Bri Posted December 13, 2022 Posted December 13, 2022 I was just wondering, since I never seem to find formulas like that in any documents I review. Seems like it would be a great idea for a sole proprietor, where income could fluctuate widely, and that way they don't really have to accrue a more-than-significant benefit until after the net earnings clear some amount the person would need for living expenses. Like, a contribution credit of "5% of compensation plus 75% of compensation above $100,000" where that could eliminate the need to worry about a big obligation in a "bad year". (Okay, maybe throw in a 401a26 failsafe, too.) Plus it's been a decade-plus since I even saw a super-integrated DC plan, and always liked the term. Luke Bailey and ugueth 2
CuseFan Posted December 13, 2022 Posted December 13, 2022 Not a bad idea, but haven't seen it in practice. Could make your baseline benefit equal to a 0.5% accrual and then layer on a cash balance credit as a percentage of compensation in excess of some strategic threshold. But can this fit into a pre-approved document without modification necessitating submission? I'd be interested to hear if anyone sees compliance issues or other drawbacks to this approach. Luke Bailey 1 Kenneth M. Prell, CEBS, ERPA Vice President, BPAS Actuarial & Pension Services kprell@bpas.com
Bri Posted December 13, 2022 Author Posted December 13, 2022 Maybe just figure out a good minimum CB principal credit rate based on the age of the sole proprietor (3% if young-ish with a 5% ICR) and apply that to all the compensation. At least that way it's probably easier to squeeze the text into a checklist!
Effen Posted December 14, 2022 Posted December 14, 2022 I have seen them. They do exist. If you are worried about fluctuating compensation, consider basing the cash balance allocation on a bonus and not the total compensation. The entity must control the amount of the bonus, so they need Board justification to pay the bonus, and the participant can't control the amount, but often the Board and the participant are the same individual who is wearing two different hats. Yes, it can be problematic, but it does solve the problem. Luke Bailey and Bri 2 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.
Bri Posted December 15, 2022 Author Posted December 15, 2022 I suppose this looks different if the person's filing unincorporatedly, as opposed to an S-corp where he sets his own reasonable compensation number for his W-2. Was just thinking about a prospect whose Schedule C is jumping from 40k to 240k but we have no sense yet what the person expects in future years. Thanks!
C. B. Zeller Posted December 15, 2022 Posted December 15, 2022 I've also seen these formulas "in the wild." There are documents out there that let you do it. For an owner-employee with earned income, I would be worried about the situation where they have a lot of income, so this formula produces a large credit, but then they make a large contribution and it reduces their income to where they now have only a small credit, which limits their contribution. There is probably a way to manage this well but I would be inclined to avoid it. ugueth and Luke Bailey 2 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
Bill Presson Posted December 15, 2022 Posted December 15, 2022 I've seen it used for real estate agents and for liability attorneys. In both situations, they were making about $100k every year, but every third year or so, they would make $500k, so the increased pay credits were set for above $150k, if I remember correctly. Obviously limited to max comp for the year. Luke Bailey and Bri 2 William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA bill.presson@gmail.com C 205.994.4070
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