Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

If an employer wants to allow for after-tax employee contributions, then those contributions are tested in the ACP test.  If the plan operates as a safe harbor match, does that mean that ACP test passes the inclusive of the after-tax employee contributions?

Thanks

Posted

You can do the ACP test either on just the after-tax employee contributions, or on the after-tax contributions plus the match.

Free advice is worth what you paid for it. Do not rely on the information provided in this post for any purpose, including (but not limited to): tax planning, compliance with ERISA or the IRC, investing or other forms of fortune-telling, bird identification, relationship advice, or spiritual guidance.

Corey B. Zeller, MSEA, CPC, QPA, QKA
Preferred Pension Planning Corp.
corey@pppc.co

Posted

 the plan must pass ACP if they are making voluntary after-tax contributions- having a Safe Harbor Match does not automatically satisfy the ACP if you are making After-Tax

Posted

Re C. B. Zeller's point, it's in 1.401(m)-2(a)(5)(iv).

Luke Bailey

Senior Counsel

Clark Hill PLC

214-651-4572 (O) | LBailey@clarkhill.com

2600 Dallas Parkway Suite 600

Frisco, TX 75034

  • 2 weeks later...
Posted

What would this do to top heavy requirements?

As an example, a safe harbor plan with 5 participants composed of 3 owners and 2 employees, all of which are HCEs.  The owners and 1 employee defer to get full company match of 4%, but 1 employee defers nothing, gets no company match.  If the plan was amended to allow after tax 401k contributions and this feature was used, I understand it would still pass ADP/ACP (because there are no NHCEs), but would lose its TH protections.  Would there be a mandatory 3% TH employer contribution to the non-deferring HCE?

Posted
1 hour ago, stxman said:

… 5 participants composed of 3 owners and 2 employees, all of which are HCEs. 

Don't you first have to determine Key vs. Non-Key?

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.

Posted
Just now, david rigby said:

Don't you first have to determine Key vs. Non-Key?

Sorry for not making that explicit.  Each owner is 1/3 equity holder, so key.  The 2 employees have zero equity, aren't officers, etc so I am assuming they are both non-key.

That said, if the TH minimum must be met for the 1 non-participating, non-key employee, could a profit share contribution be used to cover that?

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use