How to Use a Defined Benefit Plan as a Late-Career Tax Shield

Why the strategy can create an unusually large current deduction --- and why the commitment, employee rules, and future tax bill matter just as much

July 31, 2026

Late in a successful career, the retirement-planning problem often changes. The concern is no longer whether someone is willing to save. It is that the familiar tax-advantaged accounts may be too small relative to current income, while the remaining accumulation window is getting shorter. A business owner may be earning more than ever, paying tax at a high marginal rate, and still feel as though the standard retirement-plan limits were built for a different season of life.

A defined benefit plan can change that math. Instead of beginning with a fixed contribution ceiling, the plan begins with a promised retirement benefit. An enrolled actuary then calculates how much the employer must contribute to fund that benefit under federal rules. For the right late-career owner, that calculation can support a much larger deductible contribution than a 401(k) alone. The result can be a substantial current-year tax deferral while capital compounds inside a qualified retirement plan.¹

I use the phrase “tax shield” carefully. Depending on the business entity and the taxpayer’s facts, the employer deduction can reduce current taxable income and may lower federal and state income taxes. It does not make the money permanently tax-free. Benefits are generally taxed as ordinary income when distributed, unless a permitted rollover continues the deferral. This is a timing strategy wrapped around a real retirement benefit and a real employer obligation --- not a one-year deduction dressed up as a pension.^1,2

A defined benefit plan is an employer-sponsored qualified retirement plan that promises a benefit under a written formula. A traditional pension might promise a monthly amount at retirement based on compensation and years of service. A cash balance plan --- the format many closely held businesses use for late-career planning --- expresses the promise as a hypothetical account that receives annual pay credits and interest credits. Despite the account-like presentation, a cash balance plan is legally a defined benefit plan. The participant does not own a self-directed investment account whose return rises and falls with the market. The employer funds a promised benefit, plan assets are pooled, and the employer bears the funding and investment risk.^1,3

That distinction is the heart of the strategy. In a 401(k), the law generally limits how much goes into an individual account. In a defined benefit plan, the promised benefit is limited, and actuarial math determines the contribution needed to fund it. A late-career participant has fewer years over which to build the benefit. Subject to compensation, service, age, plan design, existing assets, interest assumptions, employee demographics, and the statutory limits, that shorter runway can produce a large annual funding amount. It is not unusual for an actuary’s feasibility study to be the moment when the strategy becomes either compelling or plainly unsuitable.

The mechanics are straightforward even though the calculations are not. The employer adopts a written plan and trust, a third-party administrator maintains records and testing, an enrolled actuary values the promised benefits and certifies the funding schedule, the employer contributes to the trust, and the assets are invested to support the liabilities. The plan generally files an annual Form 5500-series return, with Schedule SB where required. When benefits become distributable, the participant receives the form of benefit permitted by the plan, often an annuity and, in many cash balance designs, an optional lump sum that may be eligible for rollover.^1,2

The modern framework is deliberately layered. ERISA established the federal private-pension framework in 1974, and the Pension Protection Act of 2006 later reshaped funding rules and expressly addressed statutory hybrid plans such as cash balance plans. That history helps explain why an account-looking cash balance benefit remains governed as a pension rather than as an ordinary investment account.^3,8,14

Internal Revenue Code Section 401(a) sets the qualification foundation. Sections 401(a)(4), 410(b), and 401(a)(26) prevent the plan from being designed solely for a highly paid owner while ignoring eligible employees. Section 404 governs the employer’s deduction. Sections 412 and 430 govern minimum funding. Section 415 limits the benefit. ERISA adds fiduciary, reporting, disclosure, and participant-protection duties, while Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation coverage and premiums apply to many private-sector plans, subject to important exceptions. Where ERISA Title I applies, the plan sponsor and other named fiduciaries must operate the plan for participants and beneficiaries, not simply as a personal tax account.^4,5

For 2026, the Section 415 annual benefit limit for a defined benefit plan is generally the lesser of $290,000 or 100% of the participant’s average compensation for the highest three consecutive years. That $290,000 is an annual retirement-benefit ceiling, usually expressed as an annuity-equivalent amount. It is not a $290,000 contribution limit. The dollar limit is adjusted when benefits begin before age 62 or after age 65, and it is prorated when a participant has fewer than ten years of plan participation. The compensation-based limit is also adjusted for fewer than ten years of service.^6,7

Those details matter for someone starting late. A 60-year-old does not automatically get to target the full $290,000 annual benefit and write a contribution check of any desired size. The actuary must fit the formula inside the participant’s compensation and service history, apply the age and participation adjustments, value the benefit using prescribed assumptions, and compare the result with assets already in the plan. For context, the 2026 defined contribution annual-additions limit is $72,000, but that is not an apples-to-apples comparison: one limit caps annual additions to an account, while the other caps the annual benefit a pension may promise.^6,7

