CFP®: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Try 10 focused CFP® questions on Retirement Savings and Income Planning, with answers and explanations, then continue with Securities Prep.

On this page

Open the matching Securities Prep practice page for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Topic snapshot

FieldDetail
Exam routeCFP®
IssuerCFP Board
Topic areaRetirement Savings and Income Planning
Blueprint weight18%
Page purposeFocused sample questions before returning to mixed practice

How to use this topic drill

Use this page to isolate Retirement Savings and Income Planning for CFP®. Work through the 10 questions first, then review the explanations and return to mixed practice in Securities Prep.

PassWhat to doWhat to record
First attemptAnswer without checking the explanation first.The fact, rule, calculation, or judgment point that controlled your answer.
ReviewRead the explanation even when you were correct.Why the best answer is stronger than the closest distractor.
RepairRepeat only missed or uncertain items after a short break.The pattern behind misses, not the answer letter.
TransferReturn to mixed practice once the topic feels stable.Whether the same skill holds up when the topic is no longer obvious.

Blueprint context: 18% of the practice outline. A focused topic score can overstate readiness if you recognize the pattern too quickly, so use it as repair work before timed mixed sets.

Sample questions

These questions are original Securities Prep practice items aligned to this topic area. They are designed for self-assessment and are not official exam questions.

Question 1

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Jordan and Elena are reviewing a draft retirement-income projection. Based on the exhibit, which planning action is fully supported?

Exhibit: Retirement-income snapshot

ItemValue
Elena age / FRA62 / 67
Elena 2026 earnings$30,000 part-time
Elena pension$3,600/month from a state university job not covered by Social Security
Elena Social Security retirement benefit$900/month at FRA, before any WEP adjustment
Elena years of substantial covered earnings22
Jordan Social Security retirement benefit$2,800/month at FRA
Planner draft assumptionElena can add a spousal benefit on Jordan’s record next year
Rule noteGPO reduces Social Security spousal/survivor benefits by 2/3 of a noncovered pension
  • A. Ignore Elena’s work income in the claiming analysis.
  • B. Keep the spousal benefit assumption unchanged.
  • C. Raise Elena’s own Social Security estimate.
  • D. Remove Elena’s projected spousal benefit from the plan.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: The draft should not rely on Elena receiving a spousal benefit on Jordan’s record. Under the exhibit’s GPO rule, 2/3 of her $3,600 noncovered pension is $2,400, which is more than the maximum spousal benefit implied by Jordan’s $2,800 FRA benefit.

The key concept is the Government Pension Offset. When someone receives a pension from government work that was not covered by Social Security, any Social Security spousal or survivor benefit is reduced by 2/3 of that pension. Here, Elena’s offset is 2/3 of $3,600, or $2,400 per month.

Jordan’s FRA benefit is $2,800, so Elena’s unreduced spousal benefit at FRA would be at most 50% of that, or $1,400 per month, and even less if she claims next year before FRA. Because the offset is larger than the possible spousal benefit, the planner’s draft assumption is not supportable.

Her own worker benefit may still face WEP, and her earnings may matter before FRA, but the exhibit most clearly shows that the projected spousal benefit should be removed.

  • Keep spousal benefit fails because the GPO offset from Elena’s noncovered pension is large enough to wipe out any likely spouse benefit.
  • Raise own estimate reverses WEP logic; a noncovered pension can reduce a worker’s own Social Security benefit rather than increase it.
  • Ignore work income overlooks that earnings before full retirement age can still affect benefits under the earnings test.

Two-thirds of Elena’s $3,600 noncovered pension is $2,400, which exceeds any likely spousal benefit based on Jordan’s $2,800 FRA benefit.


Question 2

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Rosa, 63, plans to retire next month from a county job that was not covered by Social Security. Her county pension will be $3,600 per month. SSA estimates her own retirement benefit at $700 per month before any WEP adjustment, and her spousal benefit based on her husband’s record would be $1,200 per month. Her husband, 67, already receives his Social Security retirement benefit. Rosa wants to claim the spousal benefit to avoid IRA withdrawals. She will have no wages after retirement. Which issue is most decisive in recommending against building the plan around a spousal benefit?

  • A. Her own retirement benefit could increase if she delays claiming until age 70.
  • B. Her noncovered pension will trigger the government pension offset on the spousal benefit.
  • C. Her own retirement benefit may be reduced by the windfall elimination provision.
  • D. Her benefits will be withheld under the earnings test until full retirement age.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: The decisive issue is the government pension offset. Two-thirds of Rosa’s $3,600 noncovered pension is $2,400, which exceeds the quoted $1,200 spousal benefit, so the spousal amount would likely be reduced to zero.

