Brief Case
Pension Resource

Treas. Reg. § 1.401(a)(4)-9

Plan aggregation and restructuring.
CFR 2001 annual edition (revised as of 2001-04-01) · superseded Apr 1, 2002 · last amended by T.D. 8485, 58 FR 46810, Sept. 3, 1993
PrintCompare datesAsk AI about this sectionOfficial source ↗
Back to current
The earliest stored text of this section is effective Apr 1, 1997. Showing that version.
(a) Introduction. Two or more plans that are permissively aggregated and treated as a single plan under §§ 1.410(b)-7(d) must also be treated as a single plan for purposes of section 401(a)(4). See § 1.401(a)(4)-12 (definition of plan). An aggregated plan is generally tested under the same rules applicable to single plans. Paragraph (b) of this section, however, provides special rules for determining whether a plan that consists of one or more defined contribution plans and one or more defined benefit plans (a DB/DC plan) satisfies section 401(a)(4) with respect to the amount of employer-provided benefits and the availability of benefits, rights, and features. Paragraph (c) of this section provides rules allowing a plan to be treated as consisting of separate component plans and allowing the component plans to be tested separately under section 401(a)(4).
(b) Application of nondiscrimination requirements to DB/DC plans
(1) General rule. Except as provided in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, whether a DB/DC plan satisfies section 401(a)(4) is determined using the same rules applicable to a single plan. In addition, paragraph (b)(3) of this section provides an optional rule for demonstrating nondiscrimination in availability of benefits, rights, and features provided under a DB/DC plan.
(2) Special rules for demonstrating nondiscrimination in amount of contributions or benefits
(i) Application of general tests. A DB/DC plan satisfies section 401(a)(4) with respect to the amount of contributions or benefits for a plan year if it would satisfy § 1.401(a)(4)-3(c)(1) (without regard to the special rule in § 1.401(a)(4)-3(c)(3)) for the plan year if an employee's aggregate normal and most valuable allocation rates, as determined under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(A) of this section, or an employee's aggregate normal and most valuable accrual rates, as determined under paragraph (b)(2)(ii)(B) of this section, were substituted for each employee's normal and most valuable accrual rates, respectively, in the determination of rate groups.
(ii) Determination of aggregate rates
(A) Aggregate allocation rates. An employee's aggregate normal and most valuable allocation rates are determined by treating all defined contribution plans that are part of the DB/DC plan as a single plan, and all defined benefit plans that are part of the DB/DC plan as a separate single plan; and determining an allocation rate and equivalent normal and most valuable allocation rates for the employee under each plan under §§ 1.401(a)(4)-2(c)(2) and 1.401(a)(4)-8(c)(2), respectively. The employee's aggregate normal allocation rate is the sum of the employee's allocation rate and equivalent normal allocation rate determined in this manner, and the employee's aggregate most valuable allocation rate is the sum of the employee's allocation rate and equivalent most valuable allocation rate determined in this manner.
(B) Aggregate accrual rates. An employee's aggregate normal and most valuable accrual rates are determined by treating all defined contribution plans that are part of the DB/DC plan as a single plan, and all defined benefit plans that are part of the DB/DC plan as a separate single plan; and determining an equivalent accrual rate and normal and most valuable accrual rates for the employee under each plan under §§ 1.401(a)(4)-8(b)(2) and 1.401(a)(4)-3(d), respectively. The employee's aggregate normal accrual rate is the sum of the employee's equivalent accrual rate and the normal accrual rate determined in this manner, and the employee's aggregate most valuable accrual rate is the sum of the employee's equivalent accrual rate and most valuable accrual rate determined in this manner.
(iii) Options applied on an aggregate basis. The optional rules in § 1.401(a)(4)-2(c)(2)(iv) (imputation of permitted disparity) and (v) (grouping of rates) may not be used to determine an employee's allocation or equivalent allocation rate, but may be applied to determine an employee's aggregate normal and most valuable allocation rates by substituting those rates (determined without regard to the option) for the employee's allocation rate in that section where appropriate. The optional rules in § 1.401(a)(4)-3(d)(3) (e.g., imputation of permitted disparity) may not be used to determine an employee's accrual or equivalent accrual rate, but may be applied to determine an employee's aggregate normal and most valuable accrual rate by substituting those rates (determined without regard to the option) for the employee's normal and most valuable accrual rates, respectively, in that section where appropriate.
(iv) Consistency rule
(A) General rule. Aggregate normal and most valuable allocation rates and aggregate normal and most valuable accrual rates must be determined in a consistent manner for all employees for the plan year. Thus, for example, the same measurement periods and interest rates must be used, and any available options must be applied consistently, if at all, for the entire DB/DC plan. Consequently, options that are not permitted to be used under § 1.401(a)(4)-8 in cross-testing a defined contribution plan or a defined benefit plan (such as measurement periods that include future periods, non-standard interest rates, the option to disregard compensation adjustments described in § 1.401(a)(4)-13(d), or the option to disregard plan provisions providing for actuarial increases after normal retirement age under § 1.401(a)(4)-3(f)(3)) may not be used in testing a DB/DC plan on either a benefits or contributions basis, because their use would inevitably result in inconsistent determinations under the defined contribution and defined benefit portions of the plan.