The deductible range is actuarial, not a number the owner simply elects. Section 430 determines the minimum required contribution by comparing the plan’s target normal cost and funding target with plan assets. Section 404 determines the maximum deductible amount. Investment performance, interest rates, benefit accruals, and workforce changes can move the allowable or required contribution from one year to the next. Failing to meet minimum funding can produce excise taxes; contributing beyond the deductible range can also create tax problems. This is why the actuary and administrator determine the contribution range before the CPA finalizes the return.^2,8

Employee rules can materially change the economics. A plan must satisfy coverage, participation, and nondiscrimination requirements, and related businesses may need to be treated as one employer under controlled-group or affiliated-service-group rules. Moving employees into a second entity does not necessarily move them outside the testing population. A defined benefit plan can coexist with a 401(k) and profit-sharing plan, but the benefit formulas, testing, and combined deduction rules must be coordinated. The IRS notes that Section 404(a)(7) can limit combined deductions in some arrangements, with an exception when employer contributions to the defined contribution side do not exceed 6% of compensation.^1,4,9,10

Entity structure matters too. The sponsoring employer generally receives the deduction, with different reporting mechanics for a corporation, sole proprietor, or partner. For an S corporation owner, retirement-plan compensation is W-2 compensation; shareholder distributions are not earned income for plan purposes. A plan design that looks attractive using business profit alone may fail when actual compensation, related entities, and employee census data are entered.^2,11

Imagine two owners seeking the same retirement benefit. One begins funding at age 40, while the other begins at age 58. The younger owner has decades over which contributions and investment returns can build the promised benefit. The older owner has far fewer funding years. All else equal, the shorter horizon requires more capital sooner. That is the basic reason a late-career defined benefit plan may support six-figure annual contributions when a conventional 401(k) cannot.

The phrase “all else equal” is doing real work. The result depends on the owner’s age, compensation, years of service, retirement age, benefit formula, plan participation, employee ages and pay, existing retirement-plan design, expected investment return, prescribed actuarial assumptions, and plan assets. The ten-year participation adjustment under Section 415 also keeps a newly established plan from simply promising the maximum benefit without regard to years in the plan.⁷

The tax value comes from matching a large deductible contribution with a high current marginal rate. If the owner expects lower taxable income after retirement, the same dollars may eventually be distributed at a lower rate. Even if the future rate is similar, the plan can defer current tax and allow the full pre-tax contribution to compound. But the opposite can also happen. Required minimum distributions, a surviving spouse’s narrower brackets, future tax-law changes, and other retirement income can make the eventual rate equal to or higher than today’s. The tax shield therefore has to be modeled across a lifetime, not celebrated in a single tax year.¹²

Assume an enrolled actuary determines that a $200,000 employer contribution falls within the plan’s required and deductible range. Also assume the owner is in the 37% federal marginal bracket for 2026. The current federal income tax deferred on the contributed amount would be approximately $74,000, leaving $200,000 working inside the plan instead of approximately $126,000 after current federal tax. Figure 1 shows that current-year difference.¹³

The comparison is intentionally narrow. It excludes state income tax, payroll and entity-level effects, interactions with other deductions, required employee benefits, actuarial and administrative expenses, PBGC premiums if applicable, investment results, and tax on the eventual distribution. The $74,000 is current federal tax deferred, not permanent tax eliminated. The $200,000 is also retirement capital subject to plan restrictions, not spendable cash. Those two caveats are what keep a useful illustration from becoming a sales pitch.

The larger planning question is what the owner does with the deferral. If the plan simply creates a deduction now and an unmanaged tax problem later, the work is incomplete. If it fills a genuine retirement shortfall, funds a disciplined investment policy, and fits into a future distribution, rollover, Roth-conversion, charitable, and estate plan, the current deduction can become one part of a much stronger long-term design.

Figure 1: The contribution preserves the full illustrative amount as pre-tax retirement capital today; it does not eliminate tax on future distributions.

The first advantage is scale. A well-designed plan may create substantially more tax-deferred saving capacity than a defined contribution plan alone, particularly for an older, highly compensated owner with stable profits. The second is timing. The employer may receive a current deduction while the contribution is generally excluded from the participant’s current taxable income and plan earnings compound tax-deferred. The third is discipline. Required funding turns retirement saving from an optional year-end decision into a formal business obligation.^1,2

The plan can also sit beside a 401(k) or profit-sharing plan, allowing the owner and employees to receive more than one type of retirement benefit when the design and deduction limits work together. For employees, the pension benefit is real compensation, not merely a compliance cost. It can improve retirement readiness and may support retention. For an owner who is genuinely behind on retirement funding, this is one of the few qualified-plan structures capable of moving enough capital over a relatively short period to make a material difference.