The core concept is matching the Social Security rule to the benefit type under consideration. The government pension offset applies when a client receives a pension from government employment not covered by Social Security and seeks a spousal or survivor benefit; that benefit is generally reduced by two-thirds of the pension. Here, two-thirds of Rosa’s $3,600 pension is $2,400, which is greater than the projected $1,200 spousal benefit, so relying on a spousal claim is not realistic. WEP is a separate issue that may reduce Rosa’s own worker benefit, not the spouse-based benefit she wants to use, and the earnings test does not drive this case because she will have no wages after retirement. The closest distractors involve her own worker benefit, but the recommendation changes because the strategy depends on a spouse-based benefit.

  • Own benefit issue The option focusing on WEP identifies a real issue, but WEP applies to her own worker benefit rather than the spousal benefit she wants to claim.
  • No earnings The earnings-test option does not control because Rosa will have no wages after retirement.
  • Delay credits Delaying to age 70 may help her own worker benefit, but it does not fix a spousal benefit likely eliminated by GPO.

Because two-thirds of her $3,600 noncovered pension is $2,400, the government pension offset would likely eliminate the projected $1,200 spousal benefit.


Question 3

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Elena, 59, hopes to retire at 63, and her spouse Marcus, 57, hopes to retire at 60. They still have a $2,300 monthly mortgage with 8 years remaining and expect to contribute $18,000 a year toward their youngest child’s college costs for the first 4 years of retirement. Marcus will need private health coverage until Medicare begins, and Elena is deciding whether to elect a pension survivor option because they want the surviving spouse to keep the home if one dies early. Before estimating whether they are on track, which assumption approach is most appropriate for the CFP professional to use in the retirement needs analysis?

  • A. Use a higher portfolio return assumption to absorb healthcare and college costs.
  • B. Use a fixed 70% income replacement ratio because savings and payroll taxes will stop.
  • C. Anchor the analysis on Social Security estimates and refine expenses afterward.
  • D. Build phased after-tax spending assumptions for temporary costs, pre-Medicare healthcare, and survivor needs.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: A retirement needs analysis should start with realistic after-tax spending assumptions that reflect how expenses change over time. For this couple, mortgage payments, college support, pre-Medicare healthcare, and survivor income needs make a generic replacement ratio too crude to estimate retirement needs accurately.

Retirement needs analysis depends first on estimating the client’s target retirement spending, not on assuming investment returns or plugging in a standard replacement ratio. In this scenario, spending will change by phase: the mortgage continues for 8 years, college support lasts only 4 years, private health coverage is needed until Medicare, and the survivor may need enough income to keep the home. The CFP professional should therefore build an after-tax cash-flow assumption by phase, then test it against pension elections, Social Security, taxes, inflation, longevity, and portfolio assets. A flat percentage of pre-retirement income would ignore the couple’s temporary and survivor-specific obligations. The key takeaway is that a detailed spending assumption is the foundation for the rest of the retirement projection.

  • Fixed ratio misses temporary mortgage, college, and healthcare costs that do not fit one percentage.
  • Higher return affects the funding result, but it does not estimate what the couple will need to spend.
  • Social Security first skips the essential step of defining the retirement spending target before matching income sources.

Phased after-tax spending assumptions best capture their changing retirement cash needs, including mortgage, college, healthcare, and survivor obligations.


Question 4

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Melissa, age 54, owns a manufacturing firm with 14 employees. She wants to boost retirement savings before retiring at 65 and likes the idea of large deductible contributions. However, her firm’s profits swing widely with project-based contracts, and she does not want a plan that could force large employer contributions in weak years. She is choosing between a profit-sharing 401(k) and a cash balance defined benefit plan. Which client constraint is most decisive in favoring a profit-sharing 401(k) over a cash balance defined benefit plan?

  • A. Need to include non-owner employees in the plan
  • B. Willingness to accept higher plan administration costs
  • C. Need for flexible employer contributions during uneven cash flow
  • D. Desire for tax-deductible retirement contributions

Best answer: C

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: The deciding issue is contribution flexibility. A profit-sharing 401(k) can let the employer reduce or skip employer contributions in weak years, while a cash balance defined benefit plan is generally better suited to businesses that can support ongoing funding commitments.

