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

        Will the Knicks Beat the Spurs? (Are Prediction Market Event Contracts Gambling?)

        For those of you who like to keep score, currently 18 states are engaged in litigation over prediction markets, such as Kalshi and Polymarket,...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Faster Review and Enhanced Enforcement for Benefits-Fraud FCA Matters

        On May 27, 2026, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) Civil Division issued a new memorandum, “Accelerating Review and Enhancing Enforcement in...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        DOJ Announces Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown; Signals Intensified Medicaid Enforcement Nationwide

        On May 21, the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) announced a first-of-its kind Minnesota Health Care Fraud Takedown charging 15 defendants, including...
        Media Mentions

        Lauren Galvin Quoted in Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly on Arbitration and Anti-SLAPP Protections

        Verrill Partner Lauren Galvin was recently featured in a Massachusetts Lawyers Weekly article highlighting a notable Superior Court decision...
        Blog

        Section 530A Accounts: What Employers Should Consider Before Offering Contributions to “Trump” Accounts

        Section 530A accounts, commonly referred to as Trump accounts, have attracted attention since the enactment of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act in...
        Blog

        Navigating PBM Reform: Regulatory Changes, Market Shifts, and Practical Guidance for ERISA Fiduciaries

        Pharmacy Benefit Manager (“PBM”) arrangements have long relied on rebates with limited transparency into true drug costs. Recent regulatory and...
        Blog

        DOL’s Proposed Regulation on Selecting Alternative Investments: Broad Implications for 401(k) and 403(b) Plan Fiduciaries

        On March 30, 2026, the Department of Labor issued a proposed regulation purporting to implement an executive order to expand access to “alternative...
        Press Releases

        Verrill Welcomes Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Attorney Gracie Castle

        BOSTON, Massachusetts – Verrill is pleased to welcome Gracie Castle to the firm’s Private Clients & Fiduciary Services Group as an Associate,...
        Published Works

        Francesco De Vito Authors Article in the Journal of the American College of Mortgage Attorneys

        Verrill Partner Frank De Vito authored an article featured in the Spring 2026 issue of The Abstract, the journal of the American College of Mortgage...
        Alerts and Newsletters

        Recent FinCEN Advisory Highlights Rising Health Care Fraud Risk for Financial Institutions

        As the federal government intensifies its “whole of government” approach to combat fraud, waste, and abuse, particularly in Federal Health Care...
        Press Releases

        Two Verrill Attorneys Featured in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global Bankruptcy & Restructuring Lawyers List

        PORTLAND, Maine – Verrill attorneys Roger A. Clement, Jr. and Robert J. Keach have been featured in the 2026 Lawdragon 500 Leading Global...
        Published Works

        Verrill Attorney Mark Googins Co-Authors Maine Commercial Lending Handbook

        Verrill attorney Mark Googins has co-authored the Maine Commercial Lending Handbook (Second Edition), published March 2026.  A trusted, practical...