austin3515

We're going back and doing EZ's potentially to 2000!! 1) Is there a basis for only go back say, 6 years, based on the statute of limitations? 2) Is there any basis for just filing a bunch of 2009 forms with all of the various dates on them? I doubt that we'd even be able to track down say the 2002 form...

Most of my clients have a folder that they just dump stuff into, willie nillie... Smaller companies lack sophisticated HR operations so this type of filing is simply not going to exist at a small company.

Honestly, my hands are tied. It's an impossible task. It is simply not possible for even for the smallest of TPA's to keep track of thousands of beneficiary forms. You're setting yourself up for failure, and consequently liability if you endeavor to take this on.

We send them right back to the client wth a letter that says this: I have enclosed Participant Beneficiary Designation form(s) which were sent to us. Because Beneficiary Designation forms will typically only be needed several years in the future (if ever), the only logical place to store this critical document is in the employee’s personnel file. Typically, the personnel file is the only collection of documents regarding an employee that is maintained throughout their career and beyond. Therefore, we are returning the Beneficiary Designation form(s) to your office to be filed in the Participant’s personnel file. For the reasons stated above, we do not maintain Beneficiary Designation records. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. What in the world would you do on a takeover plan????

To expand slighlty: and therefore the only compliance concern belongs to the CPA, not you. The CPA may need to do an amended tax return IF they did not file the extension and IF they deducted teh contribtion on the return.

I'm not sure of the difference between the two, but whoever's responsible should pay $1,000,000

I actually just learned that if clients get their user name and pin on the "Finalize" screen, but don't go to the next screen to set up a password, THAT will cause this processing stopped error message. I now think this is the cause of most of our clients receiving this message. But hey, who's the dumb@$$ who thought it would be a good idea to make entering the critical password the LAST step, and not the first step? Sometimes I'm blown away by computer programmers...

Does EFAST validate the name associated with the user name and PIN against the name entered as Plan Administrator? When troubleshooting these things, we're wondering if that's could have something to with the processing stopped status that we get once in a while (the error description always related to the user name and the pin). So for example, we have John Doe on the 5500, but they used John D. Doe on the DOL's site. Or John Doe versus Johnathan Doe. Or Johnathan Doe vs. Johnathan Doe MD, and the list goes on. Logic dictates (to me anyway) that it would be borderline worthless to run such validations, but...

Does anyone have a good article on what you need to be wary of when investing in real estate in a 401(k) plan? Property taxes, increased audit risk due to 5500 disclosures, nondiscrimination issues, etc. I have a trustee that wants to do this in his self-directed 401k, but I want to make sure I've at least told him why this is not a good idea (at least from a compliance perspective).

The official denial http://www.americanbenefitscouncil.org/doc...enial072110.pdf Any guesses on just how many 403(b)'s WON"T file their extensions? I'm guessing more than 10%, though we may never find out for sure...

It would just bother me to see "Filing Error" as the status!

How about the rental plot at the camp ground or trailer park? Chances are you wouldn't pay for that just to store an empty rv. In addition, I would think it would be reasonable to rely on written representations.

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).