The Internal Revenue Service has at
long last issued final regulations under sections 401(k) and
401(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The regulations, issued on
December 29, 2004, make some significant changes to the proposed
regulations issued in 2003, and update the final regulations
issued back in 1994. Since that time, numerous statutory changes
have taken place, as well as revenue rulings and procedures
which are all reflected in the new regulations.
The final regulations are quite extensive. This article will
review some of the most significant provisions and their impact
on the administration of 401(k) plans.
Nondiscrimination Testing
Most 401(k) plans must pass annual nondiscrimination tests
regarding employee deferrals and employer matching
contributions. The tests compare contributions made on behalf of
"highly compensated employees" (HCEs) with contributions made on
behalf of "non-highly compensated employees" (NHCEs). HCEs are
defined as more than 5% owners of the employer in the current or
the previous plan year and those who received compensation in
the previous plan year in excess of a specified level ($90,000
for 2004 and $95,000 for 2005).
The nondiscrimination tests require average contributions for
the HCE group to be within a certain range of the average
contributions for the NHCE group. The maximum average HCE
contribution, as a percentage of compensation, is based on the
average NHCE percentage as follows:
NHCE
Percentage |
|
Maximum HCE
Percentage |
|
2% or less |
|
NHCE % x 2 |
|
2% - 8% |
|
NHCE % + 2 |
|
8% or more |
|
NHCE % x 1.25 |
Plans that do not pass the test must take some action, such
as making corrective distributions or additional employer
contributions.
Testing Method
Plans may choose current year testing, where current year
contributions are used to compare the percentages of both HCEs
and NHCEs, or prior year testing, where the contributions for
NHCEs in the prior year are compared with HCE contributions in
the current year. The prior year testing method gives employers
the average contribution limitations for the HCEs in advance and
reduces the chances of a failed test.
Another option exists for the first year of a plan utilizing
the prior year method. It can choose to use 3% for the average
contributions for NHCEs, or it can use actual NHCE contributions
in the first year.
The regulations provide that a plan does not have to use the
same testing method for deferrals (the ADP test) as it does for
matching and voluntary after-tax contributions (the ACP test).
This may be relevant where a plan allows for discretionary
matching contributions but chooses not to make any in certain
years. Such a plan would have to use current year testing for
the ACP test but might prefer prior year testing for deferrals.
Whatever testing methods are chosen, the regulations require
them to be specified in the plan document. The testing methods
may only be changed by amendment, subject to certain
restrictions on changing from current year to prior year
testing. The regulations also provide that changes in testing
methods or procedures cannot be done in such a manner as to be
abusive in benefiting HCEs.
QNECs and QMACs
One method of correcting a failed nondiscrimination test is
having the employer make a "qualified nonelective contribution"
(QNEC) or "qualified matching contribution" (QMAC). QNECs and
QMACs are required to be immediately 100% vested and subject to
withdrawal restrictions. These contributions must be deposited
by the last day of the following plan year. For that reason,
these contributions are not very practical with the prior year
testing method, because the deposit would have to be made by the
last day of the testing year, which is usually before the tests
can even be performed.
There are a number of ways that QNECs and QMACs can be
allocated to participants. One of the more controversial ways is
referred to as a "bottom-up" or "targeted" QNEC. Additional
contributions are made to one or more of the NHCEs with the
lowest compensation. The contribution can be a very large
percentage of the compensation for these individuals and still
not cost the employer a lot of money. These large percentages
can have a big impact in helping the plan pass the
nondiscrimination tests.
However, the final regulations have added restrictions which
severely limit the impact of these types of allocations. Under
the new rules, QNECs in excess of 5% of compensation for any
individual may only be used for testing purposes if additional
requirements are met. Here is a comparison of the old and new
rules:
The ADP for Hobbit Company is 3% for its 50 NHCEs and 6% for
its 5 HCEs. The test is failed since the maximum ADP permitted
for HCEs is 5% (3% NHCE + 2). Under the prior rules, Hobbit
Company could make a QNEC of 25% of compensation for 2 employees
earning $1,000 which would increase the NHCE ADP to 4% and only
cost the employer $500 to pass the test.