(B) Exception for section 415 alternative. A DB/DC plan does not fail to satisfy the consistency rule in paragraph (b)(2)(iv)(A) of this section merely because the limitations under section 415 are not taken into account, or may not be taken into account, under § 1.401(a)(4)-3(d)(2)(ii)(B) in determining employees’ accrual or equivalent allocation rates under the defined benefit portion of the plan, even though those limitations are applied in determining employees’ allocation and equivalent accrual rates under the defined contribution portion of the plan.
(3) Optional rules for demonstrating nondiscrimination in availability of certain benefits, rights, and features
(i) Current availability. A DB/DC plan is deemed to satisfy § 1.401(a)(4)-4(b)(1) with respect to the current availability of a benefit, right, or feature other than a single sum benefit, loan, ancillary benefit, or benefit commencement date (including the availability of in-service withdrawals), that is provided under only one type of plan (defined benefit or defined contribution) included in the DB/DC plan, if the benefit, right, or feature is currently available to all NHCEs in all plans of the same type as the plan under which it is provided.
(ii) Effective availability. The fact that it may be difficult or impossible to provide a benefit, right, or feature described in paragraph (b)(3)(i) of this section under a plan of a different type than the plan or plans under which it is provided is one of the factors taken into account in determining whether the plan satisfies the effective availability requirement of § 1.401(a)(4)-4(c)(1).
(c) Plan restructuring
(1) General rule. A plan may be treated, in accordance with this paragraph (c), as consisting of two or more component plans for purposes of determining whether the plan satisfies section 401(a)(4). If each of the component plans of a plan satisfies all of the requirements of sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b) as if it were a separate plan, then the plan is treated as satisfying section 401(a)(4).
(2) Identification of component plans. A plan may be restructured into component plans, each consisting of all the allocations, accruals, and other benefits, rights, and features provided to a selected group of employees. The employer may select the group of employees used for this purpose in any manner, and the composition of the groups may be changed from plan year to plan year. Every employee must be included in one and only one component plan under the same plan for a plan year.
(3) Satisfaction of section 401(a)(4) by a component plan
(i) General rule. The rules applicable in determining whether a component plan satisfies section 401(a)(4) are the same as those applicable to a plan. Thus, for this purpose, any reference to a plan in section 401(a)(4) and the regulations thereunder (other than this paragraph (c)) is interpreted as a reference to a component plan. As is true for a plan, whether a component plan satisfies the uniformity and other requirements applicable to safe harbor plans under §§ 1.401(a)(4)-2(b) and 1.401(a)(4)-3(b) is determined on a design basis. Thus, for example, plan provisions are not disregarded merely because they do not currently apply to employees in the component plan if they will apply to those employees as a result of the mere passage of time.
(ii) Certain testing rules involving averaging. The safe harbor in § 1.401(a)(4)-2(b)(3) for plans with uniform points allocation formulas are not available in testing (and thus cannot be satisfied by) contributions under a component plan. See §§ 1.401(k)-1(b)(3)(iii) and 1.401(m)-1(b)(3)(iii) for rules regarding the inapplicability of restructuring to section 401(k) plans and section 401(m) plans.
(4) Satisfaction of section 410(b) by a component plan—(i) General rule. The rules applicable in determining whether a component plan satisfies section 410(b) are generally the same as those applicable to a plan. However, a component plan is deemed to satisfy the average benefit percentage test of § 1.410(b)-5 if the plan of which it is a part satisfies § 1.410(b)-5 (without regard to § 1.410(b)-5(f)). In the case of a component plan that is part of a plan that relies on § 1.410(b)-5(f) to satisfy the average benefit percentage test, the component plan is deemed to satisfy the average benefit percentage test only if the component plan separately satisfies § 1.410(b)-5(f). In addition, all component plans of a plan are deemed to satisfy the average benefit percentage test if the plan makes an early retirement window benefit (within the meaning of § 1.401(a)(4)-3(f)(4)(iii)) currently available (within the meaning of § 1.401(a)(4)-3(f)(4)(ii)(A)) to a group of employees that satisfies section 410(b) (without regard to the average benefit percentage test), and if it would not be necessary for the plan or any rate group or component plan of the plan to satisfy that test in order for the plan to satisfy sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b) in the absence of the early retirement window benefit.
(ii) Relationship to satisfaction of section 410(b) by the plan. Satisfaction of section 410(b) by a component plan is relevant solely for purposes of determining whether the plan of which it is a part satisfies section 401(a)(4), and not for purposes of determining whether the plan satisfies section 410(b) itself. The plan must still independently satisfy section 410(b) in order to be a qualified plan. Similarly, satisfaction of section 410(b) by a plan is relevant solely for purposes of determining whether the plan, and not the component plan, satisfies section 410(b). Thus, for example, a component plan that does not satisfy the ratio percentage test of § 1.410(b)-2(b)(2) must still satisfy the average benefit test of § 1.410(b)-2(b)(3), even though the plan of which it is a part satisfies the ratio percentage test.
(5) Effect of restructuring under other sections. The restructuring rules provided in this paragraph (c) apply solely for purposes of sections 401(a)(4) and 401(l), and those portions of sections 410(b), 414(s), and any other provisions that are specifically applicable in determining whether the requirements of section 401(a)(4) are satisfied. Thus, for example, a component plan is not treated as a separate plan under section 401(a)(26).
(6) Examples. The following examples illustrate the rules in this paragraph (c):