This comparison turns on the difference between a defined contribution plan with discretionary employer funding and a defined benefit plan with more rigid funding expectations. Melissa’s wish to save more and deduct contributions is important, but her uneven business cash flow and stated unwillingness to be locked into large employer contributions are more decisive. A profit-sharing 401(k) preserves flexibility because employer contributions can vary by year, subject to plan rules. By contrast, a cash balance defined benefit plan is usually most appropriate when the owner has stable earnings and can reliably support required contributions over time. The key takeaway is that liquidity and funding flexibility can outweigh the appeal of higher potential contributions.

  • The option focused on deductible contributions is less decisive because both plans can offer tax-advantaged retirement savings.
  • The option focused on higher administration costs matters, but cost tolerance does not remove the funding risk of a defined benefit plan.
  • The option focused on covering employees is not the main differentiator because both plan types must satisfy employee coverage rules.

A profit-sharing 401(k) allows discretionary employer contributions, while a cash balance defined benefit plan generally requires more consistent funding.


Question 5

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Maria, 58, owns a consulting practice with no employees other than her spouse. Annual profits have ranged from $90,000 to $350,000, and in weaker years she may need to conserve cash for operating costs and equipment. Her CPA notes that a cash balance plan could allow much larger deductible retirement contributions than a SEP IRA. If Maria values the ability to reduce or skip contributions in lean years more than maximizing annual contributions, which action best aligns with that priority?

  • A. Delay adopting a plan until profits stabilize.
  • B. Establish a SIMPLE IRA to keep annual funding modest.
  • C. Establish a cash balance plan for maximum deductible funding.
  • D. Establish a SEP IRA with discretionary annual funding.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: When business income is uneven, retirement plan choice should reflect liquidity needs as well as tax benefits. A SEP IRA gives Maria discretion to contribute less or nothing in a down year, so it better matches her stated priority than a higher-capacity plan built around more consistent funding.

Choosing a business retirement plan means matching plan design to the client’s cash-flow reality. Maria’s most important fact is not that a cash balance plan can shelter more income; it is that her profits are volatile and she may need to preserve business liquidity in some years. A SEP IRA is generally better when funding flexibility is the priority because employer contributions are discretionary each year. By contrast, plans designed for very high contribution potential are best when the owner can reliably support ongoing funding.

  • Start with the client’s cash-flow stability.
  • If contributions may need to drop to zero in some years, favor a discretionary funding structure.
  • Pursue higher-capacity plans when stable earnings make larger annual funding realistic.

The closest trap is choosing the highest deductible option even though the client’s real constraint is flexibility.

  • Highest limit sounds attractive, but the higher-capacity plan is less suitable when the owner may need to skip contributions in lean years.
  • Lower target funding is not enough by itself, because a SIMPLE IRA still requires employer contributions each year.
  • Wait-and-see is unnecessary, since Maria can begin saving now through a plan that does not lock her into fixed annual funding.

A SEP IRA best fits variable business cash flow because contributions are discretionary each year, unlike the stronger ongoing funding expectations of a cash balance plan.


Question 6

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Jordan, age 34, is deciding whether to make this year’s IRA contribution to a Roth IRA or a fully deductible traditional IRA. Because Jordan left a high-paying job midyear to start a business, she is in the 12% federal bracket this year but expects to be back in the 24% bracket within two years. She expects retirement income from a frozen pension, Social Security, and required minimum distributions from pretax accounts, can pay current tax from cash flow, and plans to contribute the maximum IRA amount either way. Which contribution approach is best supported by these facts?

  • A. Split Roth and traditional IRA contributions because time horizon outweighs tax rates.
  • B. Choose Roth IRA contributions because Jordan’s current bracket is unusually low.
  • C. Choose traditional IRA contributions because pretax compounding is stronger over time.
  • D. Choose traditional IRA contributions because future pension and RMD income favor today’s deduction.

Best answer: B

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: Roth contributions are favored when the client is in an unusually low marginal bracket now and expects a higher marginal rate later. Jordan’s 12% year appears temporary, while future earnings, pension income, and pretax-account distributions point to higher future taxation, and Jordan does not need a current deduction.

The core comparison between Roth and traditional contributions is the marginal tax rate paid now versus the marginal tax rate likely to apply when funds are withdrawn. Jordan is in a temporary 12% bracket, expects to return to 24%, and also expects taxable retirement income from a frozen pension, Social Security, and required minimum distributions. Those facts support paying tax at today’s lower rate through a Roth contribution rather than taking a small current deduction and likely paying more later. Jordan can also pay the current tax from cash flow, so the full IRA contribution stays invested. A split approach can be useful when future tax rates are genuinely unclear, but these facts point more clearly toward Roth.

