S.1707 (Helping Young Americans Save for Retirement Act) amends ERISA and the Internal Revenue Code to make younger employees eligible for employer pension plans. The bill reduces the typical age-of-entry threshold from 21 to 18, creates a specific 24‑month alternative based on two consecutive 12‑month periods of 500 hours, and makes conforming changes across 401(k) and 403(b) rules.
The measure aims to expand access to workplace retirement savings for teens and young adults, while carving out an administrative buffer: employees admitted solely because of the new age rule are excluded from certain participant-counting requirements for five years. Plan sponsors, recordkeepers, auditors, and benefits compliance teams will need to revise enrollment, testing, and reporting processes if the changes take effect.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill substitutes age 18 for the current age-21 eligibility threshold in the relevant ERISA and Internal Revenue Code provisions, and defines an alternative eligibility path as the first 24‑month period made up of two consecutive 12‑month periods with at least 500 hours of service each. It also adds a rule that, for independent qualified public accountant (IQPA) counting purposes, employees who participate solely because of the new age rule are not counted as participants until five years after the first such employee joins the plan.
Who It Affects
The change touches private‑sector pension plan sponsors (defined-benefit and defined‑contribution plans), 401(k) and 403(b) plan administrators and recordkeepers, independent auditors, and workers aged roughly 18–20 who previously could be excluded by age rules. Payroll and HR systems that track eligibility and service hours will also be affected.
Why It Matters
This is a structural shift in plan eligibility that could materially increase coverage among younger employees and alter employer short‑term costs. The five‑year counting delay reduces immediate testing and funding pressure for sponsors but raises new compliance questions about how plans implement and document the carve-out.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
S.1707 changes who must be allowed to join most employer retirement plans by lowering the statutory minimum age from 21 to 18. Under current law many plans can exclude employees under age 21; this bill removes that exclusion and replaces it with an explicit eligibility rule so that 18‑year‑olds can become participants once they meet the basic entry requirements.
That alters plan enrollment timelines, notice obligations, and the pool of employees used for nondiscrimination and other testing.
The bill also clarifies and standardizes an alternative service‑based path to eligibility. Where employers use a service-hours route, the bill defines that path as the first 24‑month period composed of two consecutive 12‑month periods in which the employee worked at least 500 hours each.
In practice this creates a clear rule that part‑time employees who accumulate two successive 12‑month periods of 500 hours will be eligible at the end of that 24‑month window, provided they meet the other statutory entry criteria.To soften the immediate regulatory and testing impact on plan sponsors, the bill adds a temporary counting rule for auditors: employees who participate solely because of the new age‑18 provision are excluded from participant counts used in the IQPA opinion and related counting rules until five years after the first such employee begins participation. The bill mirrors these ERISA changes in the Internal Revenue Code provisions that govern 401(k) and 403(b) plans, and it requires plan amendments and operational changes to take effect for plan years beginning one year after enactment.Operationally, sponsors will need to update plan documents, payroll and eligibility logic, enrollment materials, and testing procedures.
Recordkeepers will be asked to track which participants joined solely under the age‑18 rule to apply the five‑year counting delay correctly. Because the bill affects both ERISA and tax-code references, benefits counsel and compliance teams will need coordinated plan amendments and standardized documentation to demonstrate compliance to auditors and regulators.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill substitutes ‘18’ for ‘21’ in the statutory age-of-entry rule that governs many employer pension plans (the text amends the ERISA age eligibility provision).
It creates a defined alternative eligibility route: the first 24‑month period composed of two consecutive 12‑month periods during each of which the employee works at least 500 hours.
For IQPA (independent auditor) counting purposes, employees who participate solely because of the new age‑18 rule are not counted as participants until five years after the first such employee begins participation.
Conforming amendments are made to the Internal Revenue Code—specifically provisions in section 401(k)(2)(D), 401(k)(15), and 403(b)(12)—to align tax and ERISA eligibility rules.
The amendments apply to plan years beginning on or after one year after the bill’s enactment, requiring plan amendments and operational changes with that effective date.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Short title
Names the measure the 'Helping Young Americans Save for Retirement Act.' This is a formal caption with no operational effect.
