Leaderboard

Standing alone the amendment should be fine. It could be part of a pattern of amendments that are discriminatory if the eligibility was changed next year to exclude NHCE's of a similar age. I wouldn't worry about it.

Roll it over to an IRA. From Notice 2005-05:

Inherent in the above answer is the concept that the plan document will need to be tweaked.

Due to the profit sharing contribution being discretionary under the current plan terms, the employer can choose whatever rule they want to make the contribution.

I would eliminate the age requirement. Having an age as low as 14 invites an auditor to ask for proof that this child actually works there. Why raise this issue?

We have a lot of controls in place at our firm and we have an annual SOC 1/SSAE-18 audit done of our recordkeeping and our fiduciary services. For the MEP plan, we are responsible for pulling the data from the payroll companies and ordering the money from the company bank account to be sent to the trust company. If the data feed is not at the payroll company or the ACH pull is not processed, we are on the phone immediately to rectify. If a plan is a continual problem, the proposed PEP rules gives us a way to spin that plan out to a stand alone plan. Software and programming is key here so that we are not manually tracking payroll dates. We are directly integrated with several different payroll providers so for a lot of the sub plans, the data is fed to us directly from the payroll companies. Fortunately, we have our own programmers on staff so we can have our programmers talk directly to their programmers and work out the direct links. Getting direct feeds also means that we get census and payroll data every pay period which is huge. In order the make the MEP efficient, we have to require that the employer use a payroll system so that we can get data electronically. We can't spend the time hand keying anything and it cuts way down on the errors. It also means that if the employer can get the data into the payroll software, we can get almost everything we need directly from payroll, without having the employer report it to us separately.

The reference in question is 1.401(m)-2(a)(5)(iv) Since the reg says a plan is "permitted to" disregard the match (not required to) it follows that a plan is also permitted to include the match.

As Bird said, it's ok. But I think it's silly. Are there really some 13 year old kids they need to exclude? Just eliminate the age requirement. Usually the 18 & 21 ages are there to exclude high school and college summer help or interns. Not sure an age 14 eligibility requirement accomplishes anything.