401(k) lump sum distribution limited because of highly compensated employees?
It's legal. In fact, they are required to do this, assuming you are in fact a HCE (highly compensated employee) to avoid getting in trouble with the IRS. I'm guessing they don't provide documentation for the same reason they don't explain to you explicitly what the income thresholds are for social security taxes, etc - that's a job for your personal accountant. Here's the definition of a HCE:  An individual who: Owned more than 5% of the interest in the business at any time during   the year or the preceding year, regardless of how much compensation   that person earned or received, or For the preceding year, received   compensation from the business of more than $115,000 (if the preceding   year is 2014; $120,000 if the preceding year is 2015, 2016 or 2017),   and, if the employer so chooses, was in the top 20% of employees when   ranked by compensation. There are rules the restrict distributions from plans like 401ks. For example, treasury reg 1.401a(4)-5(b)(3) says that a plan cannot make a distribution to a HCE if that payment reduces the asset value of the plan to below 110% of the value of the plan's current liabilities. So, after taking account all distributions to be made to HCEs and the asset value of the plan, everyone likely gets proportionally reduced so that they don't run afoul of this rule. There are workarounds for this. But, these are options that the plan administrators may take, not you. I suppose if you were still employed there and at a high enough level, a company accountant would have discussed these options with you. Note, there's a chance there's some other limitation on HCEs that I'm missing which applies to your specific situation. Your best bet, to understand, is simply ask. Your money is still there, you just can't get it all this year.
Back in the late 80's I had a co-worked do exactly this. In those days you could only do things quarterly: change the percentage, change the investment mix, make a withdrawal.. There were no Roth 401K accounts, but contributions could be pre-tax or post-tax. Long term employees were matched 100% up to 8%, newer employees were only matched 50% up to 8% (resulting in 4% match). Every quarter this employee put in 8%, and then pulled out the previous quarters contribution. The company match continued to grow.  Was it smart? He still ended up with 8% going into the 401K. In those pre-Enron days the law allowed companies to limit the company match to 100% company stock which meant that employees retirement was at risk. Of course by the early 2000's the stock that was purchased for $6 a share was worth $80 a share... Now what about the IRS: Since I make designated Roth contributions from after-tax income, can I make tax-free withdrawals from my designated Roth account at any   time? No, the same restrictions on withdrawals that apply to pre-tax   elective contributions also apply to designated Roth contributions. If   your plan permits distributions from accounts because of hardship, you   may choose to receive a hardship distribution from your designated   Roth account. The hardship distribution will consist of a pro-rata   share of earnings and basis and the earnings portion will be included   in gross income unless you have had the designated Roth account for 5   years and are either disabled or over age 59 ½. Regarding getting just contributions: What happens if I take a distribution from my designated Roth account before the end of the 5-taxable-year period? If you take a distribution from your designated Roth account before   the end of the 5-taxable-year period, it is a nonqualified   distribution. You must include the earnings portion of the   nonqualified distribution in gross income. However, the basis (or   contributions) portion of the nonqualified distribution is not   included in gross income. The basis portion of the distribution is   determined by multiplying the amount of the nonqualified distribution   by the ratio of designated Roth contributions to the total designated   Roth account balance. For example, if a nonqualified distribution of   $5,000 is made from your designated Roth account when the account   consists of $9,400 of designated Roth contributions and $600 of   earnings, the distribution consists of $4,700 of designated Roth   contributions (that are not includible in your gross income) and $300   of earnings (that are includible in your gross income). See Q&As regarding Rollovers of Designated Roth Contributions, for   additional rules for rolling over both qualified and nonqualified   distributions from designated Roth accounts. The title is misleading.  They're just offering employees the option of a lump sum and they're giving the rest to a separate company to handle because the massive pension liability hanging over GM's head makes investors nervous.  The workers aren't getting screwed, they're still getting their pension payments.  The unions have had pretty much unrestrained complete control over the US auto makers for much of recent history, and it wasn't until they realized that their demands were choking the life out of the whole industry that they finally started to back off a bit and the companies have been able to recover somewhat. This is actually a very good point - any money that is spent on an employee in excess of the bare minimum required for them to perform their job should be viewed as a component of total rewards. You can directly extend OP's logic to any other form of compensation or benefits - Why let public employees take PTO except for when mandated by federal or state law? Why not target the 10th percentile of the market for all federal jobs? Why provide employees with retirement benefits? The answer to all of the above is that all elements of a total rewards package are necessary to attract, retain, and develop good employees.      