austin3515

I;m just a certificate holder (as opposed to fully licensed), so I'm really not legally allowed to do anything with it other than calling myself a CPA. The full license requires 40 hours of CPE a year, plus the annual registration is over $500, plus I need to get 30 hours of CPE in Accounting and Auditing before they;ll give me my license.

Do people think it is important to be an ERPA? Am I correct that I will probably not be allowed to assist in an audit, or even talk to the IRS abouta client's account without being an ERPA (i.e., will my Power of Attorney not be accepted without it?)?

Anyone have recommendations on how to get ERPA CPE done on the cheap?

I want to be an ERPA, but I'm concerned that the bill is HUGE for the CPE. Does anyone have a strategy to do it on the cheap?

Does anyone have any support, q&a's etc., for me to support the follow: If we merge two plans together on Januiary 1, 2011, may we treat the December 31, 2010 plan year as the final 5500 for the Plan that is being eliminated? I have heard Ian Dingwall (Chief Accountant at the DOL) say this on at least one occassion, but thought if I could find something in writing, that would be great. Thanks,

If they stop deferring mid-year then they wouldn't exceed the limits. What I laid out would set them on course to comply for the year as a whole, so if they stop short they will have done less than 5% on one deduction code and less than 5,500 on the other deduction code.

The issue is that one half of the limit is a percentage and the other half is a flat dollar amount. The easiest thing is to have two deduction buckets, one set up for the 5% of pay, and the other set up to hit $5,500 (perhaps $106 per week for 52 weeks).

Yes, you should get the 5% limit plus the catch-up. The 5% limit is a plan imposed limit and you're permitted to exceed plan imposed limits by the catch-up amounts. I would think if you asked your employer they would say this is OK. I'm pretty sure if catch-ups are allowed, that tney would be required to allow you to do what I'm suggesting, but I suppose that would only be relevant if they refuse you.

How can you roll a participant loan into an IRA? And usually, the loan is offset at termination of employment, regardless of what the platform provider says (check the document). And one would hope that a 1099 has been issued by now...

I'm thinking this: Did they receive indirect comp? Yes (obviously, otherwise there wouldn't be any technology limitations) Did they receive eligible indirect comp for which they received the required disclosures? Yes (because they disclosed that they couldn't disclose it). Weak, I know but if I dont fill the boxes out somethign like this, then I get a filing error.

How do I complete schedule c, in particular, Section 2 of Part I? I knoiw there was transitional relief for a good faith effort, which applies in this situaiton. (I posted this first in the 5500 "Department" but no one replied )

How do I complete schedule c, in particular, Section 2 of Part I? I knoiw there was transitional relief for a good faith effort, which applies in this situaiton.

Whether the plan includes elective deferrals has nothing to do with the form of entity -or perhaps I misunderstood the question.

I just want to clarify that you provide yourself with a w-2 (i.e., you are being taxed as corporation and not a sole prop). If you are a sole prop, the max deductibel is likely 20K, because 20 / (100-20) = 25%. i.e., the contribution itself reduces your income. Your accountant should be able to help you with this calculation.

I just took a read through, but noticed that it appeared to be an all or none determination. As has already been suggested, a desire to avoid payroll taxes and insurance (and perhaps retirement benefits) is generally the motivation to use 1099 income. And you can bet that will be the IRS's assumption!

You're OK - it only blows the ACP safe harbor, not the ADP safe harbor.

It definitely is part of compensation. I can prove it too - you wouldn't put the federal income tax withheld (nor the FICA taxes withheld) on a separate line item. Why? Because it is all the empoloyees COMPENSTAION. How you get from their GROSS compensation down to their NET paycheck is not relevant on a corproate tax return.

Which makes you the PERFECT person to answer the question! We love penchecks...

When forcing out people with less than 5K via auto rollovers, when you tell them you'll kick them out if they don't respond, do you tell them the IRA will be with Penchecks? Or is it the name of the actual custodian. I'm curious how others have handled it.

Ditto to BG150 - I assume you are also using the Corbel document...

Got a TIAA Traditional, TIAA Real Estate, both clearly on th group annuity contract side (403b1). What aobut the CREF side of it? Is that considered 403b7 becauise it is mutuial funds? Or is still under 403b1 b/c it is offerend through a group annuity contract? Of course, this results in different availability of in-service distriubtions dpeending on where you monry is invested, whcih seems ridiculous under one platform. But is that the case?

"I’m assuming that the “correct” way is to simply amend the filing, attach the audit, and re-submit." That's right "Can I even submit under DFVC if the client already submitted?" No, DFVC is for never-filed returns. Not sure what would be cheaper than amending which is free. I don't think you'll see any penalties related to this - never heard of them being assessed in the past (well, maybe I recall one story of one time from somoene on these boards?). But I wouldn't worry too much especially considering your only late by a month.

Check out this recent thread... http://benefitslink.com/boards/index.php?showtopic=46961

"Why is a loan from a TIAA annuity contract any different than a loan from a trusteed plan? " Ironically, the rest of your post goes on to describe precisely how it is different. But I do appreciate your explanation, which finally has shed some light on this for me!

Ouch. First let me state that I know it is not a PT, I just don't know why. TIAA is a party-in-interest as the custodian and as a service provider, so the loan is a transaction with a party-in-interest. I assume there is an exemption somewhere? But I was never comfortable with the fact that while in general participants (or at least the plan as a whole) would reap the benefits of the participant's interest, in this case it is TIAA that profits. You mention the cost to the participant is 2% - another way of putting it is that the income to TIAA is 2%. And then if the participant defaults, TIAA would garnish that portion of the participants interest in the Traditional account, which would be the seeming violation of the anti-assignment rule. So don't make it sound like this is "plain vanilla" where there is clearly something more complicated going on.