415 Limit Applies in Aggregate When 403(b) Participant Sponsors Another Plan

The IRS addresses how to apply the annual additions limitation in an updated Issue Snapshot.


In an updated Issue Snapshot, the IRS reminds plan sponsors about rules for the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) Section 415 annual additions limitation when a 403(b) plan participant also sponsors a qualified plan to which he contributes.

The agency says issues with this rule are frequently found during examinations of 403(b) plans maintained by governmental and tax-exempt health care entities and colleges/universities, noting that many doctors and professors maintain a practice outside the entity that is the general 403(b) plan sponsor.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANADVISERdash daily newsletter.

If certain requirements are satisfied, there is an exclusion from gross income for amounts contributed to the purchase of a 403(b) annuity contract. One of these requirements is that the contributions and other additions to the contract do not exceed the limitations under IRC Section 415(c). The IRS notes that IRC Section 415(c) generally limits annual additions to defined contribution (DC) plans to the lesser of the dollar limit in effect for the year or 100% of the participant’s compensation. The dollar limit for 2021 is $58,000.

Generally, 403(b) participants are each considered to have exclusive control over their own annuity contract, so contributions to the contract are not aggregated with contributions to any other DC plan. However, there is an exception when the 403(b) participant is deemed to control the entity sponsoring another DC plan to which he contributes. In this situation, both plans must satisfy the IRC Section 415(c) limitation separately and also on an aggregate basis.

The IRS provides an example of Professor Y who works for University X and participates in its 403(b) plan. Professor Y also has her own business and sponsors a qualified plan, called Plan Z. For 2021, Professor Y deferred $19,500 to her 403(b) plan and $6,500 in age 50 catch-up contributions. University X also made a non-elective employer contribution of $35,000 to the 403(b) plan on behalf of Professor Y for the 2021 year.

In addition, Professor Y contributed $24,000 to Plan Z. Professor Y’s includible compensation from University X is $100,000. Professor Y’s compensation from her own business is $120,000 for the 2021 year.

The IRS notes that the age 50 catch-up contribution is not counted toward the IRC Section 415(c) limit. Therefore, the total elective and non-elective contributions to the 403(b) annuity contract for 415(c) purposes equal $54,500 ($35,000 + $19,500). This means the annual limitation is not exceeded for the 403(b) plan.

However, when adding the $24,000 allocated to Plan Z, the combined contributions of $78,500 to Plan Z and the 403(b) plan exceed the IRC Section 415(c) limit of $58,000 by $20,500, so the professor has contributed in excess of the annual addition limit on an aggregate basis.

The IRS says the excess annual addition in such situations is attributable to the 403(b) annuity contract.

When conducting reviews, the IRS suggests its agents determine the employer’s policy regarding outside employment as part of reviewing the employer’s internal controls. If the employer is silent about or permits outside employment, the IRS says its agents should determine the procedures used to inform employees about the aggregation rule, and review any notices, forms or other written communications containing that information.

PANC 2021: Tax Rates, RMDs and Retirement Income Planning

Just as retirement savers use investment diversification for accumulating assets, they need tax diversification for retirement income planning.


Speaking at the virtual 2021 PLANADVISER National Conference (PANC), Keith Gredys, chairman and CEO of Kidder Advisers Inc., said that although there are dividing lines in financial planning because every adviser has his own expertise, tax planning needs to be factored into financial planning. “A person can have the most efficient financial plan but it might not be the most effective for reaching their goals if it doesn’t include tax planning,” he said.

Dave Alison, chief operating officer (COO) and founding partner at C2P Enterprises, said consumers expect to receive financial advice separate from tax advice, but his company earns new business these days by offering customers one place to get all aspects of financial planning. Alison contended that advisers are not meeting the best interest standard if they are not at least coordinating with other professionals for holistic financial advice. “Tax planning and financial planning is pairing good, modern nutrition to get an optimal outcome,” he said.

Never miss a story — sign up for PLANADVISER newsletters to keep up on the latest retirement plan adviser news.

Keith Huber, investment adviser, retirement services, with Fiduciary Plan Advisors, a OneDigital company, said if there is a fence that divides good financial advice and tax planning, it needs to be torn down.

When talking about tax-efficient investing to a client, advisers should explain not just how he should allocate his retirement savings, but what vehicles to invest in, including Roth and pre-tax, Huber said.

“We need tax diversification. We have to prepare for inevitable changes and prepare for unknowns,” Huber said. “We know what taxes are going to be in the next several years, but clients need different vehicles to be prepared for age 65 and beyond.”

Michael Webb, senior financial adviser at CAPTRUST and the panel’s moderator, said, “If someone has all their savings in pre-tax accounts, they’re making a bet, and if everything is in Roth accounts, they’re making a bet. Account diversification is hedging bets.”

Gredys suggested that retirement savers need to build a plan that is flexible because they don’t know what the future holds. “Tax planning is a different form of diversification,” he said. “Everyone will have their own design based on what they want to be done.”

Tax planning is complex because there is no one-size-fits-all solution, Alison noted. When deciding whether to save in a Roth account or a pre-tax account, clients should consider their goals for future generations, among other factors, he added.

Alison said the conversation about Roth versus pre-tax centers not on a client’s tax bracket, but on their marginal tax rate. As an example, he said a married client filing jointly currently could have $81,000 in taxable income before they move from a 12% to a 22% tax bracket. Roth creates an opportunity because if that couple has $70,000 in taxable income, they have $11,000 in taxable income to go before they move into a higher tax bracket. Alison said it makes sense to take the $11,000 and pay 12% in taxes today before moving into a higher tax bracket.

Alison added that another time when “Roth shines” is when thinking about taxes on a spousal beneficiary.

“People don’t understand how taxes go up on the spouse of a deceased person; taxes go up exponentially,” he said. “Having savings in a Roth is incredibly helpful in that situation. We can also think about whether children or grandchildren are in a higher or lower tax bracket than the client. That’s where an adviser helps; when thinking of the client’s long-term goals and objectives.”

When considering Roth conversions for clients, Alison said the best time to pay taxes is when they are low, and right now taxes are low with government debt rising, so they will probably increase in the future. He said it might not make sense to convert all savings to a Roth account, but it might make sense to convert some.

“If the client’s capacity is for a 22% or 24% tax bracket, it makes sense to convert some savings to a Roth account, but unless they are going to be in a high tax bracket for rest of their life, they shouldn’t covert all,” he explained.

Considerations for RMDs

Retirement income planning must also take into consideration required minimum distributions (RMDs), the panel experts agreed. Webb noted that the RMD age has increased from 70.5 to 72 and is confusing to many people. Meanwhile, legislation has been introduced to move it gradually to age 75.

Alison said he thinks RMDs should go away. “The reality is that most people don’t save enough for retirement and will need distributions,” he said.

However, when helping clients with RMD planning, Alison suggested advisers determine which account they’ll draw from. “We suggest clients never take RMDs out of growth accounts because we want to lower sequence of return risk,” he explained.

Huber said many people don’t do financial planning because they don’t realize what they don’t know, and he is in favor of forced RMDs for this reason. “People miss RMDs because they aren’t aware of the rules,” he said. “Advisers can turn on this service for individual and plan sponsor clients.”

Gredys noted that retirement plan participants may have money in individual retirement accounts (IRAs) as well as more traditional retirement plans, so advisers can help them pull everything together. He added that stretch IRAs are no longer allowed, so some people will need help with estate planning. Advisers can help them check whether the language in their wills and trusts complies with the new rules.

«