I've done consulting in the sphere of organizational structure, design, and development. I've seen the type of employees that a bare-bones total rewards philosophy attracts, and I'm not sure that I want them working for the public. Corporations started dumping pensions in the 80's and 90's.  I noted at the time that that while the original hiring incentives had been to take lower wages in lieu of the promise of a pension; they did not raise wages after they dumped the pensions.  I think that the move was in part because corporate interests realized that through their pensions were about to control corporate America. "This is what is called ""stock dividend"". In essence the company is doing a split, the difference is in financial accounting and shouldn't concern you much as an individual investor. ""Fully paid up"", in this context, probably means ""unconditioned"", aka fully vested." "IANAL, but no, this is not sound legal advice. There are a few things that stick out to me as fishy. First off: you are calculating the 3% safe-harbor on the 2017 compensation limit of $270k, but limiting yourself to $53k in total contributions which is the 2016 limit. It's hard to tell what tax year you're working in here. If you're planning for 2017, fine, but if you're wrapping up 2016 then you need to use 2016 limits. Secondly (and this is something I think your counsel should know already): you don't take Employer contributions out of gross wages (box 1) on the W-2. They aren't even reported there in the first place! With your base scenario the 2 employees' W-2s would look like this: Employee A's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 14,966.67 = 265,033.33 Employee B's W-2 Gross Wages (box 1) = 280,000 - 0 = 280,000 Elective deferrals are the only thing that should come out of wages. Not the SH 3% or Match. Thirdly: Retirement Plan expenses really aren't an ""above the line"" expense. They are not included in cost of goods sold. Even if you establish a ""pool"" for that expense, it's still not a direct cost attributable to the production of whatever your company sells. Also: Employee B should not have to contribute to the retirement account of Employee A! The only situation I can see where Employee A and B would be required to fund the match equally, were if Employee A & B are both 50% owners and the company has no funds of its own with which to fund the match. The company has obligated itself to fund the match, and if the company doesn't have any money then the money still has to come from somewhere (ie. the owners pony up more funds for the match they promised their employees, it just happens that the employees are also the owners). Even in this situation though, I still stand behind my first 3 points." Companies are required BY THE IRS to try to get everybody to contribute minimal amounts to the 401K's.  In the past, there were abuses and only the execs could contribute and the low paid workers were starving while the execs contributed huge amounts.   On a year-by-year basis, if the low-paid employees don't contribute, the IRS punishes the high paid employees.  Therefore, most employers provide a matching program to incentivize low-paid employees to contribute. This 9% limitation could happen in any year and it could have happened even before you got your pay raise, what matters is what the low-paid employees were doing at your company LAST YEAR. Read this.  https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/one-participant-401k-plans  The example makes it very clear. This question is very open ended. But I'll try to answer parts of it. An employer can offer shares as part of a compensation package. Instead of paying cash the employer can use the money to buy up shares and give them to the employees. This is done to keep employees for longer periods of time and the employer may also want to create more insider ownership for a number of reasons. Another possibility is issuance of secondary offerings that are partially given to employees. Secondary offerings often lower the price of the shares in the market and create an incentive for employees to stay until the stock price rises. All of these conditions can be stipulated, look up golden handcuffs. Usually stock gifts are only given to a few high level employees and as part of a bonus package. It is very unusual to see a mature company regularly give away large amounts of stock, as this is a frowned upon practice. Start ups often pay their employees with stock up until the company is acquired or goes public. (1). Is this right? Pretty much, though this is a really rudimentary way to think about it. (2). If it is, why is it that extensive services are provided by high margin companies competing for talent, rather then lower margin businesses looking to boost their profits by reducing their expenditures on employees (by cutting out the government)? It's the polar opposite of that. Google (and companies like that) do things like have a day care center on premises.  The company staffs a day care center which has costs, then lets employees use it for free.  This is a business expense for Google, and in relative terms, a considerably large business expense that a lower margin business could no afford. Employer healthcare is a tax protected expense for employees via section 125 of the tax code.  The company portion of the healthcare costs are a deductible business expense to the company, as expected.  Healthcare is different than most other expenses because the employee can forego income before it's effectively received which negates it from taxable income.   