Gilmore

I like everything Peter and Paul wrote and add, although probably not needing to as you probably already would know, to document everything.

I think you are correct as long as service is not measured using anniversary years solely. I also think rehires are going to be even more painful.

According to Publication 5717 you can create, edit, and view 1099 forms without software or service provider, download and print the recipient copy for distribution to payees (or client I imagine since that is what we would typically do), and maintain records of completed 1099s. I went ahead and applied for a TCC, which was the exact same process as the process to renew our TCC for 8955s. This way we can at least give it a look-see.

Your written authorization no doubt includes the disclaimer that the client is aware their hand signed form will be open to public inspection on the EFAST site. That usually causes most (not all) of our clients to opt for getting their own credentials.

We are a small TPA firm and each year we prepare about 40 1099Rs on behalf of our clients. We currently use FT William to prepare paper forms. I was looking into the IRIS system and was wondering if anyone has had any experience in using the system to prepare 1099s for their clients. Thank you.

Thank you again for this information. This goes back to my original example above. Not only a recordkeeping nightmare, but a potential employee morale nightmare for employees with different levels of vesting %s caused only due to the sequence of their years of service earned.

Thank you very much for this information Paul. I thought I had read somewhere that a former LTPT, now a full participant, would continue to earn vesting service at 500 hours and not "shift" to needing 1000 hours? Is that accurate or am I mistaken? Thank you.

An LTPT employee earns a year of vesting with 500 hours regardless of whether they are permitted to receive employer contributions. My question, for which I'm assuming more guidance is needed, is how is a former LTPT treated for vesting if at some point in the future they do meet the plan's "regular" eligibility requirements.

All our 8955s are FIREd. I'm going with "completely wacky".

BTW, the IRS penalty letter lists the old fees. It says, "We are required by law to charge $1 for each participant for whom a required registration statement is not filed. The penalty is multiplied by the number of days the failure continues. The maximum penalty is $5000."

One of mine had 1 A and 1 D. Filed on 6/20/2023. Also assessed a penalty of $660. So is that 1 D assessed $10 for 66 days, or both A and D assessed $10 for 33 days?

Went and did a quick check of the 8955s that have received letters so far and all have a mix of A's and D's. Thank you for passing along this information.

I hope this does not cause the IRS to consider not sending out some type of blanket response to their error.

Interesting Bri. Actually what I was thinking was something like this. My first year with the company I work 1000 hours so I'm a "regular participant" and I also have 1 year of vesting. Under the plan's 6-year graded schedule I am 0% vested. For the next three years I work less than 1000 hours. My co-worker for the last 3 years worked 500 hours each year, then works a year with 1000 hours. Now after 4 years we are both "regular participants" but now my co-worker (who used to be my friend) is 60% vested and I'm still 0% vested, even though over the last four years we've essentially worked the same number of hours, just in different sequence.

If a plan uses automatic enrollment, are employees that become eligible under the LTPT rules required to be automatically enrolled? Another question...has there been any change in the LTPT vesting rules with respect to a former-LTPT who becomes a "regular participant" and the number of hours that they must meet to earn a year of vesting? Is the hours required still 500 even if the former-LTPT has met the plan's normal eligibility requirements? Thanks very much.

We've received notices from clients that were FIRE'd in March, June, and July. Ugh.

For the first few that we received before AndrewZ posted the NAPA article we have already sent a reply to the IRS on our clients' behalf (they signed a 2848). Today I am sending out a correspondence to all of our clients for whom we FIRE'd 8955s since January alerting them to this issue and giving them the opportunity to have us respond directly or they can take a wait and see. We are a small firm so, while an annoying waste of time, we can manage.

Certainly best case scenario would be to amend the plan prior to the start of 2024, but does the amendment HAVE TO BE adopted by 12/31/2023. Or could you put Roth in place and adopt an amendment by 12/31/2024? I seem to remember from a webinar at the beginning of the year in which Derrin Watson quietly conjectured as to if Roth was only being added to conform to the requirements of SECURE 2.0, if the plan could adopt an amendment as late as 12/31/2025. Again, not that any of that would be the best course of action, but I'm just thinking ahead to all of the potential screw ups in 2024 and potential correction options.

We just received the penalty notice for a client whose 8955 for calendar year 2022 was filed on March 21, 2023.

We received a copy of the penalty notice from a client whose 8955 was FIREd on 6/26/2023. That's more than a month before the filing deadline (calendar year plan). Is this a harbinger of how the electronic 5558 filing is going to work? We just started receiving IRS letters admitting their 2021 5558 denials were incorrect, and now these 8955 letters start. Geez.

Thank you.

A 401k plan's eligibility requirements are age 18 and One Year of Service. Let's say an employee without a Year of Service earns 500 hours in 2021, 2022, and 2023, is age 18 on January 1, 2024. Is the plan permitted to continue to exclude the employee until after they have attained age 21, or does the plan's age 18 requirement apply for purposes of the LTPT rules. Thank you.

Well put.

An employer with less than 100 employees who earned at least $5,000 in 2021 adopts a MEP in 2021. On 6/1/2022 they spin out of the MEP and adopt their own 401(k) plan, covering essentially the same employees. Would I be correct that company's participation in the MEP would disqualify it from the start-up tax credits for any year (2022 or after)? Would I also be correct that assuming the company continues to employee less than 100 employees, they would still be able to qualify for the "Employer Contributions" credit beginning with the 2023 plan year? Thank you.

Thanks very much.