There is also a behavioral advantage I would not dismiss. A large tax bill is painful but abstract; a required pension contribution converts part of that cash flow into a visible retirement asset. The money is no longer available for lifestyle creep or the next business project. That lack of flexibility is a disadvantage for some owners, but for the right person it is part of why the strategy works.

The largest risk is commitment. A qualified pension is intended to continue, not operate as a one-year tax coupon. The contribution may be required even when profits fall, and poor asset performance or changing actuarial conditions can increase future funding needs. Overfunding can be a problem too, because excess or nondeductible contributions may trigger excise tax and surplus assets can complicate termination. An owner with volatile cash flow should value flexibility more highly than the largest possible first-year deduction.^2,8

The second cost is the employee obligation. Coverage and nondiscrimination rules may require contributions for staff, and the owner must count those benefits, payroll effects, administration, actuarial work, investment management, and possible PBGC premiums when measuring the strategy’s return. PBGC coverage is fact-specific. For example, certain professional-service employer plans that have never had more than 25 active participants may be exempt, but the plan administrator or ERISA counsel should confirm the result rather than assume it.^4,14

The third tradeoff is complexity. The plan needs a written document, trust, participant notices, annual actuarial valuation, compliance testing, fiduciary oversight, investments aligned with the liabilities, and annual reporting. Operating errors can jeopardize deductions and tax qualification. A plan sponsor cannot retroactively reduce an accrued benefit merely because the business owner changes direction; Section 411(d)(6), the anti-cutback rule, protects benefits already earned.^1,15

The fourth tradeoff is liquidity and future taxation. Money in the plan is retirement money. Distributions are generally taxable, a taxable payment before age 59½ can face a 10% additional tax unless an exception applies, and required minimum distributions generally begin at age 73 or 75 depending on birth year under current law. A qualifying rollover can extend the deferral, but it does not erase the embedded ordinary-income tax.^2,12

A business can freeze future accruals or terminate a plan when it no longer fits, but termination is a process, not an escape hatch. Affected participants generally must become fully vested, the final benefit liabilities must be funded, required notices and filings must be completed, and assets must be distributed. PBGC steps may also apply. Earned benefits remain protected. The right mental model is a multi-year pension commitment with an orderly off-ramp for a legitimate business change, not a deduction that can be switched off without consequence.^15,16

The strongest candidate is usually a business owner or self-employed professional in the later part of a career who has high, predictable compensation; durable cash flow beyond personal spending needs; a meaningful retirement-funding gap; and enough years before retirement to justify the setup and ongoing work. The economics are often more favorable when the owner is older than much of the staff, but employee demographics must be tested, not guessed. The owner also needs to accept that some of the economic benefit will go to employees and that the annual contribution may not be perfectly smooth.

The weakest candidate is someone whose income is volatile, whose business may be sold or closed almost immediately, who needs access to the cash, or who is attracted only by the first-year deduction. A business with a large employee population can still use a defined benefit plan, but the staff cost may overwhelm the owner’s tax benefit. The strategy can also be a poor fit when current tax rates are already low, retirement income is expected to be much higher, or the owner has no eligible business compensation from which to support the benefit.

An ordinary employee cannot establish a personal defined benefit plan merely because retirement is near. The employer must sponsor it. A person with self-employment income can sponsor a plan for that business, but all eligible employees and related entities still have to be considered. This is why the opportunity appears most often with owners, partners, and independent professionals rather than with a late-career W-2 employee who does not control the employer’s plan.²

I would begin with an actuarial feasibility study, not a contribution target. The census should include every potentially related employee, each person’s age, compensation, service, ownership, and current retirement benefits. The model should then show the owner benefit, employee benefit, minimum and maximum contribution range, expected administrative costs, and what happens under weaker profits and weaker investment results. The goal is to understand the recurring obligation before admiring the first deduction.

Next, I would coordinate the defined benefit formula with the existing 401(k), the investment policy, the owner’s retirement date, and the future tax-distribution plan. A pension portfolio should be managed against a liability; chasing return can make the funding outcome less predictable. The CPA should model the actual entity-level deduction and the interaction with other tax items. The actuary and third-party administrator should own the qualification, testing, and funding calculations, and ERISA counsel should address document, fiduciary, controlled-group, and termination questions.

This memo is educational. It gives the framework, but the specifics are a conversation with us, your attorney, your CPA, the enrolled actuary, and the plan administrator. The best plan is tax-aware, not tax-driven. We want the deduction to be the output of a sound retirement strategy, not the reason to accept a pension obligation that the business cannot comfortably carry.

For the right late-career owner, a defined benefit plan can be one of the most powerful current-income tax deferral tools still available. Its strength comes from the same feature that creates its risk: the plan is funding a promised benefit over a relatively short period, so the contribution can be large and the commitment can be real.

