austin3515

But you did an amendment to correct though I assume?

http://www.efast.dol.gov/downloads/PY2010_DER.pdf In black and white, on the DOL's web-site. This is a DOL ERROR, not a warning. See page 228 of this document which apparently is validation rules for processing the 5500's. "Form 5500-SF, Line 13a is checked "yes," but an amount greater than zero is not entered on Line 13a-Amount." Scary that the validation itself on the DOL's materials are so obviously wrong. Can anyone say whether or not they have submitted and whether or not there were any issues? As far as the referenced patch goes, we too have done all of the updates and still get the message. 10 to 1 you're thinking of the patch for the same line that involved transfer of assets to another plan. That error related to an issue with transferring the plan number indicated on line 13 (it wasn't being experted in the filing for some reason). It is otherwise unrelated to this issue.

Can anyone confirm that the Corbel prototype does NOT include this provision?

On Relius, we can have two 5500's on the same file. We need to store the 2nd data file in a separate directory, but they do make it pretty easy to distinguish the two (they allow us to track on their web-site which plan year it is for). So in your case, we would see both the 2009 and 2010 filings, even though they are both on 2009 forms.

That would be totally shagadelic!!! Of course, I don't sign these things under my real name (Austin Powers) - I sign under an alter-ego that I would prefer to keep confidential as it is top-secret... Wouldn't it have beene easier if they just told us that in the FAQ?? I was leaving our name under plan administrator thinking how strange it was to put in my credentials next to someone else's name :angry:

We still mail them to Ogden, UT, right?

We're doing ours on Tuesday...

Has anyone heard that the DOL will NOT be providing an automatic extension? I know that a big trade group had pleaded for an extension, but of course nothing yet and the clock is ticking...

Under the DOL's new procedures that allow the TPA's to sign the 5500 on their behalf (i.e., they fax us the manually signed copy, etc), how are you completing the signature line? Are you leaving the actual plan administrators name, and then entering the TPA credentials (which obviously don't match the name), or are you entering the TPA credentials AND the corresponding TPA name as plan administrator? As far as I can tell, this is not addressed anywhere...

i.e., an -11(g) amendment?

Sometimes I hate this profession...

Are you sure an 11(g) amendment is out of line? Couldn't it be viewed as fitting within and (a)(4) failure? Maybe a bit indirect to apply this to 414s, but it seems unfair to suggest that the only allowable correction for a routine "ADP test like" failure is an IRS submission... (2) Scope of corrective amendments. For purposes of satisfying the minimum coverage requirements of section 410(b), the nondiscriminatory amount requirement of §1.401(a)(4)–1(b)(2), or the nondiscriminatory plan amendment requirement of §1.401(a)(4)–1(b)(4), a corrective amendment may retroactively increase accruals or allocations for employees who benefited under the plan during the plan year being corrected, or may grant accruals or allocations to individuals who did not benefit under the plan during the plan year being corrected. In addition, for purposes of satisfying the nondiscriminatory current availability requirement of §1.401(a)(4)–4(b) for benefits, rights, or features, a corrective amendment may make a benefit, right, or feature available to employees to whom it was previously not available. A corrective amendment may not, however, correct for a failure to incorporate the pre-termination restrictions of §1.401(a)(4)–5(b).

Gotcha, this came up with the failure to deposit the SHNCE by 12/31 too. Essentially, you never go back to the ADP test in a safe harbor plan, because the plan would have to be amended to add the ADP test back, and there is no basis for such an amendment (absent a submission, but who knows where that would go).

1) Failed 414(s) on a safe harbor = ADP Testing. When we've excluded bonus in the past it's only when the bonuses are negligilble and affect HCE's and NHCE's alike. 2) There is only one definition of an HCE that is applied for ALL purposes.

1.410(b)-5(d)(5): Determination of employee benefit percentage. The employee benefit percentage for an employee for a testing period is the rate that would be determined for that employee for purposes of applying the general test for nondiscrimination in §§1.401(a)(4)–2, 1.401(a)(4)–3, 1.401(a)(4)–8 or 1.401(a)(4)–9... Based on soleley on the title it appears clear to me that they are referring to the CALCULATION of the EBAR, not the minimum amount that the EBAR should be. Then you read the manner in which it references (a)(4)-8, and it becomes more clear.

From the OP: Do we not all agree that no gateway is needed if cross-testing is used solely to pass coverage?

The gateway rules are under 401(a)(4), and the OP refrenced coverage testing failures. I didn't think the gateway applied if you were just running coverage testing.

We have a connection/friend who is an RIA. They are getting audited by the DOL. They had requested a listing of all of their qualified plans that they do work for, and she has selected a sample from that list. The DOL apparently knows that they are just the RIA. What could the DOL be looking for? We've never heard of these sorts of audits before... Has anyone been through one?

I say there's really three to choose from: Relius Relius Relius OK there;s others out there, Blaze is supposed to very very good too, and I've heard ASC is also top nothc. But if you want testimonial from someone whose used a package and ehard nothing but great things, then my vote is Relius.

My advice, PenChecks!!!

If he is buying it for display in his living room, it would be prohibitted transaction. Definitely a gray area. If it was on display in a museum, then probably it would be OK.

From Sungard's FAQ's on EFAST: May a filing signer use a Form 2848 (power of attorney) to authorize a TPA to sign a Form 5500 on his/her behalf? No. The Form 2848 does not provide authority to sign a Form 5500 on paper (for 2008) or electronically (for 2009). http://www.sungard.com/en/sitecore/content...faq_part15.aspx Other thoughts still appreciated...

This has been discussed before but we are getting renewed pressure from some clients to obtain a POA to signt he 5500. According to the 2848 instructions, a POA can only be used to sign a TAX return in a few isolated events, including absence from the country, severe illness, etc. Can anyone confirm whether or not the DOL has indicated spefically that this standard should also be applied to a 5500 even though it is not a TAX return? I have to imagine this is coming up all the time these days... (*By the way, we would never do this for our clients, but we would prefer to be able to come back and say it is not even possible).

An interesting point, I do see what you mean. BUT, let's say that the net pay was decrease in such a way that additional medical bills could not be paid. Or if it's tuition, and the employee was planning on allocating a portion of each paycheck to the tuition. Again, we have to have actual knowledge to the contrary. But you made an excellent point, I had not noticed that nuance before.

So I assume you are agreeing with me? (or at least indicating that I'm not way off base?) Because reading that, I question how a plan administrator could ever have actual knowledge to the contrary of that...