Example 1.

Employer X maintains a defined benefit plan. The plan provides a normal retirement benefit equal to 1.0 percent of average annual compensation times years of service to employees at Plant S, and 1.5 percent of average annual compensation times years of service to employees at Plant T. Under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, the plan may be treated as consisting of two component defined benefit plans, one providing retirement benefits equal to 1.0 percent of average annual compensation times years of service to the employees at Plant S, and another providing benefits equal to 1.5 percent of average annual compensation times years of service to employees at Plant T. If each component plan satisfies sections 401(a)(4) and 410(b) as if it were a separate plan under the rules of this paragraph (c), then the entire plan satisfies section 401(a)(4).

Example 2.

(a) Employer Y maintains Plan A, a defined benefit plan, for its Employees M, N, O, P, Q, and R. Plan A provides benefits under a uniform formula that satisfies the requirements of § 1.401(a)(4)-3 (b)(2) and (b)(3) before it is amended on February 14, 1994. The amendment provides an early retirement window benefit that is a subsidized optional form of benefit under § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(2)(iii) and that is available on the same terms to all employees who satisfy the eligibility requirements for the window. The early retirement window benefit is available only to employees who retire between June 1, 1994, and November 30, 1994.

(b) Assume that Employees M, N, and O will be eligible to receive the window benefit by the end of the window period and Employees P, Q, and R will not. Because substantially all employees will not satisfy the eligibility requirements for the early retirement window benefit by the close of the early retirement window benefit period, Plan A fails to satisfy the uniform subsidies requirement of § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(2)(iii). See § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(2)(vi), Example 6.

(c) Under paragraph (c)(2) of this section, Employees M, N, O, P, Q, and R may be grouped into two component plans, one consisting of Employees M, N, and O, and all their accruals and other benefits, rights, and features under the plan (including the early retirement window benefit), and another consisting of Employees P, Q, and R, and all their accruals and other benefits, rights, and features under the plan. Each of the component plans identified in this manner satisfies the uniform subsidies requirement of § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(2)(iii), and thus satisfies § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b). The entire plan satisfies section 401(a)(4) under the rules of this paragraph (c), if each of these component plans also satisfies section 410(b) as if it were a separate plan (including, if applicable, the reasonable classification requirement of § 1.410(b)-4(b), and taking into account the special rule of paragraph (c)(4)(i) of this section that forgives the average benefit percentage test in certain situations in which the average benefit percentage test would be required solely as a result of the early retirement window benefit).

Example 3.

(a) Employer Z maintains Plan B, a defined benefit plan with a benefit formula that provides two percent of average annual compensation for each year of service up to 20 to each employee. Assume that Plan B would satisfy the fractional accrual rule safe harbor in § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(4), except that some employees accrue a portion of their normal retirement benefit in the current plan year that is more than one-third larger than the portion of the same benefit accrued by other employees for the current plan year, and the plan therefore fails to satisfy the one-third-larger requirement of § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(4)(i)(C)(1).

(b) Employer Z restructures Plan B into two plans, one covering employees with 30 years or less of service at normal retirement age, and the other covering all other employees. Each component plan would separately satisfy the one-third-larger requirement of § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(4)(i)(C)(1) if the only employees taken into account were those employees included in the component plan in the current plan year. Under paragraph (c)(3)(i) of this section and § 1.401(a)(4)-3(b)(4)(i)(C)(1), however, the component plans do not satisfy the one-third-larger requirement because the safe harbor determination is made taking into account the effect of the plan benefit formula on any potential employee in the component plan (other than employees with more than 33 years of service at normal retirement age), and not just those employees included in the component plan in the current plan year.