I believe the strategy deserves serious consideration when profits are durable, retirement savings need to catch up, employee economics are reasonable, and the owner is willing to plan across multiple years. It deserves equal caution when cash flow is uncertain or the appeal begins and ends with the tax deduction. Plan first, product second. If the pension improves the retirement plan before taxes, the tax shield can make a good decision better.

All my best,

Brandon VanLandingham, CFA, CMT, CFP

Founder / CIO

Lifetime Gifting Strategies for Families With $10M+

Charitable Bequests vs. Lifetime Giving: Tax Implications

Irrevocable Life Insurance Trusts (ILITs): How They Work

Estate Planning Documents Every Oklahoma Family Needs

[1] Internal Revenue Service, Defined benefit plan (reviewed June 6, 2026). https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/defined-benefit-plan

[2] Internal Revenue Service, Publication 560: Retirement Plans for Small Business (SEP, SIMPLE, and Qualified Plans) (2025 publication, including 2026 limits). https://www.irs.gov/publications/p560

[3] Internal Revenue Service, Issue Snapshot: How to Change Interest Crediting Rates in a Cash Balance Plan. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/issue-snapshot-how-to-change-interest-crediting-rates-in-a-cash-balance-plan

[4] Internal Revenue Service, A Guide to Common Qualified Plan Requirements. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/a-guide-to-common-qualified-plan-requirements

[5] U.S. Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, Understanding Your Fiduciary Responsibilities Under a Group Retirement Plan. https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ebsa/employers-and-advisers/small-business-owners/understanding-your-responsibilities

[6] Internal Revenue Service, Notice 2025-67, 2026 Cost-of-Living Adjustments for Retirement Plans. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2025-49_IRB

[7] 26 U.S.C. Section 415, Limitations on Benefits and Contributions Under Qualified Plans. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/26/415

[8] 26 U.S.C. Section 430, Minimum funding standards for single-employer defined benefit pension plans. https://www.govinfo.gov/link/uscode/26/430

[9] Internal Revenue Service, Employee Plans Examination Guidelines: Controlled Group and Affiliated Service Group Rules. https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-tege/epchd704.pdf

[10] Internal Revenue Service, Combined limits under IRC Section 404(a)(7). https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/combined-limits-under-irc-section-404a7

[11] Internal Revenue Service, Retirement Plan FAQs Regarding Contributions: S Corporation. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plan-faqs-regarding-contributions-s-corporation

[12] Internal Revenue Service, Notice 2026-13, Guidance for Certain Required Minimum Distributions for 2026. https://www.irs.gov/irb/2026-06_IRB

[13] Internal Revenue Service, IRS releases tax inflation adjustments for tax year 2026. https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-releases-tax-inflation-adjustments-for-tax-year-2026-including-amendments-from-the-one-big-beautiful-bill

[14] Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation, PBGC Insurance Coverage. https://www.pbgc.gov/employers-practitioners/legal-resources/insurance-coverage

[15] Internal Revenue Service, Guidance on the Anti-Cutback Rules of Section 411(d)(6). https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/guidance-on-the-anti-cutback-rules-of-section-411d6

[16] Internal Revenue Service, Terminating a Retirement Plan. https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/terminating-a-retirement-plan

This piece is educational. It is not legal, tax, or accounting advice and is not a recommendation to take or refrain from any specific action. Tax law is fact-specific and changes regularly. Please coordinate any decisions discussed here with your attorney, your CPA, and Perissos before acting.

Perissos Private Wealth Management is a Registered Investment Adviser ("RIA"). Registration as an investment adviser does not imply a certain level of skill or training, and the content of this communication has not been approved or verified by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission or by any state securities authority. Perissos Private Wealth Management renders individualized investment advice to persons in a particular state only after complying with the state's regulatory requirements, or pursuant to an applicable state exemption or exclusion. All investments carry risk, and no investment strategy can guarantee a profit or protect from loss of capital. Past performance is not indicative of future results.

The information contained in this newsletter is intended to provide general information about market themes. It is not intended to offer investment advice. Investment advice will only be given after a client engages our services by executing the appropriate investment services agreement. Information regarding investment products and services is given solely to provide education regarding our investment philosophy and our strategies. You should not rely on any information provided in making investment decisions.

Market data, articles and other content in this material are based on generally available information and are believed to be reliable. Perissos Private Wealth Management does not guarantee the accuracy of the information contained in this material.

Perissos Private Wealth Management will provide all prospective clients with a copy of our current Form ADV, Part 2A (Disclosure Brochure), Part 2B (Supplemental Brochures), and Part 3 (Client Relationship Summary) prior to commencing an advisory relationship. You can also view these documents at any time at adviserinfo.sec.gov or by contacting us requesting a copy.