The bill creates a special set of rules for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs) by amending ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code to exclude employer stock contributions and loan repayments used to acquire employer securities from certain benefit and contribution limits. It also directs that the statutory limits in sections 404 and 415 be applied separately to an ESOP and any other defined contribution plan sponsored by the same employer.
This matters because employees in successful ESOP companies can hit statutory caps that prevent them from making additional voluntary retirement contributions or receiving employer matches. The bill is designed to let ESOP participants capture both ownership gains inside an ESOP and continue saving through 401(k)-style accounts, while changing the tax and plan-administration treatment of stock-related ESOP credits.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds an ERISA Part 3 (section 3033) with four special rules for ESOPs and makes parallel amendments to sections 404 and 415 of the Internal Revenue Code. It excludes employer-stock contributions and loan repayments used to acquire employer securities from certain 404 and 415 calculations, requires separate application of section 404 between ESOPs and other defined contribution plans, and treats forfeitures in ESOPs as not being annual additions for 415 purposes.
Who It Affects
Workers who participate in ESOPs and the employers that sponsor both an ESOP and a separate defined contribution plan (for example, a 401(k)). It also affects plan administrators, recordkeepers, TPAs, and tax/benefit counsel who implement contribution testing and reporting.
Why It Matters
By changing what counts toward statutory contribution and benefit caps, the bill can allow employees in ESOP companies to continue contributing to and receiving matches in other retirement plans without running afoul of tax limits. That shifts plan-design choices, recordkeeping, and regulatory guidance for both retirement and ESOP professionals.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
Under current law, employer-stock contributions credited to ESOP participant accounts — and the repayments of loans used to acquire that stock in leveraged ESOPs — count toward statutory limits on benefits and annual additions. That can cause participants in successful ESOPs to hit the Internal Revenue Code’s 404/415 caps and lose the ability to make voluntary contributions or receive employer matches in a separate defined contribution plan.
The bill targets that problem by carving employer stock and ESOP loan-repayment credits out of the contribution calculations that trigger those caps.
Concretely, the bill instructs ERISA (by adding a Part 3 special-rules section) and amends the Internal Revenue Code so that for ESOPs the employer-stock portion of contributions and any contributions used to repay ESOP acquisition loans do not count for the particular clause of 404(a)(3)(A) used to calculate certain deduction/limit tests. It also requires section 404’s limits to be applied separately to an ESOP and any other defined contribution plan maintained by the same employer.
For annual additions under section 415(c), employer contributions for ESOPs are determined without regard to employer stock or those loan repayments, and forfeitures allocated in ESOP accounts are explicitly excluded from annual-addition calculations.The operational effect is that an employee’s ESOP-derived increases in account value will be treated differently from discretionary employer contributions to a 401(k)-type plan for limit purposes, potentially allowing employees to continue elective deferrals and preserve matching contributions. That separation reduces the chance that ESOP growth alone will push a participant over statutory ceilings, but it requires plan sponsors and administrators to perform distinct calculations, recordkeeping, and reporting for the ESOP and for other defined contribution plans.
The statute applies to plan years beginning after enactment, so administrators should expect a transitional period and the need for implementing guidance from Treasury and the Department of Labor.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill adds ERISA section 3033 (a new Part 3) that directs certain special rules for ESOPs, specifically excluding employer-stock contributions and loan repayments from specified 404 and 415 calculations.
It amends IRC section 404(a)(3)(A) by inserting a new clause (vi) that says, for ESOPs, contributions taken into account for clause (i) do not include employer stock or contributions used to repay loans for employer securities.
The bill requires section 404 of the IRC to be applied separately to an ESOP and to any other defined contribution plan of the same employer (new paragraph added to section 404(a)).
It changes the annual-additions rules in section 415(c) so employer contributions for ESOPs are determined without regard to employer stock or loan repayments and adds a new 415(o) providing that forfeitures allocated in ESOPs are not annual additions.
The amendments apply to plan years beginning after the date of enactment, creating an explicit transition point for compliance and plan-administration changes.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Special rules that exclude ESOP stock and loan repayments from benefit/contribution limits
This ERISA addition collects four specific rules that treat employer-stock contributions and loan repayments used to acquire employer securities differently for certain Internal Revenue Code limits. It cross-references ESOPs (using the section 407(d)(6) definition) and sets the policy framework that the Internal Revenue Code amendments implement. Practically, this is the statutory hook in ERISA that tells plan administrators that ESOP credits have separate treatment for the purposes identified in the Code.
