Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Is there anything that prevents a plan sponsor from Lowering the age requirement to age 14?  I know max is 21.  He wants to let his kid participate...not sure he'd work 1000 hours but I guess if he changes it to NO eligibility  requirements -....as long as every employee is treated the same - can he do this?

Posted

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.

William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA
bill.presson@gmail.com
C 205.994.4070

 

Posted

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?

Patricia Neal Jensen, JD

Vice President and Nonprofit Practice Leader

|Future Plan, an Ascensus Company

21031 Ventura Blvd., 12th Floor

Woodland Hills, CA 91364

E patricia.jensen@futureplan.com

P 949-325-6727

Posted

If the owner's child is an HCE through family attribution, the timing of the amendment may be discriminatory under the 401(a)(4) regulations.

Posted
1 hour ago, MWeddell said:

If the owner's child is an HCE through family attribution, the timing of the amendment may be discriminatory under the 401(a)(4) regulations.

So the kid isn't able to participate unless they hire someone else under age 21?

I would think it would be discriminatory if the reduced the age for 2020 and reinstated age 21 next year.

QKA, QPA, CPC, ERPA

Two wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.

Posted

I'm raising it as a possible issue under Treas. Reg. Section 1.401(a)(4)-5 if the owner's child is an HCE.  Arguably, the amendment is being made when the only person expected to benefit from it is an HCE. 

I'm not resolving the issue.

Posted

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.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use