Santo Gold Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 I have a sole prop who has a 401k plan for several years. He turned 62 in 2015 and started to take social security. He still owns the business, works and maintains the plan (he is the only eligible participant in the plan). He is being told by others that since he took SS at 62, that he cannot fund his retirement plan anymore. I have not heard of this before and suspect something is being confused, but can anyone confirm whether taking SS prevents him from funding his 401k plan? Thanks
Lou S. Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 New one on me. I've never heard of such a thing.
Mike Preston Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Ah, the omnipresent "others". Gotta love 'em.
david rigby Posted August 25, 2015 Posted August 25, 2015 Ask the "others" for documentation, or sources. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Santo Gold Posted August 26, 2015 Author Posted August 26, 2015 The "Others" reference themselves as a source. Thanks for the replies.
mbozek Posted August 28, 2015 Posted August 28, 2015 Someone is confusing the requirement that SS benefits are reduced by earnings over $15,000 for SS beneficiaries under 66 with the funding of a retirement plan. Under IRC there is no max age for SE owner maintaining/contributing to a retirement plan, e.g.,contributing to a SEP. Only requirement is to take MRDS at 70 1/2. mjb
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now