Leaderboard

The IRS provided guidance in Notice 2014-35. This was when the Schedule SSA was replaced by Form 8955-SSA and the filing were made through EFAST2, and yes, that was 10 years ago. You will need to file a form for each year that needed to be filed. If the 8955-SSA is late for a year, there is relief from penalties if the 8955-SSA is filed within 30 days after the 5500 under the DFVCP for that year. The late 8955-SSA must be filed on paper and sent to the IRS. On the 8955-SSA, check the special extension box in Part I Box C and enter DFVC for the description. Send the forms, if using mail to: Department of the Treasury Internal Revenue Service Center Ogden, UT 84201-0024 If using a private delivery service, send to: Internal Revenue Submission Processing Center 1973 Rulon White Blvd Ogden, UT 84201

A hardship is not an eligible rollover distribution, so there is no mandatory withholding. There is 10% automatic withholding but that can be waived. I don't see a problem here.

§401(a)(9) sends you §416 which sends you to §318 for attribution which is used for RMDs. For purposes of the RMD rules he owns the stock of his children, just like HCE determination. It is different for Controlled Groups but be happy the RMDs were properly done and you don't have to go back for missed RMDs under VCP.

I agree that would seem to make sense, but why bother risking some agent deciding otherwise? If you are preparing the filing using software that supports 8955-SSA filings, the software very likely imports the participant data from a spreadsheet. If should be very easy to copy data from one year to another, and report an employee as an 'A' in one year and a 'D' in a subsequent year.

What Paul I says. And, if the plan or its administrator is or was advised by a lawyer, consider that the independent qualified public accountant might want, in addition to the administrator’s management-representations letter, the lawyer’s letter to confirm that she has not “given substantive attention” to the plan’s contingent liability (or contingent gain) beyond those management disclosed.

You include both catch-ups. They could have drafted the language better, but the reason is that 414(v) is referenced in 402(g) but it is not referenced in 408(p). That's why they mention it for the simple.

The instructions to the Form 5500 include this note: Note. An amended filing must be submitted as a complete replacement of the previously submitted filing. You will need to resubmit the entire form, with all required schedules and attachments, through EFAST2. You cannot submit just the parts of the filing that are being amended. The reason EFAST2 takes this approach is when a form is amended, the existing filing is removed from the system and the amended is added into the system. In the described situation, an amended filing will need to include the audit report for the year being amended. It seems that the auditors need to answer the question whether anything changes in the audit report, if any new audit steps need to be taken in this situation, and if nothing changes in the audit report, that the auditor stands by the original audit report as valid. My bet is the audit report will need to be reissued. Hopefully the audit firm will rely on its previous and only charge a fee for work impacted by the change to a MEP filing.

Before turning to questions about how to report on a multiple-employer plan, the plan’s administrator might want its lawyer’s confidential advice about whether the plan’s participating charitable organizations are more than one employer or might be one employer for one or more relevant purposes. For charities, no one owns shares of stock, other capital interests, or profits interests. Instead, the Treasury department’s interpretation of Internal Revenue Code § 414(c) looks to powers to elect, appoint, or remove a charity’s director, trustee, or member, including powers to do so indirectly, as a way to look for common control. 26 C.F.R. § 1.414(c)-5(b). Further, “exempt organizations that maintain a plan . . . that covers one or more employees from each organization may treat themselves as under common control for purposes of section 414(c) (and, thus, as a single employer for all purposes for which section 414(c) applies) if each of the organizations regularly coordinates their day-to-day exempt activities.” 26 C.F.R. § 1.414(c)-5(c)(1) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.414(c)-5#p-1.414(c)-5(c)(1). While the law about what is or isn’t one employer varies with each of several ERISA title I, Internal Revenue Code, and securities laws’ purposes, the Treasury department’s rule to interpret and implement Internal Revenue Code might be a useful support. That the retirement plan’s administrator assumed for several years that the distinct charitable organizations comprise one employer perhaps suggests some practical grounds under which they might have been, and might be, one employer. This is not advice to anyone.

