Is it legal if I'm managing my family's entire wealth?
I am not going to discuss legality, because with family members you are able to give a lot of guidance and assistance without running into legal issues.  The biggest problem is that when they transfer the funds to you and you invest the money, all the tax rates and tax limits are determined by your situation; plus you have more investments than you should have so you hit those limits and brackets quicker. For example: In the United states a person can put $5,500 or $6,500 into a IRA or Roth IRA each year. If you combine the funds for three with your funds then you are giving up three quarters of the amount that you can invest in that type of account. The decision regarding Roth or not depends on age and income level. But now their decision is related to what is best based on your situation. The ability to even deduct IRA deposits would be based on your situation. Of course for taxable accounts the tax rate is determined by your income, not theirs. If they want you to have the ability to make investment decisions for them, then power of attorney is the way to go. The money is deposited in their name, and all the rules and tax rates are determined by their situation. You make sure they have all the information they need to login and review the accounts, but you make the all the moves within and between accounts. "You are opening up a large can of worms with how you are doing this.  In very positive years, you'll have taxes based on your income, potential Alternative Minimum Tax (AMT), etc. Each of the family members may be in a lower bracket, perhaps even needing to pay zero on capital gains.  Even if you are 100% honest, if you are subject to a lawsuit, these funds are all in your name, and you'd be in a tough situation explaining to a court that these assets aren't ""really"" yours, but belong to family.  And last, the movement of large chunks of money needs to be accounted for, and can easily run afoul of gifting rules.  As mhoran stated, a Power of Attorney (POA) avoids this. When my father-in-law passed, I took over my mother-in-law's finances, via POA. I sign in to my brokerage account, and her accounts are there. I can trade, deal with her Individual Retirement Account (IRA) Required Minimum Distributions (RMDs) each year, and issue checks to her long term care facility. It's all under her social security number - our money isn't intermingled." "I agree that this is a ""bad idea"" but I want to add in one more reason. Let's pretend your family and you are ok with all the tax ramifications and legal issues. This is still a horrid idea.  You have to deal with the What Ifs. What if you get in an accident with your car, and then a law suit comes around and they decide to seize your assets? Again the reason isn't important—what is important is your ability to pay a critical ""thing"" is going to be based off accounts and money that are not yours.  So you goof up on child support and they ""freeze"" your accounts. Guess what? Now your family members lose access to their money, because on paper it's your money. Keep in mind it doesn't have to be an irresponsible action that causes the issue. ID theft, for example, often results in a temporary account freeze while things are sorted out. So now your mom can't eat because ""your money"" is pending review.  In this situation you might even turn to your mother or father or brother for help while your accounts are frozen for 2-3 months and everything is sorted out. But now you can't because their money is tied up too.  Lastly lets assume the ID theft issue. That ID thief now has access to a big pool of money. They walk off with everyone's nest eggs—not just yours." "This is the biggest blunder I see in money handling.  ""Oh I'm a good person and everyone knows my intentions are good.  And they're really happy with me right now, so it'll stay that way forever, right?  So I can just do anything and they'll trust me.""  And then in hindsight 10 years later, the person realizes ""wow, I was really stubborn and selfish to just assume that.  No wonder it blew up.""  Anyway, to that end, your requirement that all the money be in one account and ""this will simplify taxes"" is horsepuckey.  No one will believe a legitimate financial advisor needs that, but it's exactly what a swindler would do. And that's the problem.  If anything goes wrong, their trust in you will be forgotten, some will say you intended to scam all along, and the structure will be the first thing to convict you.   Money makes everyone mistrusting.  Ironically, the concept is called a ""trust"", and there's a wide body of law and practice for Person X responsibly handling the money of Person Y.  The classic example is Person Y is a corporation (say, a charity) and Person X is on the Board of Directors.  It's the same basic thing.   The doctrine is:" If you go through the web pages of some online brokers, you will find out that some of them allow you to manage friends/relatives accounts from your account as a trusteer. That should really solve your underlying problem, you will need only one login, etc. (Example: https://www.interactivebrokers.com/ff/en/main.php) If I understand it right it will even allow you to make one trade splitting the cost and returns among the other accounts, but you would have to verify that. Anyways, that will save you a lot of trouble and your broker can probably help you with the legal necessities. "All the other answers posted thus far discuss matters from the perspective of US tax laws and are unanimous in declaring that what the OP wants to do is indeed a very bad idea. I fully agree: it is a bad idea from the perspective of US tax laws, and is likely a bad idea from the perspective of Indian tax laws too, but what the OP wants to do is  (or used to be) common practice in India. In more recent times, India has created a Permanent Account Number (""PAN number"") for each taxpayer for income tax purposes, and each bank account or investment must have the owner's (or first-named owner's, in case of a joint account) PAN number associated with it.  