Source credit, amendments & notes

[T.D. 8485, 58 FR 46810, Sept. 3, 1993]

Treas. Reg. § 1.401(a)(4)-9 — Plan aggregation and restructuring. · CFR 2001 annual edition (revised as of 2001-04-01) · https://pensionresource.website/EAMain?content=EAMain.Law&id=cfr26-1.401%28a%29%284%29-9&asof=1956-06-29 · printed Oct 16, 2026
On this page
  • (a) Introduction.
  • (b) Application of nondiscrimination requirements to DB/DC plans
  • (c) Plan restructuring
Implements
I.R.C. § 401 Qualified pension, profit-sharing, and stock bonus plans
Cited by (code & regs)
Glossary
cross-testing
Testing contributions on a benefits basis (or vice versa).
Guidance addressing this section
IRS / Treasury
Proposed Rules
Also cited in 12 other documents
IRS / Treasury
Revenue Procedures
  • Rev. Proc. 2021-30Modified Aug 2, 2021 — Rev. Proc. 2021-30 adds two new benefit overpayment correction methods that encourage employers to avoid seeking recoupment of benefit overpayments made to par…
    Modified by Notice 2024-77
  • Rev. Proc. 2008-50 Sep 2, 2008 — This procedure updates the comprehensive system of correction programs for sponsors of retirement plans that are intended to satisfy the requirements of sectio…
  • Rev. Proc. 2006-27Superseded May 30, 2006 — Administrative programs; correction programs. This procedure updates and expands upon the Service’s comprehensive Employee Plans Compliance Resolution System (…
    Superseded by Rev. Proc. 2008-50
Notices
  • Notice 2019-60 Dec 2, 2019 — Notice 2019-60 provides temporary relief with respect to the nondiscrimination requirements relating to benefits, rights, and features under closed defined ben… (b)(b)(2)(v)
  • Notice 2010-90 Dec 27, 2010 — This notice contains the 2010 Cumulative List of Changes in Plan Qualification Requirements (2010 Cumulative List) described in section 4 of Rev. Proc. 2007-44…
  • Notice 2009-98 Dec 28, 2009 — Retirement plans; qualification, list of changes. This notice sets forth a list of changes referred to in Rev. Proc. 2007-44, 2007-2 C.B. 54, pertaining to the…
  • Notice 2008-108 Dec 15, 2008 — Retirement plans; qualification, list of changes. This notice sets forth a list of changes referred to in Rev. Proc. 2007-44, 2007-2 C.B. 54, pertaining to the…
  • Notice 2007-94 Dec 17, 2007 — Retirement plans; qualification, list of changes. This notice sets forth a list of changes referred to in Rev. Proc. 2007-44, 2007-28 I.R.B. 54, pertaining to …
  • Notice 2007-3Modified Jan 8, 2007 — Retirement plans; qualification, list of changes. This notice sets forth a list of changes referred to in Rev. Proc. 2005-66, 2005-2 C.B. 509, pertaining to th…
    Modified by Notice 2007-69
  • Notice 2005-101 Dec 27, 2005 — Retirement plans; qualification, list of changes. This notice sets forth a list of changes referred to in Rev. Proc. 2005-66 pertaining to the statutory, regul…
Revenue Rulings
  • Rev. Rul. 2004-11 Feb 17, 2004 — Coverage; special rules; request for comments. This ruling describes the application of the special coverage rule for acquisitions and dispositions in section … (c)
Proposed Rules
  • REG-108639-99Proposed Sep 2, 2003 — Proposed regulations under sections 401(k) and 401(m) of the Code provide guidance on the requirements for certain retirement plans containing cash or deferred… (c)(c)(3)(ii)

No court rulings in the library cite this provision yet.

No private letter rulings in the library cite this provision yet.

Each row is a version of the text as published by the official source. Code dates are the edition/release point that first reflected the change; regulation dates are eCFR effective dates. The library checks the official sources automatically, so new versions appear here on their own; “run” opens the sync that recorded a version.

EffectiveThroughSourceAmended by
Apr 1, 1997Mar 31, 2002CFR 2001 annual edition (revised as of 2001-04-01) run 127T.D. 8485, 58 FR 46810, Sept. 3, 1993View
Apr 1, 2002Mar 31, 2006CFR 2005 annual edition (revised as of 2005-04-01) run 127T.D. 8954, 66 FR 34544, June 29, 2001View · Redline (sign in)
Apr 1, 2006May 17, 2016CFR 2016 annual edition (revised as of 2016-04-01) run 127T.D. 8954, 66 FR 34544, June 29, 2001View · Redline (sign in)
May 18, 2016currenteCFR editorial change effective 2016-05-18 run 2T.D. 8954, 66 FR 34544, June 29, 2001View · Redline (sign in)
Provision-level history (blame)