However, the final regulations will limit the QNEC in the
above example to 5% of compensation. Therefore, 10 NHCEs will
need to receive 5% of compensation to pass the test which may
considerably increase the cost of passing the test compared to
the prior rules.
An exception was made for prevailing wage plans (under the
Davis-Bacon Act) that allows QNECs of up to 10% to be used for
testing purposes.
The new provisions could also impact QNECs and QMACs
allocated on a flat dollar basis since a specific dollar amount
will represent a higher percentage of a lower-paid employee’s
compensation than a higher-paid employee’s compensation.
Similar rules apply for QMACs with some variations concerning
the matching contribution.
Gap Period Earnings
The most common method used to correct a failed
nondiscrimination test is to make corrective distributions of
excess contributions to HCEs. The excess contributions are
required to be adjusted for related investment earnings or
losses. These contributions are presumed to be the first
deposits made during the plan year, and under prior rules, did
not have to be adjusted for earnings from the end of the plan
year until the distribution date (referred to as the "gap
period").
Under the final regulations, earnings during the gap period
can no longer be ignored for certain plans. Earnings for the gap
period must be included if there was a valuation date during the
period, e.g., daily valued plans. If there is no valuation date
within the gap period, no gap period earnings are required. For
example, a calendar year plan that has quarterly valuation dates
will not need to include gap period earnings for a distribution
made in February since there was no valuation since the end of
the plan year.
Plans with daily valuations must calculate income within
seven days of the distribution date. But since it is extremely
difficult to estimate exactly when the distribution will
actually be processed, some plans may want to use the safe
harbor calculation provided in the regulations. Under this
method, 10% of the income for the preceding plan year is
multiplied by the number of months in the gap period, including
the month of payment if the corrective distribution is made
after the 15th of the month. For example, corrective
distributions made on March 15th would have a gap period
adjustment of 20% of the preceding plan year earnings.
Safe Harbor 401(k) Plans
Safe harbor 401(k) plans are exempt from nondiscrimination
testing if they satisfy certain contribution and notice
requirements. These plans must provide either a 3% nonelective
contribution to eligible employees or a minimum matching
contribution of 100% of the first 3% of compensation deferred
and 50% of the next 2% of compensation deferred.
The final regulations provide that the plan document must
contain the relevant provisions if a plan chooses to avoid
nondiscrimination testing by making safe harbor contributions.
The plan cannot state that it will revert to testing if the
contribution or notice requirements are not met.
The regulations also allow safe harbor plans to have short
plan years under certain circumstances involving plan
terminations for business hardship, mergers or acquisitions. In
addition, the rules regarding safe harbor matching contributions
apply to catch-up contributions as well as other elective
deferrals.
Hardship Distributions
The final regulations expand the list of safe harbor hardship
events to include:
- Burial or funeral expenses for the employee’s parent,
spouse, child or dependent; and
- Repair of damage to the employee’s principal residence
that would qualify as deductible casualty expenses.
For hardships pertaining to medical expenses, the definition
of dependent has been expanded to include a non-custodial child.
Other Provisions
Guidance was also provided for the following issues:
Automatic Enrollments
Plans may provide for a default deferral election if no
affirmative election is made by a participant (e.g., an election
form is not returned). There is no limit on the amount of the
default election.
One-Time Irrevocable Election
Under the final regulations, an employee can make a one-time
irrevocable election not to participate in a retirement plan up
until the date of participation. The election applies for the
duration of employment with the employer.
Timing of Deferral Contributions
In general, elective deferral and matching contributions
cannot be funded prior to the performance of services for which
compensation is being deferred or matched. However, an exception
was established for occasional administrative necessities, such
as when a bookkeeper will be out of the office when the
contributions must be deposited.
Effective Date
The final regulations are effective for plan years beginning
on or after January 1, 2006. However, plan sponsors can apply
the new rules for any plan year ending after December 29, 2004,
provided the plan applies all of the rules of the final
regulations, to the extent applicable, for that plan year and
all subsequent plan years.
Conclusion
The final 401(k) and 401(m) regulations address an extensive
number of issues involving plan administration. For the 2005
plan year, plan sponsors may continue to operate their plans
under the prior regulatory guidance. However, plan sponsors
should consult with their advisors to determine how the final
regulations will affect their plans beginning in 2006.
[top of page]
|