Excludes employer stock and ESOP loan repayments from a 404 deduction/limit computation
The bill adds a new clause that explicitly removes employer-stock contributions and contributions used to repay ESOP acquisition loans from the contributions taken into account for a specific 404(a)(3)(A) determination. Administratively, this means sponsors must segregate the portion of employer contributions that are employer stock or loan-related when performing 404 calculations and tax deduction assessments.
Requires separate application of section 404 to ESOPs and other defined contribution plans
Rather than aggregating an ESOP and a company's other defined contribution plans for 404 testing, the bill directs separate limit calculations. That change reduces the risk that ESOP growth will cause a combined cap breach, but it forces recordkeepers and plan administrators to maintain discrete 404 testing workflows and documentation for each plan maintained by the employer.
Alters annual-additions math and excludes forfeitures from ESOP annual additions
The bill adjusts the second sentence of 415(c)(2) to state that, for ESOPs, employer contributions under subparagraph (A) are calculated without regard to employer stock or loan repayments. It also creates a new subsection 415(o) that ensures forfeitures allocated to ESOP accounts do not count as annual additions. These technical changes directly affect annual-additions testing and the way forfeitures are booked for ESOP accounts.
Plan years beginning after enactment
All of the amendments apply to plan years beginning after the enactment date, which creates a clear compliance start but also a transitional period requiring sponsors to modify plan documents, update recordkeeping systems, and await further Treasury/DOL guidance on implementation details.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- ESOP participants in successful companies — They can potentially continue elective contributions and receive employer matches in separate defined contribution plans without being blocked by ESOP growth that previously counted toward statutory caps.
- Employers that sponsor both an ESOP and a 401(k)-style plan — They gain flexibility to offer both employee ownership and continued retirement contributions/matching, which can make total compensation packages more attractive.
- Plan sponsors, recordkeepers, and retirement-service providers — They will see new business and advisory opportunities to redesign testing, reporting, and plan-document provisions to implement the separate-limit regime.
- Owners considering an ESOP sale or conversion — The targeted carve-outs may make ESOP structures more appealing because employees can keep saving in other tax-qualified plans, improving the perceived value of an ESOP transaction.
Who Bears the Cost
- Employers and plan sponsors — They must update plan documents, adjust payroll and recordkeeping systems, and potentially pay higher matching contributions if participants restore elective savings previously lost to cap hits.
- Third-party administrators and recordkeepers — Systems and compliance workflows must be changed to perform separate 404 and 415 calculations, track ESOP loan repayments distinctly, and report accordingly.
- ESOP participants — While eligible to save more in DC plans, participants may face increased concentration of employer stock in their retirement accounts, increasing portfolio risk that the bill does not directly mitigate.
- Regulators and tax authorities (Treasury, IRS, DOL) — They will need to issue guidance, update forms and audits, and absorb oversight and enforcement resource costs associated with the new rules.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central dilemma is balancing two legitimate goals: enabling employee ownership and letting participants fully use traditional retirement-savings vehicles versus protecting retirement-security by limiting concentrated exposure to a single employer and preventing design choices that could be used to maximize tax-favored accumulation. The bill tilts toward promoting ownership plus continued DC savings but does so without adding statutory safeguards against concentration or detailed administrative rules, leaving those trade-offs to regulators and plan sponsors.
The bill is precise about excluding employer stock contributions and ESOP-loan repayments from particular IRC computations, but it leaves open many implementation details that Treasury and the Department of Labor will need to resolve. Key questions include timing and valuation (when is an employer-stock credit treated as a contribution for limit purposes?), the mechanics of segregating contributions for testing, and whether and how these rules interact with nondiscrimination testing, top-heavy rules, and other ERISA/Code requirements not directly amended by the bill.
The statutory exclusions reduce one kind of administrative aggregation but create others: recordkeepers must track loan-repayment credits separately from ordinary employer contributions, and plan documents must reflect the distinct treatment.
There is also a substantive policy trade-off. The carve-outs can increase retirement accumulation opportunities for ESOP participants, but they also permit larger tax-favored retirement balances that may be heavily concentrated in employer equity.
The bill does not add diversification or anti-concentration guards; it simply adjusts how caps are calculated. Finally, leveraged ESOPs raise valuation and accounting complexities — loan repayments and stock allocations depend on periodic valuations, making precise timing and measurement essential for correct limit application.
Those measurement choices will matter for tax and ERISA compliance and are not settled in the text.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.