This most likely has decreased the popularity of such arrangements, or has led to new twists being used. The OP has not indicated the residence and citizenship of his family (or his own status for that matter), but if they are all Indian citizens resident in India and are Hindus, then there might be one mechanism for doing what the OP wants to do: apply for a PAN number in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family and use this number to carry out the investments in the name of the Hindu Undivided Family.  (There presumably are similar statuses for undivided families for other religions, but I am not familiar with them). There are lots of matters here which are more legal questions than personal finance questions: e.g. if the OP is a US tax resident, then the family presumably will not be able to claim Hindu Undivided Family status since the OP has been divided from the family for tax purposes (or so I think). Even if HUF status is available, the OP might not be able to act as the pater familias while his father is alive, and so on.  Consultation with tax lawyers, not just chartered accountants, in India is certainly advisable." Assuming you and your family always get along and everyone is happy with the situation... Should you become ill, die, or go on government benefits for some catastrophe, the government will look at all those funds as YOURS, and now your wonderful family is hurt by the estate tax and/or expectations of how much of the bill you handle before support kicks in. Additionally, should you ever reach a point where you are married and then facing divorce (even if no fault of your own), all that investment is now up for grabs in equitable distribution.  So your family's entire investment fund is at risk. "There are two issues. The first is that you can manage all of your family's money. The second issue arises if you now ""own"" all of your family's money. As far as entities go, it is best to keep money or assets in as many different hands as possible. Right now, if someone sued you and won, they could take away not only your money, but your parents' and brother's money, under your name. Also, there are gift, estate and inheritance tax consequences to your parents and brother handing all their money to you. You should have three or four separate ""piles"" of money, one for yourself, one for your brother and one for each of your parents, or at least both of them as a couple. If someone sued one parent, the other parent, your brother and you are protected. You can have all these piles of money under your management. That is, your parents and brother should each maintain separate brokerage accounts from yours, and then give you the authorization to trade (but not withdraw from) their accounts. This could all be at the same brokerage house, to make the reporting and other logistics relatively easy." You can perfectly well manage their wealth without transferring their money into your account first. Just make them open their own account on their name then ask them for credentials and then manage their money from within their own account. That way everyone will be taxed according to their wealth (which is probably advantageous but you probably have to help them with the paperwork) and it is clear at every time what belongs to whom and your relatives can at every time access their wealth. These are big advantages (for them). This keeps you at the role of an adviser (a very active one though) which should have almost zero legal ramifications for you unless you try to deceive your relatives. You may want to shift wealth between accounts to minimize tax burdens, but that comes at the risk that should the family relations get worse this might result in anger. You could open up a registered society, all members getting shares and voting rights, making you the CEO, but that should be a lot of paperwork and maybe only a good idea for large amounts of money. If you decide to transfer money between accounts of different persons this is like a gift. It might invoke a gift tax in your area. All in all, I strongly advise you to make them all open up their own accounts and then just operate the accounts and manage their wealth in their name. Sell it to them as the solution that retains them maximum ownership. My answer is with respect to the United States. I have no idea about India's regulatory environment. You are opening yourself up to massive liabilities and problems if you deposit their money in your account. I managed investment accounts as a private investment advisor for years (those with less than 15 clients were not required to register) until Dodd-Frank changed the rules. Thus you would have to register as an advisor, probably needing to take the series 65 exam (or qualifying some other way, e.g. getting your CFP/CFA/etc...). I used a discount broker/dealer (Scottrade) as the custodian. Here's how it works: Each client's account was their own account, and I had a master account that allowed me to bill their accounts and manage them.  They signed paperwork making me the advisor on their account.  I had very little accounting to handle (aside from tracking basis for taxed accounts). If you take custody of the money, you'll have regulatory obligations. There are always lots of stories in the financial advisor trade publications about advisors who go to jail for screwing their clients. The most common factor: they took custody of the assets. I understand why you want a single account - you want to ensure that each client gets the same results, right? Does each client want the same results?  