What rule/mechanism can you cite for a retroactive opt-out? I honestly don't care about what the participant wants. This is a plan issue, you correct and move on. Do not make the situation worse by trying to do what they "want" instead of just doing what is right.

You're fine. If your spouse had enrolled in the general purpose health FSA, that would have been disqualifying coverage that blocked HSA eligibility for both your spouse and you. However, in this case your spouse declined the health FSA. Mere eligibility for the health FSA is irrelevant here. That's why there's no issue. Only the ability to incur reimbursable claims pre-deductible would be disqualifying coverage--and you do not have that ability in this situation where your spouse declined the health FSA. More details: https://www.newfront.com/blog/hsa-interaction-health-fsa-2 Slide summary: 2024 Newfront Go All the Way with HSA Guide

Just file the amended 5500 ASAP attaching the auditor's report. From Form 5500 instruction – “If the required IQPA’s report is not attached to the Form 5500, the filing is subject to rejection as incomplete and penalties may be assessed.“ From DOL EFAST FAQ – “Q25: Will EFAST2 receive my filing if I do not attach the IQPA report to my Form 5500 annual return/report? EFAST2 will receive your filing, but the filing is incomplete without the required IQPA report. An incomplete filing may be subject to further review, correspondence, rejection, and civil penalties. Please note Schedule H, line 3 specifically asks for information regarding the plan’s IQPA report. If you do not submit the required IQPA report, you must still correctly answer these questions. If you have to file Form 5500 without the required IQPA report, correct that error as soon as possible.”

I agree. Only pre-tax amounts are eligible for rollover from a qualified plan to a traditional IRA, i.e. pre-tax IRA. After-tax amounts can be converted to Roth by rolling over to a Roth IRA. But under no circumstances are after-tax amounts in a qualified plan eligible for rollover to a traditional IRA.

while most of the plans (especially small ones) are using PY as stability period, the choice of the lookback is really a consulting issue. For example month of September has a tendency to be the "lowest rates" month, if you want to be able to time/plan "things" better, August gives the most flexibility, if you have to process distirbutions in January the month of December is not a good choice, etc.

The explanation from @C. B. Zeller is great. But also take note: both stability period and lookback month should be defined in the plan document. using a one-month stability period and one-month lookback will (generally) provide the closest to "true market value", but that combination is the most difficult to administer. Most plans I've seen use the PY as the stability period, often with a lookback month of "second month preceding".

Paul makes good points, and I do think the IRS's correction methods should be followed. Tacking it on to this year's W-2, which is an allowable method, means the custodian doesn't have to be involved, since in this case the deposits were coded as Roth from the start. So not having to deal with a 1099-R, and keeping the plan's work to a minimum seems best. It was the employer's mistake, so the employer having to do the heavy lifting to fix/udpate/adjust a W-2, seems fair. And the employer is allowed to pay the employee extra to allow for any extra tax liability, to make them whole. Plus, depending on the recordkeeper, or whoever does the 1099-R, their head might explode if they are asked to prepare one but there is no corresponding transaction showing pre-tax amounts being recoded as Roth.

You need to have it fixed now and not wait for some distribution later.

For distributions, the stability period can be the plan year, calendar year, plan quarter, calendar quarter, or calendar month containing the distribution date. The applicable interest rate can be determined as of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th or 5th month preceding the stability period, or may be an average of interest rates during those months. See 1.417(e)-1(d)(4). For funding, the segment rates are the ones published for the applicable month, which is the month containing the valuation date. However the plan sponsor may elect an alternative applicable month of one of the 4 months preceding the month containing the valuation date. The plan sponsor may also elect to use the corporate bond yield curve instead of the segment rates. Once an election is made, it may only be changed or revoked with IRS approval. See 1.430(h)(2)-1(e).

The IRS addresses how to handle the situation here: https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/fixing-common-mistakes-correcting-a-roth-contribution-failure Note that the plan may be able self-correct if the situation can be considered insignificant. Since it was the company's mistake, they should make keep the participants whole. This may include covering any penalties and interest that may be assessed. Willfully Ignoring the problem is a bad idea.

It’s a plan document issue. Read the document and you’ll have your answer.