This doesn't work for something like food purchased at a cafe on a Google complex.  If employee money is being spent at a corporate cafe, it's taxable income being spent (though the cost of running the cafe is a tax deductible business expense to the company). There have been discussions in congress to assess a value as income to employees for services like on site child care and no cost employee cafeterias. To address your new example: For example, suppose John Doe makes $100,000 a year taxed at a rate of 20%, for a take home pay of $80,000. He spends $10,000 on food. His employer Corporation decides to give him all of his food and deduct it as a business expense - costing them $10,000. But now they can pay John Doe an amount so his take home pay will be reduced by $10,000 - $87,500 The company is now spending $97500 employing John Doe, for a savings of $2500$. This would be an audit prone administrative nightmare.  Either You need John to submit receipts for reimbursement up to the $10,000 agreed upon amount which would require some kind of administrative staff, or After a very short period of time John forgets the abstract value of the food cost arrangement, that is only really benefiting the employer in the form of lower payroll expense, and is enticed away for more pay somewhere else anyway.  The company may be saving $2,500, though again there will be an additional administrative expense of some sort, but John is only saving $500 ($97,500 * 0.20 - $100,000 * 0.20). Those aren't distributions, they're contributions.  Distribution is when the money comes out of the retirement accounts. Here is the best source (the IRS) for information about tax advantaged retirement plans. The simple answer is that with the defined contribution plan: 401k, 403b, 457 and the US government TSP; the employer doesn't hold on to the funds. When they take your money from your paycheck there is a period of a few days or at the most a few weeks before they must turn the money over to the trustee running the program. If they are matching your contributions they must do the same with those funds.  The risk is in that window of time between payday and deposit day. If the business folds, or enters bankruptcy protection, or decides to slash what they will contribute to the match in the future anything already sent to the trustee is out of their clutches. In the other hand a defined a benefit plan or pension plan: where you get X percent of your highest salary times the number of years you worked; is not protected from the company. These plans work by the company putting aide money each year based on a formula. The formula is complex because they know from history some employees never stick around long enough to get the pension.  The money in a pension is invested outside the company but it is not out of the control of the company. Generally with a well run company they invest wisely but safely because if the value goes up due to interest or a rising stock market, the next year their required contribution is smaller. The formula also expects that they will not go out of business. The problems occur when they don't have the money to afford to make the contribution. Even governments have looked for relief in this area by skipping a deposit or delaying a deposit.  There is some good news in this area because a pension program has to pay an annual insurance premium to The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation a quai-government agency of the federal government. If the business folds the PBGC steps in to protect the rights of the employees. They don't get all they were promised, but they do get a lot of it.  None of those pension issues relate to the 401K like program. Once the money is transferred to the trustee the company has no control over the funds. "The company itself doesn't benefit. In most cases, it's an expense as the match that many offer is going to cost the company some percent of salary.  As Mike said, it's part of the benefit package. Vacation, medical, dental, cafeteria plans (i.e. both flexible spending and dependent care accounts, not food), stock options, employee stock purchase plans, defined contribution or defined benefit pension, and the 401(k) or 403(b) for teachers. Each and all of these are what one should look at when looking at ""total compensation"". You allude to the lack of choices in the 401(k) compared to other accounts. Noted. And that lack of choice should be part of your decision process as to how you choose to invest for retirement. If the fess/selection is bad enough, you need to be vocal about it and request a change. Bad choices + no match, and maybe the account should be avoided, else just deposit to the match.  Note - Keith thanks for catching and fixing one typo, I just caught another." They don't care..   the people making those choices are judged on the short term basis; ie yearly bonus.  They make the choice to move it over, reap a massive bonus for a couple of years before the profit starts to crumble then they bail out.  I've seen it happen at no less than 5 of my clients. In a well-managed company, employees bring more dollars to their employers than the employers pay the employees (salary and benefits).  Employees trade potential reward for security (a regular paycheck).  Employers take on the risk of needing to meet payroll and profit from the company's income, minus expenses. The potential rewards are much higher as an employer (self or otherwise), so the ones that do make it do quite well.  But this is also consistent with your other statement that the reverse is not true; the risk of self-employment is high, and many self-employed people don't become millionaires.