Benefits Law Update
        Practical advice from Verrill attorneys

        401(k) Plan Matching Contributions: To True Up or Not True Up?

        December 5, 2022

        As a matter of plan design, for purposes of matching contributions some 401(k) plans provide that a participant’s compensation for the entire plan year is taken into account (regardless of whether the participant makes elective deferrals with respect to each payroll period during the year), while other 401(k) plans take into account a participant’s compensation only with respect to payroll periods for which the participant makes elective deferrals. The former design is commonly referred to as a “true up” feature. This post illustrates, through examples, each design, addresses why a plan sponsor might choose one design over the other, and provides some additional thoughts and a reminder for safe harbor design plans.

        The examples that follow assume a calendar year plan year, 52 pay periods during the year, compensation paid ratably during the year, a matching contributions formula of $1.00 for each dollar of elective deferrals made by a participant up to 5% of the participant’s compensation, and that matching contributions are made to the 401(k) plan on a weekly basis, at the same time as the elective contributions to which they relate.

        True Up Example:

        Employee A’s annual compensation is $52,000, and she makes a deferral election equal to 10% of her compensation. After 26 pay periods, Employee A voluntarily stops her deferral election. Through 26 pay periods, here is the result:

        Annual CompensationElective Contributions per pay periodMatching Contributions per pay periodTotal Elective Contributions through 26 pay periodsTotal Matching Contributions through 26 pay periods
        $52,000$100$50$2,600$1,300

        With a true up feature, at the end of the year the plan administrator performs a calculation to ensure that Employee A receives the maximum amount of matching contributions to which she is entitled for the year based on her compensation for the entire year. Taking into account Employee A’s compensation for the entire year, Employee A made elective deferrals equal to 5% of her compensation ($2,600 ÷ $52,000 = 5%) and is, therefore, entitled to an additional $1,300 in matching contributions. Employee A’s total matching contributions amount for the year is $2,600.

        Without a true up feature, Employee A’s total matching contributions for the year would be $1,300.

        No True Up Example:

        Freddie Frontloader, Steady Eddie, and Bobby Backloader each have annual compensation of $78,000, and each wishes to defer $3,900 for the year. Freddie Frontloader makes elective contributions at a 10% rate each pay period beginning with the first pay period of the year, Steady Eddie makes elective contributions at a 5% rate each pay period beginning with the first pay period of the year, and Bobby Backloader waits until there are only 10 pay periods left in the year and then makes elective contributions at a 26% rate each pay period. All three voluntarily stop their deferral elections when they reach $3,900. The result:

        Elective Contributions RateAnnual CompensationElective Contributions per pay periodMatching Contributions per pay periodPay Periods to reach $3,900Total Elective ContributionsTotal Matching Contributions
        Freddie Frontloader: 10%$78,000$150$7526$3,900$1,950
        Steady Eddie: 5%$78,000$75$7552$3,900$3,900
        Bobby Backloader: 26%$78,000$390$7510$3,900$750

        While all three participants had the same annual compensation and deferred the same dollar amount into the 401(k) plan, only Steady Eddie maximized the amount of matching contributions, because Steady Eddie made elective contributions throughout the entire year (at a rate equal to at least 5% of compensation each pay period).

        As a matter of compensation philosophy, it is difficult to justify why these three participants should end up with different matching contributions amounts for the year simply because of their choice regarding when they made elective contributions during the year, and this is why some employers include a matching contributions true up feature in their 401(k) plan. Employers that do not include this feature in their 401(k) plan often cite increased administration (and increased risk of administrative error) and, to a lesser extent, potential cost savings as reasons for not implementing a true up feature.