Lower age threshold and defined service alternative
Amends 29 U.S.C. 1052(c)(1) to permit plans to determine eligibility by substituting '18' for '21' in the age‑of‑entry clause and to define a service‑based alternative as a 24‑month window formed by two consecutive 12‑month periods with at least 500 hours in each. Practically, plans that exclude employees under 21 will need to amend their eligibility wording and operational rules to admit 18–20‑year‑olds when the statutory entry conditions are met.
Conforming technical edits and IQPA counting delay
Makes housekeeping edits to subsection headings and internal cross‑references, and adds an amendment to section 104(a)(2) that affects the auditor's participant count: employees who participate solely due to the age‑18 provision cannot be counted as participants for IQPA purposes until five years after the first such participant joins. This creates an administrative exception that reduces immediate nondiscrimination and testing exposure tied to newly eligible young participants.
Mirror changes to 401(k) and 403(b) rules
Modifies IRC section 401(k)(2)(D) to substitute age 18 for 21 and to set the same two‑consecutive‑12‑month/500‑hour alternative. It also updates cross‑references in section 401(k)(15) and 403(b)(12) so tax treatment, testing rules, and operational guidance align with the ERISA amendments. Employers must reconcile plan documents and tax compliance procedures to reflect identical eligibility mechanics across ERISA and the tax code.
Effective date
Specifies that the amendments apply to plan years beginning on or after one year after enactment, giving employers and service providers a defined transition period to amend plans, update systems, train staff, and communicate changes to affected employees.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Employees aged 18–20 who work for covered employers — they gain earlier access to employer retirement plans and any employer contributions, increasing opportunity to start saving sooner.
- Part‑time young workers who meet the two‑year/500‑hour pattern — the clarified service alternative creates a predictable path to eligibility for seasonal and part‑time employees.
- Employers that compete for younger talent — offering earlier eligibility can improve recruitment and retention among entry‑level positions without immediately increasing testing burden because of the five‑year counting delay.
- Future retirees and the broader retirement system — earlier access to workplace plans can increase lifetime coverage and compounding benefits, potentially lowering reliance on safety‑net programs decades later.
Who Bears the Cost
- Plan sponsors (employers) — they must amend plan documents, update payroll and HR systems, and potentially face higher short‑term contributions and administrative expenses when younger workers enroll.
- Recordkeepers and third‑party administrators — these vendors must implement new eligibility logic, track which participants are admitted solely under the new rule, and provide reporting that distinguishes those counts for auditors.
- Independent qualified public accountants and plan auditors — auditors must apply the new five‑year exclusion in their counting and testing workpapers while ensuring the exclusion is documented correctly, which increases audit complexity.
- Small employers with limited HR infrastructure — implementation burdens fall disproportionately on small businesses that may lack automated systems to retroactively track the two‑consecutive‑12‑month 500‑hour rule or identify carve‑out participants.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between expanding retirement access for younger workers (a long‑term public policy gain) and imposing short‑term administrative and potential funding burdens on employers and plan service providers; the bill mitigates employer pain with a five‑year counting delay, but that mitigation creates fairness and compliance complexity that will require detailed operational rules to resolve.
The bill balances broader coverage with procedural concessions, but several implementation tradeoffs are unresolved. Lowering the age threshold increases the number of eligible participants, which can raise plan costs and affect nondiscrimination and coverage testing.
The five‑year exclusion for IQPA counting reduces immediate testing exposure, but it also delays the full integration of these employees into participant pools used for other statutory calculations (for example, top‑heavy tests and employer-match formulas), creating potential mismatches between who receives benefits and who is counted for compliance.
Operational questions remain about how plans will identify and document employees who 'participate solely by reason' of the new age rule. Recordkeepers need clear guidance on flagging such participants, and auditors will require consistent documentation standards.
The two‑consecutive‑12‑month/500‑hour construct clarifies one service path but may create edge cases for employees with irregular hours, seasonal breaks, or employment interruptions; plans must decide whether to use measurement/methods consistent with existing hours-of-service rules or to create new tracking mechanisms. Finally, because the bill relies on statutory text changes across ERISA and the tax code, agencies (DOL, IRS, PBGC) will likely need to issue coordinated guidance to avoid conflicting interpretations.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.