Certainly the tax situation for each is different, yes?  Perhaps one has gains and wants to take losses in one year, and the other doesn't. If their accounts are managed separately, one can take losses while the other realizes gains to offset other losses. Financial advisors offer these kinds of accounts as Separately Managed Accounts (SMAs). The advisors on these kinds of accounts are mutual funds managers, and they try to match a target portfolio, but they can do things like realize gains or losses for clients if their tax situation would prefer it. You certainly can't let them put retirement accounts into your single account unless the IRS has you on their list of acceptable custodians. I suggest that you familiarize yourself thoroughly with the regulatory environment that you want to operate under. Then, after examining the pros and cons, you should decide which route you want to take.  I think the most direct and feasible route is to pass the Series 65, register as an investment advisor, and find a custodian who will let you manage the assets as the advisor on the account. Real estate is another matter, you should talk to an attorney, not some random guy on the internet (even if he has an MBA and a BS in Real Estate, which I do). This is very much a state law thing. "I transfer all their funds to my bank account Are they paying tax on that transfer?  Gifts under $14,000 are excluded from taxation in the US, but they're going going to have a hard time arguing that it is a gift (since they expect it back).  The taxes are almost certainly going to exceed the amount you can make from your investments in the short term, and if they aren't paid then your ""clients"" are going to be in hot water with the IRS. You need to have something set up that establishes you as merely managing the funds, and not receiving them personally as a transfer.  The other answers have good suggestions." Aside from the fact that there are massive problems with taxes, liability, fiduciary responsibility, and (assuming you're accepting any sort of compensation at all) licensing. The mere fact that you're asking this question indicates that you're probably not suitably qualified to handle this for others. Why not have someone qualified handle this?
Of course you can transfer it, and it will be legal. There's no taxes on transferring your own money. There's income tax on gains you realized by selling the property, but that is money you already owe, it doesn't matter where the proceeds are. It also doesn't matter how you acquired the property (except for figuring out your basis). What matters is that you had gains, and these gains are taxable in the US. You need to figure out the value of the property when your father bought it, and that is your basis. The difference between what you sold it for and that basis is your taxable gain, and you already owe taxes on that gain. Anyone considering this approach needs to talk to a lawyer before going ahead; certainly, you don't want to trust anything I say as legal advice as I have no legal training. This is not a gift. All the CRA has to show is that there was a reasonable expectation that the property would be sold and the money returned to the parent. That's obviously the case here; in your timeline, the evidence is in the two bank accounts after approximately six months. As to whether you'd get away with tax fraud of this nature, that depends on how careful the CRA is willing to investigate. There's another risk, too. Canada's at risk of a market correction on real-estate prices, where prices might drop 20-40%, or worse if you are pessimistic. That's speculation, of course, but such corrections are common-place over the long-term. If you buy a house today with the expectation of improving it and flipping it in six months, you run a very real risk of not recovering your initial investment, let alone the time and materials invested. Heck, you might not be able to sell the house at all. And from the parent's point of view, there's nothing to be done. They can't claim this was a gift, and now claim any sort of obligation whatsoever. The child isn't obligated to sell at a loss, and may not be able to sell in any case. You should talk to a lawyer. One solution I can think of is using a trust. Keep in mind that that may complicate things (non-revocable trusts are taxed on income not distributed, and revocable trust means you effectively keep the owenership of the stock). If you don't mind paying taxes on the dividends and keep the stocks in a living trust - that would be, IMHO, the simplest solution. That would, however, invoke the gift/estate tax at the value of the stock when the ownership actually passes to the intended receipient (i.e.: you die/gift the stock to the child). It would be very hard to pay the gift tax now and avoid getting the childs SSN and opening an account for the child with it. "Also the will stipulated that the house cannot be sold as long as one of my wife's aunts (not the same one who supposedly took the file cabinet) is alive. This is a turkey of a provision, particularly if she is not living in the house.  It essentially renders the house, which is mortgaged, valueless.  You'd have to put money into it to maintain the mortgage until she dies and you can sell it.   The way that I see it, you have four options: Crack that provision in the will.  You'd need to hire a lawyer for that.  It may not be possible.   Abandon the house.  It's currently owned by the estate, so leave it in the estate.  Distribute any goods and investments, but let the bank foreclose on the house.  You don't get any value from the house, but you don't lose anything either.  