JAY21 Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Does anyone have any current practical experience on a late Volume Submitter amenders for GUST (just discovered a plan was missed). Has anyone recently submitted a late amender for GUST to the IRS under their closing agreement program ? (forget the revised names of these programs). I believe Rev. Proc. 2003-44 is the appropriate guidance, and I know the penalty sanction is supposed to "consider" part of what the max sanction amount would be (e.g., 40% of amount if trust was disqualified or something like that), but practically speaking, the last time we did restatements for TRA 86, it seemed like in the immediate 6 months or so after the deadline most late amenders were getting slapped with some fairly modest fees ($1,000 - $2,000) as a practical matter. Anyone have any current experience with what late Volume Submitter amenders are receiving as penalties in general currently ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Preston Posted February 25, 2004 Share Posted February 25, 2004 Late amenders are subject to a specific schedule (the VCP schedule) divided by 2 if the submission is within 1 year of when it should have been done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAY21 Posted February 25, 2004 Author Share Posted February 25, 2004 Mike is that schedule part of the Rev. Proc. 2003-44 (haven't worked my way through all of if) or is it found somewhere else ? Thx. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Preston Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 See Section 12 of that very document. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8r Posted February 26, 2004 Share Posted February 26, 2004 One other point. As stated, the fee is reduced to 50% if you update within one year of the deadline. Unfortunately, if it's a GUST update, you're beyond one year. Even though most pre-approved plans had a deadline of Sept. 30, 2003, when you miss that deadline it relates back to the unextended deadline - the later of 2/28/2002 or the last day of the plan year beginning in 2001. So, for most plans the deadline was 2/28/2002 so the reduction in the sanction can't be used. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JAY21 Posted February 27, 2004 Author Share Posted February 27, 2004 Thanks for the additional clarification on the deadline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Preston Posted February 27, 2004 Share Posted February 27, 2004 g8r, do you have any citation on the inability to use the 9/30/03 extended RAP as the basis for the EPCRS one-year rule? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8r Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 No, I don't have cite on that. It's based on an interpretation of the rules. The extension to 9/30 was a limited extension. If you didn't meet the requirements, it seems that the general deadline would apply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Preston Posted March 1, 2004 Share Posted March 1, 2004 Well, in the absence of a clear rule to the contrary, I think I'd submit on the basis if the lower fee being applicable and then see what happens. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g8r Posted March 3, 2004 Share Posted March 3, 2004 Agreed. It does no harm to try the submission with the lower fee. I would just let the client know that there is a possibility that the fee will be higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
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