  • Pretax compounding is misleading because time horizon by itself does not make traditional better; tax-rate timing is the deciding factor.
  • Tax-rate hedging can fit uncertain cases, but Jordan’s temporary 12% bracket and likely higher future income make the direction clearer.
  • Current deduction focus fails because expected pension and pretax-account distributions generally strengthen the case for paying tax now, not later.

Roth contributions fit best because Jordan can pay tax during a temporary 12% year and expects higher taxable income later.


Question 7

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Elena, 64, wants more freedom but is not ready for a full stop. She enjoys mentoring, dislikes heavy travel, and her employer will let her move to a 3-day schedule for one year while keeping group health coverage. If she retires now, she will need individual health insurance until Medicare and larger portfolio withdrawals during a down market. Which recommendation best aligns with sound retirement-transition planning?

  • A. Retire now and cover the gap with larger cash reserves.
  • B. Retire now and claim Social Security immediately.
  • C. Shift to a one-year phased retirement, then reassess full retirement.
  • D. Stay full-time until age 70, then retire all at once.

Best answer: C

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: A phased retirement is most appropriate when a client can reduce work instead of stopping abruptly and that change improves multiple planning areas at once. Here, it bridges the health-insurance gap, lowers portfolio pressure in a down market, and lets Elena adjust gradually to retirement.

Phased retirement is often the better choice when a client is not fully ready for a hard stop and continued part-time work meaningfully improves the plan. Here, Elena has an available reduced schedule, still values part of her work, and gains two clear financial advantages from staying partially employed for one year: employer health coverage until Medicare and less need to draw from her portfolio during a down market. That makes the transition both behaviorally easier and financially cleaner. A hard stop would force several risks at once, including higher near-term insurance costs and greater sequence-of-returns pressure. The best recommendation is the one that matches her preferences while preserving flexibility.

  • Claiming Social Security immediately does not solve the insurance gap or the need for a gradual transition, and it may lock in lower lifetime benefits.
  • Staying full-time until age 70 ignores Elena’s stated goals and skips a workable middle ground already available to her.
  • Funding an immediate retirement from cash reserves still leaves the pre-Medicare coverage issue and increases draw pressure during a weak market.

Phased retirement best fits because it preserves employer coverage, reduces near-term withdrawals, and matches Elena’s desire for a gradual transition.


Question 8

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Jordan and Priya, both age 52, ask their CFP professional for a first-pass retirement projection at age 65. Based on the case file, which planning action is fully supported?

Exhibit: Retirement plan snapshot

ParticipantPlanKey details
JordanCurrent employer 401(k)Balance $620,000; contributes 10%; 4% match
JordanFormer employer cash balance pensionVested; statement shows hypothetical account value $185,000 and life annuity at 65 of $1,150/month
PriyaCity government 457(b)Balance $240,000; contributes 8%; no employer match
  • A. Model the cash balance plan as pension income and the others as accounts.
  • B. Classify the city 457(b) as a defined benefit pension.
  • C. Apply one combined deferral cap to future 401(k) and 457(b) savings.
  • D. Wait for a lump-sum quote before including the cash balance plan.

Best answer: A

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: The exhibit shows three different retirement plan types. Jordan’s cash balance pension is still a defined benefit plan even though it displays a hypothetical account value, while the 401(k) and Priya’s governmental 457(b) are account-based plans suitable for asset projections.

A cash balance plan often looks like an account, but legally it is a defined benefit pension sponsored and funded by the employer. Because the exhibit already provides a life annuity estimate at age 65, it is reasonable to include that benefit in a retirement-income projection as pension income. By contrast, Jordan’s 401(k) and Priya’s city-government 457(b) are account-based arrangements, so their retirement contribution depends on balances, future contributions, growth, and withdrawal assumptions. Government sponsorship of the 457(b) does not turn it into a defined benefit plan. The key takeaway is to sort plans by structure first: pension-style benefits for defined benefit plans, and account-value modeling for defined contribution-style plans.

  • Shared limit confusion fails because deferral limits are not combined into one household cap across spouses’ separate plans.
  • Government employer trap fails because a city-sponsored 457(b) is still an account-based deferred compensation plan, not a pension formula benefit.
  • Delay unnecessarily fails because the exhibit already gives a usable annuity estimate for the cash balance pension; a lump-sum quote is not required for an initial projection.

A cash balance plan is a defined benefit plan despite its account-style statement, while the 401(k) and governmental 457(b) are account-based plans.


