|
June 2007
Reconsidering the company retirement plan
Rules regarding 401(k) or other
salary-reduction plans are constantly changing, and business owners who
offer these retirement plans will want to consider important developments
Most businesses today offer employees some
form of qualified retirement plan. The most common version is the elective
deferral plan, such as a 401(k), in which each eligible employee has the
ability to carve off, in a pre-tax manner, some portion of compensation
for investment into a retirement plan. But the rules regarding these
401(k) or other salary-reduction plans are constantly changing, and this
year is no exception. Business owners who offer these retirement plans
will want to consider important developments.
New vesting rules.
“Vesting” refers to the rules under which an employee has
full or partial rights to the plan account if they depart from employment.
Previously, the vesting rules differed between employer funding
accomplished as a match to employee contributions versus employer funding
done as a general contribution. Matching funding has been required to vest
under one of two schedules (either 100% after three years of participation
or on a graded schedule ranging from years two through six). On the other
hand, employer general funding vested slower, either at 100% after five
years or on a graded schedule running from participation years three
through seven.
But for retirement plan years beginning after
2006, all employer funding, whether matching or general funding, must use
one of the more rapid schedules that previously applied to matching funds
only.
This should cause a reconsideration of the
vesting designation in the business retirement plan. Essentially, there
are now only two choices: 100% vesting after three years of participation,
or 20% per year graded vesting ranging from the second to sixth years.
Some businesses that previously used the “cliff” approach of 100% vesting
after five years may be better served by converting to the graded
schedule.
Roth 401(k) feature.
Another plan amendment, in this case optional, that can be
made to a salary-reduction 401(k) plan is to add a Roth feature. If an
employer amends the 401(k) plan to allow Roth contributions, each
participant has the flexibility of electing either tax-deductible salary
reductions as in the past or, alternatively, treating the salary-reduction
funding as a non-deductible Roth account. The attraction of the Roth
account is that those non-deductible investments not only build in a
tax-free manner but remain tax-free when withdrawn during retirement
years.
Unlike Roth IRA funding, there are no
restrictions preventing upper-income filers from funding a Roth 401(k). In
addition, the dollar amounts are based on the full 401(k) maximum, i.e.,
$15,500 for any participant in the 401(k) plan and a $20,500 limit for
those who have reached age 50 by year-end for the year 2007.
In the 2006 Pension Protection Act, Congress
made this Roth feature a permanent part of the tax law. Any amounts that
an employee designates as Roth funding must be maintained separately in
the plan records, so that at retirement the employee’s pre-tax traditional
funds and post-tax Roth funds are separately identifiable. Any employer
matching on a Roth 401(k) contribution continues to be treated as a
pre-tax contribution.
While there is somewhat more administration
with the Roth option added to a 401(k) plan, the evidence suggests an
increasing number of employers are adopting this feature. The primary
interest in using the Roth choice seems to be coming from younger workers
in lower tax brackets. These employees are not as interested in the tax
deductibility of a traditional 401(k) and also have a longer period of
time for the compounding of a Roth account to produce greater tax-free
amounts. If you wish to explore the Roth feature for your business, we can
provide further information.
401(k) automatic enrollment.
Most 401(k) plans, as elective deferral arrangements,
allow employees to decide how much, if any, of their compensation they
wish to salary-reduce as their investment into the retirement plan. Many
employees never quite get around to starting those salary deferrals,
sometimes due to uncertainty about the investment decision or how much
they can afford to save, or perhaps the obstacle of the enrollment
paperwork.
To overcome these obstacles, Congress is
providing an incentive to employers to adopt the “automatic enrollment”
approach to employee participation. The 401(k) plan is amended to provide
that each new participant automatically has a specified percentage of
compensation set aside into the retirement plan, with the funds invested
in a diversified mix of funds. The employee has the opportunity to
electively decline participation or adjust the funding percentage, but the
objective is to get the ball rolling automatically and overcome the
investment inertia.
To encourage this, employers who adopt an
automatic enrollment feature will be relieved of the various
discriminatory tests (e.g., ADP and ACP testing), and are also not subject
to the top-heavy contribution rules. To receive these advantages, however,
the automatic enrollment feature must meet specified minimums:
-
3% of participant compensation during the
first year,
-
4% during the second,
-
5% during the third, and
-
6% of compensation during all subsequent
years.
In addition, there is an employer match
requirement, which must be at least 100% of the first 1% of employee
deferrals, plus 50% of remaining employee elective deferrals from 1% to 6%
of an individual’s compensation. Alternatively, an employer can do an
across-the-board 3%-of-compensation contribution, which must cover all
employees, even those declining to continue elective deferrals. Vesting is
shortened from the normal 100% at three years to a 100%-at-two-years rule
for employer contributions. Finally, each participant must be given a
written notice at the beginning of each plan year, informing them of their
rights to decline the automatic elective feature.
For employers interested in this approach,
implementation becomes available for tax years beginning after 2007.
Based in Mesa, Arizona, and serving closely held businesses in the East Valley,
the Phoenix area and throughout Arizona, Schmidt Westergard & Company, PLLC, is
an independent full-service tax, audit, accounting and business advisory firm
focusing on the middle market.
|