        For employers with 401(k) plans that do not include a matching contributions true up feature, we recommend that their participant disclosure materials (e.g., SPD and notice of 401(k) safe harbor design) (1) include an example similar to the above No True Up Example to illustrate how the 401(k) plan’s matching contributions formula works, and (2) emphasize (e.g., with bolded text) that it is important for participants to understand that they can maximize the amount of their matching contributions for a plan year only by spreading their elective contributions over the entire year at a percentage of their compensation each pay period that is at least equal to the percentage under the plan’s matching contributions formula that provides the greatest amount of matching contributions (e.g., 5% in the above examples). This recommendation is especially pertinent where an employer amends its 401(k) plan to eliminate the matching contributions true up feature for subsequent plan years. In addition, as a reminder for employers with a 401(k) safe harbor design plan that does not include a matching contributions true up feature, matching contributions with respect to elective contributions made during a plan year quarter must be remitted to the plan no later than the last day of the following plan year quarter.

        Please contact a member of our Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation Group if you have questions regarding a matching contributions true up feature or other questions relating to your 401(k) plan’s matching contributions formula.

        Benefits Law Update

        Verrill’s Benefits Law Update blog delivers timely insights and practical guidance on the ever-evolving landscape of employee benefits and executive compensation. Our blog provides up-to-date analysis and commentary on a wide range of topics, including timely updates on developments in law affecting employee benefit plans and executive compensation arrangements.

        Subscribe

        Looking for more great content? Subscribe for regular legal updates and information delivered right to your inbox.

        Firm Highlights

        Blog

        What Employee Benefits Lawyers Do (and How to Make the Best Use of Us)

        What do employee benefits lawyers do all day and how can clients make the best use of them? This post offers an overview of the kinds of things...
        Media Mentions

        Bloomberg Law Quotes Robert Keach on Expanded Access to Small Business Reorganization

        Verrill attorney Bob Keach was recently featured in Bloomberg Law, discussing legislation that would raise debt limits for bankruptcy relief and...
        Blog

        Phil Bartlett to Step Down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission

        On September 15, 2026, Governor Janet Mills announced that Phil Bartlett will step down as Chair of the Maine Public Utilities Commission (PUC)...
        Published Works

        Jay McCormack and Michael Fee Co-Author AHLA Article on Skin Substitute Enforcement Trends

        Verrill Partners Jay McCormack and Michael Fee co-authored an article for the American Health Law Association's Fraud and Abuse Practice Group...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Health Care & Life Sciences Attorney Elpida Velmahos

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to announce that Elpida Velmahos has joined the firm’s Health Care & Life Sciences Group as an...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Litigation & Trial Attorney Emma Pooler

        PORTLAND, Maine – Verrill is pleased to announce that Emma Pooler has joined the firm’s Litigation & Trial Group as an Associate, resident in...
        Published Works

        Four Verrill Attorneys Co-Author Massachusetts Trends and Developments Chapter for Chambers and Partners Child Relocation 2026 Guide

        Verrill attorneys Mary H. Schmidt, Rachel A. Deering, Hannah R. Zukoff, and Mariah G. Tappan co-authored the “Trends and Developments” chapter...
        Blog

        A New Protected Class in Maine: Holders of Final Protection Orders

        In the lead-up to Domestic Violence Awareness Month in October, employers may be taking a closer look at how their policies and practices respond to...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Verrill Secures SJC Victory for Boston Legacy FC in White Stadium Litigation

        Verrill has secured a significant appellate victory for Boston Legacy FC in the litigation challenging the redevelopment of White Stadium in...
        Blog

        Hurry Up and Wait

        This is the third in a series of Verrill blog posts on Maine’s packaging extended producer responsibility (“EPR”) law[1]. In July we reported...
        Media Mentions

        Robert Keach Discusses First Brands Chapter 11 Case in Law360

        Verrill attorney Robert Keach was recently quoted in a Law360 article examining the rejection of First Brands Group's Chapter 11 plan and the...
        Media Mentions

        Cybersecurity and AI Governance: Scott Anderson Featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly

        Verrill Managing Partner Scott Anderson was recently featured in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly discussing how law firms can build attorney buy-in for...