Your father's credit rating will take a posthumous hit that it can afford.  You may need to talk to a lawyer here as well, but this is going to be a standard problem.   Explore a reverse mortgage.  They may be able to accommodate the weird provision with the aunt and manage the property while giving a payout.  Or maybe not.  It doesn't hurt to ask.   Find a property manager in Philadelphia and have them rent out the house for you.  Google gave some results on ""find property management company Philadelphia"" and you might be able to do better while in Philadelphia to get rid of his stuff.  Again, I'd leave the house on the estate, as you are blocked from selling.  A lawyer might need to put it in a trust or something to make that work (if the estate has to be closed in a certain time period).  Pay the mortgage out of the rent.  If there's extra left over, you can either pay down the mortgage faster or distribute it.   Note that the rent may not support the mortgage.  If not, then option four is not practical.  However, in that case, the house is unlikely to be worth much net of the mortgage anyway.  Let the bank have it (option two).   If the aunt needs to move into the house, then you can give up the rental income.  She can either pay the mortgage (possibly by renting rooms) or allow foreclosure.  A reverse mortgage might also help in that situation.   It's worth noting that three of the options involve a lawyer.  Consulting one to help choose among the options might be constructive.  You may be able to find a law firm with offices in both Florida and Pennsylvania.   It's currently winter.  Someone should check on the house to make sure that the heat is running and the pipes aren't freezing.  If you can't do anything with it now, consider winterizing by turning off the water and draining the pipes.  Turn the heat down to something reasonable and unplug the refrigerator (throw out the food first).  Note that the kind of heat matters.  You may need to buy oil or pay a gas bill in addition to electricity." "Debts do not inherit to the children. You are absolutely not liable for your parent's debt, in any way whatsoever. **  Collection agents will lie about this; tricking you is their job, and your job is to tell them Heck no, do I look like an idiot? When a person dies, all their personal assets (and debts) go to a fictitious entity called the Estate.  This is a holder for the person's assets until they can be dispositioned finally.  The estate is managed by a living person, sometimes a company (law firm), called an Executor.  Similar to a corporation which is shutting down business, the Executor's job is to act on behalf of the Estate, and in the Estate's best interest (not his own).  For instance he can't decide, in his capacity as executor, to give all the estate's money to himself.  He has to loyally and selflessly follow state law and any living-trust or wills that may be in place. This role is not for everyone.  You can't just decide ""la la la, I'm going to live in their house now"", that is squatting.  The house is an asset and someone inherited that, as dictated by will, trust or state law.  That has to be worked out legally.  Once they inherit the house, you have to negotiate with them about living there. If you want to live there now, negotiate to rent the house from the estate. This is an efficient way to funnel money into the estate for what I discuss later.** The Estate has assets, and it has debts. Some debts extinguish on the death of the natural person, e.g. student loans, depending on the contract and state law. Did you know corporations are considered a ""person""?  (that's what Citizens United was all about.)  So are estates - both are fictitious persons. The executor can act like a person in that sense.   If you have unsecured debt, how can a creditor motivate you to pay?  They can annoy and harass you.  They can burn your credit rating.  Or they can sue you and try to take your assets - but suing is also expensive for them.  This is not widely understood, but anyone at any time can go to their creditors and say  ""Hey creditor, I'm not gonna pay you $10,000.  Tough buffaloes.  You can sue me, good luck with that.  Or, I'll make you a deal.  I'll offer you $2000 to settle this debt.  What say you?  And you'll get one of two answers.  Either ""OK"" or ""Nice try, let's try $7000.""  If the latter, you start into the cycle of haggling, ""3000."" ""6000."" ""4000."" ""5000. ""Split the difference, $4500."" ""OK.""  This is always a one-time, lump sum, one-shot payoff, never partial payments.  Creditors will try to convince you to make partial payments.  Don't do it.  Anyone can do that at any time.  Why don't living people do this every day?   How about an Estate?  Estates are fictitious persons, they don't have a ""morality"", they have a fiduciary duty. Do they plan on borrowing any more money? Nope. Their credit rating is already 0. They owe no loyalty to USBank. Actually, the executor's fiduciary duty is to get the most possible money for the assets, and settle the debts for the least.  So I argue it's unethical to fail to haggle down this debt.  If an executor is ""not a haggler"" or has a moral issue with shortchanging creditors, he is shortchanging the heirs, and he can be sued for that personally - because he has a fiduciary duty to the heirs, not Chase Bank.  Like I say, the job is not for everyone. The estate should also make sure to check the paperwork for any other way to escape the debt: does it extinguish on death?  Is the debt time-barred? Can they really prove it's valid?  Etc.  It's not personal, it's business.  The estate should not make monthly payments (no credit rating to protect) and should not pay one dime to a creditor except for a one-shot final settlement. Is it secured debt? Let them take the asset. (unless an heir really wants it).  