gem: What you are really supposed to do when benefits are calculated in a period of time less than year is divide the max comp limit by the number of periods in the year. That figure is the max comp for the particular period regardless of what happens in the other periods. So for example assume the match is calced quarterly. Max comp for each quarter is $57,500 (225K/4), even if in Q-1 he/she earns $100,000 and Q-2 he/she earns $10,000 (comp for Q1 is $57,500 and for W2 its $10,000). I can find a site if I must... Austin Powers, CPA, QPA, ERPA
Kevin C Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Austin, There is a proration requirement for short plan years. Payroll by payroll allocation is also addressed in the regs. Reg. §1.401(a)(17)-1(b)(3)(iii)(B), below, as amended by T.D. 9169, updates cross references to final regulations under 401(k) and 401(m) that were amended by T.D. 9169, applicable generally for plan years beginning on or after January 1, 2006. (B) No proration required for participation for less than a full plan year. --Notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section, a plan is not treated as using compensation for less than 12 months for a plan year merely because the plan formula provides that the allocation or accrual for each employee is based on compensation for the portion of the plan year during which the employee is a participant in the plan. In addition, no proration is required merely because an employee is covered under a plan for less than a full plan year, provided that allocations or benefit accruals are otherwise determined using compensation for a period of at least 12 months. Finally, notwithstanding paragraph (b)(3)(iii)(A) of this section, no proration is required merely because the amount of elective contributions (within the meaning of §1.401(k)-6), matching contributions (within the meaning of §1.401(m)-5), or employee contributions (within the meaning of §1.401(m)-5) that is contributed for each pay period during a plan year is determined separately using compensation for that pay period.
austin3515 Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Geeze... I found the same site, and EOB agrees, no pro ration. My only question is where the heck did I see this? I know I saw it somewhere! We use the Corbel docs and in the prototype it does say the following after the "period for determining matching contribution:" "any compensation or dollar limitation used in the determining the match will be based on the applicable period." That seems to imply there was at least a requirement at one time. Was this change relatively recent? Was it part of the final 401k regs? Austin Powers, CPA, QPA, ERPA
Bill Presson Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 Geeze...I found the same site, and EOB agrees, no pro ration. My only question is where the heck did I see this? I know I saw it somewhere! We use the Corbel docs and in the prototype it does say the following after the "period for determining matching contribution:" "any compensation or dollar limitation used in the determining the match will be based on the applicable period." That seems to imply there was at least a requirement at one time. Was this change relatively recent? Was it part of the final 401k regs? You probably saw it in the '60's and since you've only recently been awakened, I know it can be very disconcerting to find out about all that has changed! William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA bill.presson@gmail.com C 205.994.4070
austin3515 Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 If Mike Myers only knew the joy he brought to these boards... Austin Powers, CPA, QPA, ERPA
BG5150 Posted June 3, 2008 Posted June 3, 2008 If Mike Myers only knew the joy he brought to these boards... How do you know that he is not a frequent reader of esoteric message boards such as those here at BL? QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
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