Leaderboard

Maybe it's just me, but there seems to be some missing information; specifically, the plan provisions that inform/guide the conclusion. If you appeal, you should request that information along with the reasoning for how those provisions lead to any particular conclusion, as well as pointing out the "shared payment" information. (Maybe they have already done this; we cannot be sure from your posting.) Also, your original post implies there was a 2012 plan amendment. You will want to know the specifics of that amendment, as well as the corresponding plan language immediately prior. You need to know the prior language so that your attorney can evaluate whether the plan change had an impact on your situation, and (if so) whether it was permissible to alter any rights you had under the Plan.

If there is an ambiguity about what the plan provides, an administrator might prefer an interpretation that’s logically consistent with not only ERISA’s title I but also other Federal laws, including the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 if it applies. “With respect to pension and other retirement plans, any period of unpaid FMLA leave shall not be treated as or counted toward a break in service for purposes of vesting and eligibility to participate. Also, if the plan requires an employee to be employed on a specific date in order to be credited with a year of service for vesting, contributions or participation purposes, an employee on unpaid FMLA leave on that date shall be deemed to have been employed on that date. However, unpaid FMLA leave periods need not be treated as credited service for purposes of benefit accrual, vesting and eligibility to participate.” 29 C.F.R. § 825.215(d)(4) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/part-825/section-825.215#p-825.215(d)(4). This is not advice to anyone.

Re-upping. The form is still the 2019 form. Has anyone heard anything more about this ridiculous thing?

Peter, it is not a nonstarter. Most recordkeeper's will accommodate a limit on the percentages that can be elected when the participant makes the investment elections for new contributions. Most will not accommodate a limit on the total amount invested in a particular investment. Some may demonstrate how a periodic rebalancing of participant accounts could accomplish enforcing a limit.

Hi S-corp has 50/50 2 shareholders - unrelated to each other and no other employees From 2024 EZ instructions Covers only one or more partners (or partners and their spouses) in a business partnership (treating 2% shareholder of an S corporation, as defined in IRC §1372(b), as a partner) Looks like 5500-EZ can be filed, correct?

Hi Bill Thank you. All the best

Correct.

I saw this on a takeover a number of years ago. There were only two participants in the plan - the owner and one employee - and the owner had been making contributions into the employee's personal IRA. It was a 401(a) violation due to failure to keep the assets in trust. We filed under VCP and had them move the assets into a plan account.

The real problem is you amended one of the key data points that their computers use to track 5500s. To the computer the amended return look like an amendment to a return that didn't exist. You should be able to get it fixed once you get the situation in front of a human. It won't be easy because since Covid working with the IRS has been hard. However, with persistence this will most likely end with no penalty.

If you were amending anything OTHER than the EIN or Plan number, it probably wouldn’t be an issue. But those things can cause issues because if you filed a return without the proper identification, did you really file timely? It’s going to take additional correspondence and work to fix but should be resolved. Just not quickly.