[Search for users]
[Overall Top Noters]
[List of all Conferences]
[Download this site]
Title: | The Digital way of working |
|
Moderator: | QUARK::LIONEL ON |
|
Created: | Fri Feb 14 1986 |
Last Modified: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Last Successful Update: | Fri Jun 06 1997 |
Number of topics: | 5321 |
Total number of notes: | 139771 |
2391.0. "Want to reduce your current taxable income ??" by CSC32::C_LEE (Clement Lee, DTN 592-4152) Thu Feb 25 1993 07:21
I asked the question => my wife can contribute 18% of her current
income to 401K, why can't we (DECies) ?? We can only contribute
maximum of 8% of our current income to 401K. Here's the answer
I got from Jack Englert, corp benefit consultant.
From: ICS::ENGLERT "Jack -- 223-9196" 12-OCT-1992 12:11:17.56
To: CSC32::C_LEE
CC: ENGLERT
Subj: Your SAVE 401(k) question
Clement---
As a quick comment to your question to the IRS, I believe
that the Defined Contribution limit that you asked about is
not 18%, but 25% (up to the dollar limits).
In addition, the contributions you make to SAVE are not Tax
FREE, merely tax deferred. The IRS will get it's money
eventually.
---Jack
Initially, when the SAVE plan was established there were
certain rules that each qualified employee benefit plan
covered under section 401(k) of the Internal Revenue Code
must follow. In particular the Code established a
discrimination test that each plan must comply with in order
to remain qualified under ERISA. The test was then called
the one-third/two-third test and went as follows:
- each eligible individual in the top one-third of the
company based upon current hourly rate of compensation
is aggregated into one group. These people were
considered to be highly compensated;
- the remaining eligible two-thirds is aggregated into
another group. These people were considered to be
non-highly compensated;
- for each group, the total amount contributed by that
group is added and divided by the total compensation for
that group giving an average deferral percentage for the
group;
- the average deferral percentages are compared to each
other and must be within 3% of each other in order for
the plan to pass this test.
You should note that employees who could be in the plan but
chose not to contribute are included in the calculations for
both groups.
Prior to implementing the SAVE plan a study was done to
determine the highest amount that could be contributed to the
plan so that this test would be passed each year. The amount
was determined to be 8% and the plan was designed with this
maximum contribution amount in mind.
The effective date of the SAVE plan is January 1, 1985 and
for three years the plan passed the IRS requirements.
Effective with the Tax Reform Act of 1986, effective July,
1987 for Digital, the government changed the rules with
regard to 401(k)/SAVE plans. Replacing the definition of
highly compensated employee with a complex series of
conditions that equates, for Digital, to those earning over
$50,000 and in the top 20% of the company. This changes the
test, for Digital, to a one-fifth/four-fifth test,
significantly altering the grouping of compensation. In
addition the IRS code was changed so that the spread between
highly compensated and non-highly compensated individuals may
now be only 2%. The test is applied in the same manner as
described above with the new constraints.
Digital did not pass the revised test for the next 4 years
and only as recently as this year (Fiscal 1992) were we able
to pass the test.
Increasing the 8% maximum for the SAVE program to 10% tends
to exacerbate the discrimination problem in that
proportionally more Highly-Compensated employees will
contribute to the maximum and we may not again pass this
manditory test.
We are looking into raising the limit to something over 8%.
Once the projected demographic data indicates that we will
pass the above test, we will proceed to the various approval
process' necessary to amend the plan.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. I
can be reached at Ics::Englert or Jack Englert @MSO. My DTN
is 223-9196.
Regards,
Jack Englert
Benefits Consultant
From: ICS::ENGLERT "Jack -- 223-9196" 13-OCT-1992 06:51:25.85
To: CSC32::C_LEE
CC: ENGLERT
Subj: RE: Your SAVE 401(k) question
Clement---
>> Is the 10% STOCK plan tied to 401K calculation ??
No, they are totally independent programs from a tax standpoint. The 401(k)
plan is a retirement plan and the contributions are tax deferred. The ESPP
plan is a company sponsored stock program and taxes are payable when the stock
is sold. The 10% to stock is not included in with the IRS maximums.
---Jack
T.R | Title | User | Personal Name | Date | Lines |
---|
2391.1 | Discrimination Rule could easily be satisfied | SPESHR::SHAH | | Thu Feb 25 1993 12:46 | 16 |
| Jack,
For a long time I was wondering same as you are. Discrimination test
should not be a show stopper. Other company did have workaround for
this. Let me give you specific example. M/A com allow upto 14% of
income to be invested in 401(k). They have a sliding scale for
percentage which tied to your salary. So let's say for example, you
are making $60k and somebody else making $25k. Person making $60k
can contribute only 8% of the salary while person making $25k could
contribute 14% of salary. This way you can easily meet discrimination
rule. M/A com also match 6% of the contribution. IRS allow upto $8700
for 401(k) contribution.
Bharat Shah
|
2391.2 | | ICS::CROUCH | Subterranean Dharma Bum | Fri Feb 26 1993 07:19 | 6 |
| Sanders has a nice deal where they match $ for $ an employees
contribution into a 401(k) plan.
Jim C.
|
2391.3 | | TOMK::KRUPINSKI | The Clinton Disaster: Day 37 | Fri Feb 26 1993 08:38 | 3 |
| How much money did they lose the past couple years?
Tom_K
|
2391.4 | In liu of Pension | AKOCOA::BEAUDREAU | | Fri Feb 26 1993 09:58 | 5 |
|
Usually companies that match 401K contributions DO NOT have
a company paid retirement plan.
gb
|
2391.5 | a bird in the hand... | GRANMA::FDEADY | that's as green as it gets.. | Fri Feb 26 1993 10:46 | 5 |
|
In todays business climate I would prefer an employer matching 401k
to a company paid retirement plan.
fred deady
|
2391.6 | I believe THAT was the plan | NETWKS::GASKELL | | Fri Feb 26 1993 12:12 | 4 |
| I believe that in the begining that was the plan, for the company
to match $ for $. I assume there was a plan to phase out our
retirement plan and in favour of 401(k). Neither came about.
|
2391.7 | let's beat this dead horse some more,ok? | CSC32::K_BOUCHARD | | Fri Feb 26 1993 13:29 | 1 |
|
|
2391.8 | How am I doing? | CSC32::J_OPPELT | Confuse your enemies -- love them | Fri Feb 26 1993 17:15 | 5 |
| .7> -< let's beat this dead horse some more,ok? >-
OK. Raytheon makes (partial) matches to employee contributions.
Why can't DEC?
|
2391.9 | | 29217::RWARRENFELTZ | | Thu Mar 25 1993 14:30 | 4 |
| Motorola used to match 1 to 1 in their 401K and we even had a co.
pension paid plan to boot. One year, they matched 1.5 to our 1.
The next year they began their downsizing and that's why I'm here!
|