New comparability can be useful when partners want different retirement contributions. The model needs confirmed plan compensation and a design that works for each partner’s testing group.
The business and its goal
A senior partner wants a $45,000 employer contribution and a younger partner wants $18,000. Three eligible staff members earn $150,000 combined. For this illustration, the partners’ eligible compensation has already been calculated and confirmed; the numbers are not raw K-1 distributions.
What the allocation could look like
| Participant | Age | Compensation | Rate | Employer dollars |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Senior partner | 60 | $300,000 | 15% | $45,000 |
| Younger partner | 48 | $200,000 | 9% | $18,000 |
| Paralegal | 27 | $60,000 | 5% | $3,000 |
| Legal assistant | 31 | $50,000 | 5% | $2,500 |
| Office administrator | 36 | $40,000 | 5% | $2,000 |
| Total | — | $650,000 | — | $70,500 |
The proposal puts $63,000 into the partners’ accounts and $7,500 into staff accounts, for $70,500 total employer funding. The partners receive different percentages. The staff allocation meets the illustrated 5% gateway, but both partner rate groups still need formal testing.
Illustration assumptions: A standalone defined contribution plan; all people shown are eligible for the illustrated employer contribution; owners and other specifically identified HCEs are highly compensated employees; remaining staff are non-highly compensated employees (NHCEs). Compensation is eligible plan compensation. Employer dollars include any safe harbor nonelective contribution; employee deferrals, catch-ups, matching contributions and fees are excluded unless stated. These are fictional planning examples, not completed nondiscrimination tests. Final allocations may differ.
Different targets can be more useful than one maximum
A uniform 15% contribution would provide $45,000 and $30,000 for the partners, and $22,500 for staff: $97,500 total. That also funds $12,000 more than the younger partner requested. New comparability is worth exploring here because it can address two distinct goals, not simply because it may reduce total funding.
Before modeling, clarify whether the partners’ agreement treats employer contributions as a shared expense or assigns an economic cost to each partner. The tax-qualified allocation and the firm’s internal cost sharing are related business decisions, but they are not the same calculation.
What could change the result?
Partnership earned income needs accountant/provider coordination. A newly admitted partner, a nonowner attorney who is an HCE, or an older long-serving employee can change testing. The firm’s document must permit the intended groups and allocation decisions.
Ages and rates in these tables illustrate the design conversation; they do not certify a passing allocation. Actual testing uses individual data, the plan’s provisions and applicable assumptions. Contributions already funded must be reconciled before any remaining amount is instructed.
What to ask your provider
Request a partner-by-partner schedule using confirmed compensation, staff costs and a reconciliation of any contributions already allocated. Ask what happens if the younger partner later wants the same dollars as the senior partner.
Bring the complete census and current plan documents. For the basic comparison, read new comparability versus pro rata; for the minimum-contribution calculation, see the gateway guide.
Explore the next step
Try the free scenario calculator with hypothetical inputs, or compare more allocation examples. The methodology guide explains what the calculator does and does not test.
Sources & further reading
- Treasury Regulation §1.401(a)(4)-8: cross-testing and the gateway
- Treasury Regulation §1.401(a)(4)-2: contributions and rate groups
- IRS Notice 2025-67: 2026 retirement plan limits
- Internal Revenue Code §414: related employers and special rules
- IRS: retirement plans for self-employed people
Educational content updated September 27, 2026. Examples are fictional; they illustrate funding choices and do not constitute final testing or plan-specific advice.