Pammie57 Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 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?
Bill Presson Posted August 26, 2020 Posted August 26, 2020 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. ugueth, Luke Bailey and Pammie57 3 William C. Presson, ERPA, QPA, QKA bill.presson@gmail.com C 205.994.4070
Patricia Neal Jensen Posted August 27, 2020 Posted August 27, 2020 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? Mike Preston and ugueth 2 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
RatherBeGolfing Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 On 8/26/2020 at 1:03 PM, Bill Presson said: Are there really some 13 year old kids they need to exclude? 12 hours ago, Patricia Neal Jensen said: I would eliminate the age requirement. This Bill Presson 1
MWeddell Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 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.
BG5150 Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 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, ERPATwo wrongs don't make a right, but three rights make a left.
MWeddell Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 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.
Mike Preston Posted August 28, 2020 Posted August 28, 2020 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. ugueth, Luke Bailey and RatherBeGolfing 3
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