austin3515

Call me crazy, but do I not have a favorable opinion on my prototype which calls for using forfeitures to reduce the safe harbor? Hooray for the IRS discovering this ridiculous nuance in the law, but it's just too late. They should have thought of that before they gave me a favorable opinion letter. And for crying out loud, who's making the decisions on this type of stuff? What bothers me the most is that it is such an indirect "stretch" interpreation (even if it is a literal interpretation) that has really dramatic implications for these top heavy SH plans. So either choose to interpret it differently, or change the reg. Interstingly I was talking to a higher up at a big document provider on a totally unrelated issue and expressed my hope that one day the IRS would provide clarification on that unrelated issue. The higher-up said it's not always wise to push them for a "ruling" because you won't always like the answer (i.e., no answer was better than a bad answer). Boy does that apply here...

If you're company sponsoring the plan is a corp, then the only people you need to be concerned with are those that are getting w-2 wages from the company (assumign your doing everything the way you are supposed to). An investor who is an employee of the corp should obviously being getting compensation from the corp anyway. Just getting a K-1 fromt he parent company doiesn't make you an emlpuee. In fact, there probably isn't any self employment income anyway - Box 14A - is that right?

We doint know the filing acknowledgment ID, the prior tpa is being unresponsive, etc. (hypothetical situation, but I'm not seeing an obvious workaround, and this woiuld seem to be a common situation).

IF you want a 403b for the exedcutive director and 401k for the employees, I assume the 401k must have immeidate eligiblity to satisfy universal availability, correct?

The point is, whether or not there is a controlled group is only relevant in determining whether or not there are two grouips of employees that need to be tested together. So you said the LLC doesn't want to adopt the plan, but it has no employees so no need for a plan in the first place. Simply owning a company as an investor does not make you an employee that needs to be included in testing.

In general, no. You can have different eligiblity for different groups of people, and you are complying with 410(a), which governs eligiblity. But I suppose if you had two employees in a startup, 1 an owner and one a part time employee scheduled for 25 hours a week, that could be a problem.

As a point of clarification, the LLC actually has its own employees, correct? You had referred to it as a holding company at one point which suggest it does not have any operations.

I recall trying to write in "various" in teh date range aqnd having them reject it. Positively ridiculous if you ask me.

The purpose is to distinguish between the 2009 plan year and, say, the 2007 plan year that you filed under DFVC but for which you had to use the 2009 form.

Beautiful, thanks!!

Wasn;t there a deadline coming up on this for 10/31? Soimething about if you apply for the PTIN by 10/31 you will not need to take the comptetency test for a while? When will these questions be answered?

They let their participants invest in the same banks CD's. Is this a PT? I seem to recall there were some hoops they had to jump through to avoid a PT - I didn't think it was just a straight exemption of any kind.

So since we all agree they are valid concerns, wouldn't amending be a good way to provide better service? And doing an amendment would be a snap, especially since it is an internal process. But the trick is getting the acknowledgement id - anyone have any ideas?

We're more concerned about correspondence going to someone other than the trustee. For example, an IRS audit letter not getting to the right place because no one knows who John Doe is. Also, some trustees are sensitive to this kind of thing too. They don;t want to see someone else's name on their plan. I can think of one who would probably have a stroke if this ever happened! And of course, no one wants to clear something like this up in federal court - best to stay out of federal court and keep the 10 grand in attorney's fees in your pocket!

Does anyone know how to get this out of IFILE?? I need to do an amended through web-client (because our name showed up as the plan administrator on the 5500, which is unavoidable in IFILE, I've been told...

I submitted a form at 4:00 and it was filing received by 6:30. It was an audited plan with attachments and we had no problems at all. For waht it's worth. Ken, I would be curious to know if you are planning on making the login process easier. For example, I am very attracted to FT Williams method, which is they are sent an email on publishing with a confirmation which they simply enter into the web-site, thus avoiding a second set of login information. Is there a reason you opted for the higher security? It just occured to me now that perhaps it is because you are storing their signer credentials for them? Does FT Williams save the DOL credentials?

Good news is they just sent out an email saying that broiugh on a new server and things are moving a LOT quicker out there. Just want to make sure they get props for trying to do the right thing...

Are people going nuts trying to get clients to signh the hard-copy by 10/15, or taking it on faith that if they efiled by 10/15, and subsequently sign the hard-copy they should be all set as long as its within a couple of days? Generally, or course, not an issue but on 10/15 it becomes an iomportant question!

Let me know if it works...

Yes, and the DOL is aware of this (according to customer service at the DOL) and there is no way around it, atl least on IFILE.

I had the exact same experience. Definitely impressive, and not just for the government

This is from memory but should be pretty close. Just don't get hung up if I miss something or it doesn';t line up exactly. 1) From the Home Page, there should be a link that says you have plans in progress or something like that. Click that link 2) Then you should see your plan with a blue hyperlink thing. Click that 3) Then click on "Associate Signers" from the gray bar towards the top of the screen 4) Type in the email address associated with the signer from your TPA shop (should be the email for the account you are currently logged inot. 5) Go back to the home page, it should say you have one plan awating your signature. Click on that. Then, click on the plan you're trying to sign. 6) There should be a "sign" button towards the top of the page. Clikc on that, accept the agreement, and then fill in all of the information for the credentials, etc. 7) Then go back to the home page - there should be another link that says you have plans waiting to be submitted. Click on that. Then, click on the plan you're trying to sumbit. 8) Click on the submit button.

Does anyone know of an IFILE work around that would allow a paid preparer to sign the 5500, but still have the true plan administrator's name show up on the box on the right hand side of the page? According to customer service at EFAST2 (which was actually great) there is no way around, this but I just thought I would check.

I had to export a few plans from RGF and import to IFILE, which was a breeze. And getting the client to sign was also a breeze, because everything was at the same site, and not to metnion the DOL's site is holding up very very well. The invitation proicess worked out perfectly, simple and efficient. The only down side is the lack of reporting on a firm level, but we might be able to work around that by saving the confirm emails for comprehensive pre-deadline checks, which we always did anyway. Any thoights from anyone else??

Can you obtain the AckID from within Ifile, or is it necessary to screen print each of those pop-up boxes that indicates the ackid?