When a person dies with a lot of unsecured debt, it's often the case that they don't have a lot of cash lying around.  The estate must sell off assets to raise the cash to settle with the creditors.  Now here's where things get ugly with the house.  ** The estate should try to raise money any other way, but it may have to sell the house to pay the creditors. For the people who would otherwise inherit the house, it may be in their best  interest to pay off that debt. Check with lawyers in your area, but it may also be possible for the estate to take a mortgage on the house, use the mortgage cash to pay off the estate's debts (still haggle!), and then bequeath the house-and-mortgage to the heirs.  The mortgage lender would have to be on-board with all of this.  Then, the heirs would owe the mortgage.   Good chance it would be a small mortgage on a big equity, e.g. a $20,000 mortgage on a $100,000 house.  Banks love those." ASSUMING THIS IS A QUESTION OF U.S. SECURITIES LAWS You didn't explain whether you're related to the mother and son, but I'll assume you are.  If that's the case, this really wouldn't qualify as a solicited sale.  It wasn't advertised publicly for sale, and there is already (I assume) a long-standing relationship between the parties.  In such a case, this would be a perfectly legal and normal type of transaction, so I can't see any reason for concern.   That being said, you would be wise to contact the state securities regulation agency where you live to ensure you're on firm ground. The law pertaining to the solicited sale of securities normally targets instances where people are trying to do private stock offerings and are seeking investors, in which case there are a number of different state and federal agencies and regulations that come into play.  The situation you've described does not fall under these types of scenarios. Good luck! If this was going on in the UK, I would try to get a mental capacity assessment done on the father. There are laws that stop you taking advantage of people that don’t understand what is going on; these laws could be used against the manager, but only if you can clearly prove that the father does not understand that the “business” is losing money. If the father does understand what is going on, then there is nothing you can do, as he has every right to waste his money, and anyone that may inherit what is left has no rights until he is dead. "If you and your parents both put up money to buy a house or anything else, what share each of you owns would be a subject for negotiation and agreement between you. To the best of my knowledge, there is no law that says ""if person X pays the down payment and person Y pays the monthly payments, than X owns 40% and Y owns 60%"" or any other specific numbers. Parents often give their children money to help with a down payment on a house or a car with the understanding that this is a gift and the child still owns 100% of the item. Other times they are unwilling or unable to just give the money and want some stake in exchange. In the case of a house or a car, there's a title that identifies the owner, and legally the owner is the person or people named on the title. I'd suggest that if you want to have split ownership, like if your parents are saying that they'll help with the down payment but they want to get that money back when you sell or some such, that you come up with a written agreement saying who owns what percentage and you both sign it. If there was a dispute -- if you never had an agreement about what share each owned and now you're selling the house and you're arguing over how much of the money each of you should get, or your parents want you to sell the house so they can get their money back but you don't want to sell, or whatever -- ultimately a court would decide. Presumably the judge would consider how much you had each paid in, but he might also consider who's been paying property taxes, how much work each has done to maintain the place, etc. It's better to have a written and signed agreement, something that everyone involved is satisfied with and where you all know exactly what you're agreeing to, rather than having a nasty surprise when a judge says no, you're not getting what you were assuming you were getting." So, there's no way to do both?  I look out for my family, but I also try to be honest, live up to my word, and admit my mistakes rather than trying to find a villain or excuse for them.  Looking out for myself and my family includes being careful with my money, especially large sums that I don't want to lose. I agree with the comments so far. Access doesn't equal ownership. There are also different levels of access. E.g. your financial advisor can have access to your retirement account via power of attorney, but only ability to add or change things, not withdraw. Another consideration is when a creditor tries to garnish wages / bank accounts, it needs to find the accounts first. This could be done by running a credit report via SSN. My guess is an account with access-only rights won't show up on such a report. I suppose the court could subpoena bank information. But I'm not an attorney so please check with a professional. Honestly, I think you are falling for a myth. Family business can also decide to go for short term maximum profit at the expense of long term. And shareholders can decide to look long term, just go to shareholder meetings and you will see everything. Its not so black and white.  For the rest I agree, except for anti-monopolly laws. In general, anti-monopolly laws only help create olligopollies/monopollies not removing them. I agree with everyone who has simply told you 'Dont' and 'You can't' and add a few more considerations that you don't want to deal with: What you want to do is admirable but very complicated from a financial and legal perspective.  