• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content

Van Iwaarden Associates

Retirement Planning For Employers

  • Home
  • Public Sector
    • GASB 67/68 Pension Accounting
      • GASB 67/68 FAQs and Resources
      • Fire Relief Associations
    • GASB 74/75 OPEB Accounting
      • GASB 75 & OPEB Expertise
      • GASB 75 & OPEB FAQs
    • Discount Rates, Crossover, Agent Plans
    • Speeches & Articles – Public Plans
  • Private Sector
    • Plan Design
      • Defined Benefit Plans
      • Cash Balance Plans
        • Cash Balance Plan Case Studies
        • Cash Balance Plan FAQs
      • Profit-Sharing Plans
      • 401(k) Plans
      • 403(b) Plans
      • Retiree Medical Benefits
    • Actuarial Services
      • Cross Testing
      • Pension Plans
      • FASB Retiree Medical
    • Speeches & Articles – Private Plans
  • Blog
  • About VIA
    • Our Team
    • Offices
    • Get a Life!

June 19, 2013 By Mark Schulte 2 Comments

Small Closed DB Plans Need to Monitor §401(a)(26) Status

Strategy blocksIn last week’s blog post covering nondiscrimination testing pitfalls for soft-frozen pension plans, we discussed how defined benefit (DB) plans that are closed to new participants can run afoul of the IRC §410(b) minimum coverage rules. Today’s post discusses how small DB plans closed to new entrants can also have difficulties passing the IRC §401(a)(26) minimum participation test.

Background
IRC §401(a)(26) requires that a minimum number of employees receive a “meaningful” benefit from a DB pension plan. Like §410(b), this is intended to prevent an employer from setting up a plan that only benefits a few highly compensated employees (HCEs) while the remaining staff receive minimal or no benefits.

Specifically, §401(a)(26) requires that the number of benefiting employees be equal to the smaller of:

1. 50 employees; or

2. The larger of (a) 40% of employees or (b) 2 employees

For most medium and large-sized pension plans, achieving the 50 employee threshold is easy and §401(a)(26) doesn’t pose an immediate concern. However, small employers can quickly run into §401(a)(26) difficulties because a small change in the number of DB plan members can have a large impact on whether 40% of employees are benefiting in the plan.

Example
Suppose Company A has 50 employees and sponsors a DB plan that was closed to new entrants in 2008. The number of employees covered under the DB plan has steadily shrunk due to natural turnover and there are currently only 22 employees earning benefits in the DB plan. This means that if 5 new employees are hired (55 x 40% = 22) or if 2 current DB participants retire (50 x 40% = 20), then the plan would be on the verge of failing the §401(a)(26) minimum participation test.

Strategies
So, what should sponsors of small pension plans do if faced with a §401(a)(26) failure? There are no alternative testing options, so the solutions are very similar to the plan changes that can solve a §410(b) failure.

1. Freeze DB accruals for HCEs

2. Freeze DB accruals for all employees

3. Add new participants to the DB plan

Note that Option #1 is only available if (A) the plan is not top-heavy and (B) the plan is not aggregated with any other retirement plans in order to pass other nondiscrimination tests. Most employers will likely choose option #1 or #2.

Since the demographics of small DB plans can change quickly, it’s imperative that plan sponsors monitor their §401(a)(26).status closely each year. Advance planning is the key to avoiding unpleasant corrective measures such as having to add new participants to the plan retroactively.

Share this:

  • Tweet

Filed Under: Cash balance plans, Defined benefit plans, Private pensions Tagged With: cash balance plan, coverage, cross testing, nondiscrimination, pension, pension plan, plan freeze, qualified plans, qualified retirement plan

Previous Post: « Beware Nondiscrimination Pitfalls for Frozen Pension Plans
Next Post: Lump Sum Interest Rate Update – June 2013 »

Reader Interactions

Comments

  1. Nachman Ziskind says

    November 6, 2013 at 12:28 pm

    A colleague just showed me this blog post. Curious: if you freeze the plan, how do you pass the prior benefit structure test of 1.401(a)(26)-3(c)?

    Log in to Reply
    • Mark Schulte says

      December 16, 2013 at 7:55 am

      Thanks for the good question and sorry for the slow response. 1.401(a)(26)-3(c)(1) is a pretty straightfoward numerical test that most mid- and large-sized plans can pass for quite a while (smaller plans might have more difficulty). 1.401(a)(26)-3(c)(2) is more of a facts and circumstances test. There’s no guarantee that any frozen plan will – or won’t – pass this test. It depends heavily on the plan design.

      Log in to Reply

You must log in to post a comment.

Copyright © 2023 · Northern Consulting Actuaries, Inc. d/b/a Van Iwaarden Associates. All rights reserved.