Question 9

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Martin, 65, will retire next month. His spouse, Dana, 58, works full time and can add Martin to her employer health plan. Martin asks whether he should delay Medicare Part B and use Dana’s plan for two years. Assume that if Dana’s plan is based on current active employment at an employer with 20 or more employees, that plan is generally primary for Martin; otherwise Medicare is generally primary. Before advising, which clarification matters most?

  • A. Whether their income may trigger Medicare IRMAA surcharges
  • B. Whether Martin would later prefer Medigap or Medicare Advantage
  • C. Whether Dana’s plan is active-employee coverage from an employer with 20 or more employees
  • D. Whether Martin plans to delay Social Security until age 70

Best answer: C

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: The key clarification is whether Martin has qualifying employer-based coverage through Dana’s current employment at an employer large enough for that plan to be primary. That determines whether delaying Medicare Part B is potentially appropriate or could leave him exposed to coverage gaps and penalties.

Before giving guidance on Medicare enrollment timing, the CFP professional should first verify the fact that controls coordination of benefits: whether the client is covered under a spouse’s current active-employment group plan and whether that employer is large enough for the group plan to be primary. If that condition is not met, Medicare is generally primary, so delaying Part B can create uncovered claims and late-enrollment consequences. This is a good CFP-level example of clarifying the decision-critical fact before discussing cost, plan preferences, or broader retirement-income issues. Income-related premiums and future plan design choices matter, but only after confirming whether delaying enrollment is even safe and appropriate under the client’s coverage arrangement.

  • Social Security timing affects retirement income strategy, but it does not determine whether delaying Part B is safe.
  • IRMAA exposure matters for premium budgeting after enrollment, not for primary-versus-secondary coverage coordination.
  • Plan design preference becomes relevant after deciding enrollment timing; it does not answer whether Martin can defer Part B appropriately.

That fact determines whether Martin may be able to delay Part B without creating a primary coverage problem or late-enrollment risk.


Question 10

Topic: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

A CFP professional is advising Ava, 44, who owns an S corporation with four employees. She wants a retirement arrangement she can start quickly, keep administration simple, let employees contribute from their own pay, and limit the employer commitment to a predictable modest amount. Ava also has $180,000 in a former employer’s 401(k), is in a high tax bracket, and likes the idea of Roth tax-free income later. Which client objective is most decisive in recommending a SIMPLE IRA for the business?

  • A. Funding a personal Roth IRA for tax-free qualified withdrawals.
  • B. Maximizing Ava’s own employer-funded contribution in strong-profit years.
  • C. Preserving former 401(k) assets for a future roll-in to another plan.
  • D. Allowing employee salary deferrals with a manageable employer commitment.

Best answer: D

What this tests: Retirement Savings and Income Planning

Explanation: The decisive factor is Ava’s desire to let employees contribute from pay while keeping the employer obligation modest and administration simple. That combination points to a SIMPLE IRA, while SEP, Roth, traditional, and rollover IRAs serve different planning purposes.

The core distinction is that a SIMPLE IRA is a small-employer retirement arrangement built around employee salary deferrals plus a limited employer contribution. In Ava’s case, the employee-deferral feature and predictable employer cost are more important than her high tax bracket or her interest in tax-free Roth income. A SEP IRA is often better when the owner wants flexible, employer-only contributions and the ability to contribute more in strong-profit years, but it does not give employees their own salary-deferral feature. Traditional and Roth IRAs are personal IRAs with much lower contribution capacity and do not solve the firm’s workplace-plan need. Her old 401(k) may still be moved to a rollover IRA, but that is a separate planning decision from selecting the business retirement arrangement. The closest distractor is the SEP-oriented contribution-flexibility goal.

  • SEP focus points toward a SEP IRA, but it misses Ava’s key need for employee salary deferrals.
  • Roth motive is a personal IRA objective and does not address the firm’s workplace-plan design.
  • Old plan assets relate to a rollover IRA decision, not the best business retirement arrangement for current employees.

A SIMPLE IRA is designed for small employers that want employee elective deferrals with relatively simple administration and modest required employer contributions.

Continue with full practice

Use the CFP® Practice Test page for the full Securities Prep route, mixed-topic practice, timed mock exams, explanations, and web/mobile app access.

Open the matching Securities Prep practice page for timed mocks, topic drills, progress tracking, explanations, and full practice.

Free review resource

Read the CFP® guide on SecuritiesMastery.com, then return to Securities Prep for timed practice.

Revised on Thursday, May 14, 2026