austin3515

Geeze, what a great point on the Form 945... I suppose the issue that one does reflect taxes and claims for refunds, doesn't it...

http://benefitslink.com/IRS/revrul2011-3.pdf Today they were released!

Where are people planning on getting their new engagement letters for complying with the new DOL Fee Dissclosure regs? I know some of you work for big Company's and your legal departments are probably writing their own, but for the whee little TPA's out there like me, what are you doing? Is anyone expecting a free version from say, John Hancock, or perhaps provided by Corbel? I could ask them directly, but I'll bet someone out there knows!

I think the professional service requirement for some reason only applies to corporations? Don't qupte me, but I do think there is a distinction. But I do believe that if they are corporations that there is a professional service requirement. Also, since they are selling material, I think that you could suggest that capital (i.e., the materials being sold) is a material income producing factor, and therefore C is not a service company, and for THAT reason, no A-Org could exist. Just my opinion of course! I think management company is a very likely possibility here, I would look at that one closely. B-Org might also be a possibility since sales is a function historically performed by employees.

What do you mean by Internet?

Anyone know where I can find the covered compensation for 2011?

This DOL FAB suggests that before you can transfer anyone's account to an IRA in a terminating plan, you must use the IRS letter forwarding program. Are people actually doing this, or am I the only one? Or are people assuming that non-responders are simply that - nonresponsive and defaulting them out to an IRA within X number of days. http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/regs/fab_2004-2.html

I processed mine last night, I'm tempted to dispute the charges

Email from Brian Graff to all ASPPA Members: Happy Holidays everyone. As you know, the IRS has been indicating in public comments that the PTIN registration requirements will apply to preparers of the Form 5500. Consequently, we have been engaged in ongoing conversations with the IRS on exactly how that would work. In addition to testifying at a public hearing, we have had several private meetings with them to discuss the significant problems that could result from the over broad application of a preparer registration requirement to the Form 5500. In these meetings, we have been emphasizing the information return nature of the form and the relatively limited amount of information on the form that actually impacts a tax return. Most significantly, we have been pressing the point that if too many staff are required to register it will ultimately result in an unnecessary increase in administrative costs to the detriment of retirement plan participants. As these conversations have continued, including some back and forth on the challenging issues involved, we are beginning to believe that senior IRS officials are starting to conclude that it would simply be easier to exempt the Form 5500 from the registration requirement. Because of this, we are no longer recommending that service providers register their staff in order to take advantage of the education grandfathering rule, because we believe, at this point, that it is more likely than not that the Form 5500 will be exempt. Let me emphasize that we have not received anything official from the IRS, and it is certainly possible that they could change their mind again. If we sense anything different, we will let you know immediately. We also recognize that many of you incurred costs to register your staff and we are very mindful of that. We based that prior recommendation on what we were being told emphatically by the IRS at the time, namely that preparers of the Form 5500 would be subject to the registration requirements, and we wanted to make sure that people were in a position to take advantage of the grandfathering that applied to the educational requirements. So, as you enjoy this time with friends and family it appears that this is at least one issue that you know longer have to be concerned about. Once again, Happy Holidays! Brian Graff Sent from my iPad

Form 2848. First page under "Unenrolled Preparer" I attached the instructions. i2848.pdf

OK, so why do the DOL regs on plan assets mention SIMPLE IRA's? If I may again be so bold, the answer is that they ARE subject to rules regarding plan assets/investments. The only rulkes they are NOT subject to are participation and vesting? Am I right?

Whoops, my bad, here it is, just where you said: http://frwebgate3.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/T...action=retrieve

If I may be so bold, where in here would I find that? ERISA 206 didn't seem to be on point, and I didn't see SEP's mentioned anywhere in 202? http://benefitslink.com/erisa/crossreference_short.html

In my ERPA quest, what I was somewhat disappointed by is that anyone can representa taxpayer with respect to a 5500 if that person prepared the 5500 AND if the 5500 is under examination, which of course is 95% of the situations that we would need to be able to represent. Anyone have any thoughts n that? I know we would be in trouble on takeover plans, and issues arising NOT related to an audit, but again that does seem to cover quite a bit of the situations. I've heard that sometimes the auditors still insist on dealing with an enrolled preparer. Any thoguts?

Can someone tell me why a SEP can have a 3 year eligiblity period? I'm looking at the DOL's definition of an employee bnefit plan, and it carves out IRA's as long as there are no contriubions made by the employer, which of course a SEP would have. So why doesn't statutory eligiblity apply? TAG says they are totally exempt from ERISA becauyse it's funded throiugh IRA's, but of course the DOL Regs specifcially reference SIMPLE IRA's. I'm just trying to obtain a deeper understanding - I don; think I've uncovered a grand statutory boo boo...

But isn't that more a reflection of the fact that he 2010 form was released before the ptin regulations? Also, there's only going to be one field for ptin, and generally at least 2 people are involved. So for example, Joe TPA's PTIN might be on the form, but Susie Tech still might need a PTIN.

With attachments these days though I'm a little more apprehenisve since it is SO public... At least on Free ERIS no one could see any attachments,. Aklos, I have a hard time believing anyone would read the attachment even if you dutifully attached it. Instead, I believe they would send out whatever form letters they want to send out.

Hey now, easy there... No one's doing anything, just trying to learn how this all works. We;re coming down on getting the PTINs for everyone, but this was part of the thought process. I think TPA's all around the country are still trying to figure out if their employees are subject to these rules, so I don't feel like the question was too out of line... My question is really about what if the er makes a determination that she's not subject and then it comes to light that he was wrong. I personally think the answer to the question is quite important since at the end of the day the determination does involve judgment.

Let's say Susie Tech works for Joe TPA. Joe TPA does not have Susie Tech get a PTIN, and Susie Tech continues to prepare 5500's. Assuming she should have obtained a PTIN, who is in trouble? Joe TPA, Susie Tech or both?

Friendly discussion in the office: Owner takes a participant loan from the plan, under the plan's participant loan provisions. The loan proceeds get deposited directly to his personal chekcing account. The loan, so far, clearly qualifies for all of the PT exemtpion requirements. The question is, does a participant loan that is otherwise ok, become a PT merely because after the money is in their PERSONAL account, they loan money or invest money into their business for cash flow purposes. My opinion is that there is no PT, but my esteemed colleague disagrees...

We tried the letter and included the freeerisa 5500 demonstrating that it had beenc omplied with. We had the IRS on the phone and told them about the letter and they acknowledged the letter, but flat out told us the only to make it stop was the amended 5500 marking it as final. Your federal government hard at work... How they could not be on the same page on this is quite something.

I will certainly do that next time, but I had always been "taught" (I think) to merge plans on 1/1. But in this situation the ship has already sailed...

same exact situaiton... NEver come ujp before, but again, several people from the IRS told me the same thing

Big difference is that if two or three of you listen to a web-cast, if all three are ERPA's you need to by it 3 times.

BElieve me, you're preaching to the choir...