If this is really a route that you want to go down you should give up on the 'simple' and consider hiring a lawyer. @RonJohn's answer for pallet of $20's is right for the specific case. For the general case of all income, it depends on whether or not the the source of the income was potentially criminal. https://www.forbes.com/sites/timtodd/2015/11/16/a-win-for-the-5th-amendment-at-the-tax-court/ I am not a lawyer, but reading that article, one needs to provide the total amount, but not the source if there's a risk of self-incrimination. "Here's what I suggest... A few years ago, I got a chunk of change.  Not from an inheritance, but stock options in a company that was taken private.  We'd already been investing by that point.  But what I did: 1.  I took my time. 2.  I set aside a chunk of it (maybe a quarter) for taxes.  you shouldn't have this problem. 3.  I set aside a chunk for home renovations. 4.  I set aside a chunk for kids college fund 5.  I set aside a chunk for paying off the house 6.  I set aside a chunk to spend later 7.  I invested a chunk.  A small chunk directly in single stocks, a small chunk in muni bonds, but most just in Mutual Funds. I'm still spending that ""spend later"" chunk.  It's about 10 years later, and this summer it's home maintenance and a new car...  all, I figure it, coming out of some of that money I'd set aside for ""future spending.""" "Highly Compensated Employee Rules Aim to Make 401k's Fair would be the piece that I suspect you are missing here.  I remember hearing of this rule when I worked in the US and can understand why it exists.  A key quote from the article: You wouldn't think the prospect of getting money from an employer   would be nerve-wracking. But those jittery co-workers are highly   compensated employees (HCEs) concerned that they will receive a refund   of excess 401k contributions because their plan failed its   discrimination test. A refund means they will owe more income tax for   the current tax year. Geersk (a pseudonym), who is also an HCE, is in   information services and manages the computers that process his firm's   401k plan. 401(k) - Wikipedia reference on this:  To help ensure that companies extend their 401(k) plans to low-paid   employees, an IRS rule limits the maximum deferral by the company's   ""highly compensated"" employees, based on the average deferral by the   company's non-highly compensated employees. If the less compensated   employees are allowed to save more for retirement, then the executives   are allowed to save more for retirement. This provision is enforced   via ""non-discrimination testing"". Non-discrimination testing takes the   deferral rates of ""highly compensated employees"" (HCEs) and compares   them to non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). An HCE in 2008 is   defined as an employee with compensation of greater than $100,000 in   2007 or an employee that owned more than 5% of the business at any   time during the year or the preceding year.[13] In addition to the   $100,000 limit for determining HCEs, employers can elect to limit the   top-paid group of employees to the top 20% of employees ranked by   compensation.[13] That is for plans whose first day of the plan year   is in calendar year 2007, we look to each employee's prior year gross   compensation (also known as 'Medicare wages') and those who earned   more than $100,000 are HCEs. Most testing done now in 2009 will be for   the 2008 plan year and compare employees' 2007 plan year gross   compensation to the $100,000 threshold for 2007 to determine who is   HCE and who is a NHCE. The threshold was $110,000 in 2010 and it did   not change for 2011. The average deferral percentage (ADP) of all HCEs, as a group, can be   no more than 2 percentage points greater (or 125% of, whichever is   more) than the NHCEs, as a group. This is known as the ADP test. When   a plan fails the ADP test, it essentially has two options to come into   compliance. It can have a return of excess done to the HCEs to bring   their ADP to a lower, passing, level. Or it can process a ""qualified   non-elective contribution"" (QNEC) to some or all of the NHCEs to raise   their ADP to a passing level. The return of excess requires the plan   to send a taxable distribution to the HCEs (or reclassify regular   contributions as catch-up contributions subject to the annual catch-up   limit for those HCEs over 50) by March 15 of the year following the   failed test. A QNEC must be an immediately vested contribution. The annual contribution percentage (ACP) test is similarly performed   but also includes employer matching and employee after-tax   contributions. ACPs do not use the simple 2% threshold, and include   other provisions which can allow the plan to ""shift"" excess passing   rates from the ADP over to the ACP. A failed ACP test is likewise   addressed through return of excess, or a QNEC or qualified match   (QMAC). There are a number of ""safe harbor"" provisions that can allow a   company to be exempted from the ADP test. This includes making a ""safe   harbor"" employer contribution to employees' accounts. Safe harbor   contributions can take the form of a match (generally totaling 4% of   pay) or a non-elective profit sharing (totaling 3% of pay). Safe   harbor 401(k) contributions must be 100% vested at all times with   immediate eligibility for employees. There are other administrative   requirements within the safe harbor, such as requiring the employer to   notify all eligible employees of the opportunity to participate in the   plan, and restricting the employer from suspending participants for   any reason other than due to a hardship withdrawal."