Top Heavy

[Guest Sieve]

The top heavy regs permit a match to be used to meet TH requirements, which results in the match not then being used for ACP testing. (Treas. Reg. Section 1.416-1, Q&A M-19.) I'm not positive, but I believe that particular reg Q&A language predates a like change to the IRC effective with EGTRRA. (IRC Section 416©(2)(A), last sentence.)

In other words, I believe that the match could be used towards TH (with the ACP impact) even before the enactment of EGTRRA.

Does anyone know if that is correct?

[J Simmons]

I don't have a citation, Larry, but I'm fairly certain that you are correct.

[Tom Poje]

my notes say 'while yes, it could not be done in the dreaded standardized document'

in addition, under the old rules, it rarely helped because it blew the ACP test out of the water.

and Sieve, lest I forget, Go Red Wings!

[Kevin C]

The terms of the plan may prevent you from using at least some of the match towards the TH minimum prior to 2002. Our GUST prototypes say the match can not be used towards the top heavy minimum. Another GUST VS document says:

However, in determining whether a Non-Key Employee has received the required minimum allocation, such Non-Key Employee's Deferred Compensation and matching contributions needed to satisfy the "Actual Deferral Percentage" tests pursuant to Section 4.5(a) or the "Actual Contribution Percentage" tests pursuant to Section 4.7(a) shall not be taken into account.

[Guest Sieve]

Thanks for your input & confirmations (and, yes, Go Wings!).