austin3515

Thank you Lois! Here is an article. Someone must have pointed out a mistake and they fixed it. The whole CARES Act Amendment is due 12/31/2025 (apparently regardless of the plan year end). https://tax.thomsonreuters.com/blog/irs-extends-additional-cares-act-and-disaster-relief-amendment-deadlines/

So I keep getting all of these email blasts about CARES Act Amendments being extended. But apparently that only applies to the RMD waivers and not all the loan/distriubtion rules. Why in the world would anyone do half of a CARES Act Amendment? This must be an oversight? Has anyone confirmed that this was intentional? This is really not an extension at all...

I decied not to address the bit about 5500-EZ but I will now. Not sure where that came from. This is just a plain vanilla large company with a 401k. It could be any company. Not sre what you mean about not being good with global issues. The question is global. Has the DOL changed it;s approach for plans that don;t file audits? That's the question. From what I can tell others are interested in knowign the answer too. To be more clear I'm not looking for any advice on how to handle a unique client circumstance. I'm trying to determine if we need to change our approach in response to a POSSIBLE change in approach by the DOL. I need to know if the DOL changed its approach. That's it. I definitely am noting that no one else has responded and said "me too" so perhaps ours was an odd-ball one-off. Edit: As of this posting there are 193 views.

Not really. The issue here is more global. Is the DOL/IRS chaging it's approach for enforcing the deadline for having audits complete? If so, then we need to change our approach accordngly. The issue with this client is resolved and not at issue.

So far no one else has said "it ahppened to me too" so I'm wondering if it was just a fluke too.

Right but the question is if they are doing this automatically, do you just not file based on the notion that it will take them a lot longer to catch up with the non-filers as opposed to the incomplete filings (which they know immediately). Then you do the DFVC anyway and just avoid that $18,000 penalty letter.

CP-283, penalty was $18,250. Letter dated May 16, ie. 30 days after filing.

yes 100% on the same page. Sort of annoyed it was a 6/30 because it was a population of just 1...

We had a 6/30/2021 filing sent in without the audit report around April 15, 2022 and within 45 days the IRS had sent a penalty assessment letter (around $20,000) which appeared to us be a significant change in approach. Can others indicate whether or not they had similar experiences? We used to just file without the audit and amend when it was available. But now I'm wondering if a change in approach would be to not file at all and use the DFVC. Has anyone else had to deal with this?

I was definitely having a tough time reading that!

Wow I was not expecting this! No 5500 for 2021. Checking the box is for when I do the 2022 5500! https://www.planadviser.com/form-5500-can-skipped-effective-year-plans-adopted-retroactively/

Retirement Plan set up for the first time today effective 2021. Therefore no extension was filed. I have checked the box indicating that the plan was adopted retroactively under SECURE Act. Should I indicate in the "Special Extension" box "SECURE Act Section 201"? Seems like the most practical approach. Perhaps the IRS has even already issued something about this?

Executive spends 6 months in US an 6 months in foreign country. Paid for part of the year in each country. US comp is just under $130,000. If the Chinese comp for the work done in China counts towards being an HCE, then he would be an HCE. Does it count? My definition of comp for 415 is w-2 wages...

I have multiple clients a client who give 10% profit sharing. Another who did 15% for decades (until they got bought out). Clients want what they want, our job is to help the get it if it's legal.

Yes sir!

In this case its the other explanation. The people making the decisions, it's not their money, LOL...

Correct, this is my actual Safe HArbor Match. Not the basic SH Match, but 200% of 6%. So based on that do you agree that my ADP and ACP Safe Harbors are met? For example if my Safe Harbor Match was 100% of 7%, that meets the ADP Safe Harbor but not the ACP Safe Harbor and I'd be running on ACP test on my Safe Harbor Match. i couldn't have asked for a better audience here, so please confirm you agree!

Nothing wrogn with this right, ADP and ACP Safe Harbors still apply? Yes I know about the 415 limits and will caveat about that.

"Ask for forgiveness not permission." Not sure if that's the right analogy but it's what comes to mind... At some point logic and reason do need to play a role, and this seems to me to be one of those times.

Pooled seperte accounts are availalbe under annuity contracts - that's what they are. If you see an insurance company selling mutual funds, it's through seperate accounts.

Interesting point about the date of term fixing the default. Typically the severance I see is a couple weeks to a month, but I have of course seen the 6 to 12 month ones as well where that would be an important consideration...

Was having a discussion with another consultant in the office. In my opinion, loan payment deductions from severance pay is perfectly fine and perhaps even required? The 415 regulations in my opinion disallow using severance towards contributions. But allowing severance pay to be used towards loan payments is perfectly fine. I am curious to know if others agree with that? I googled for a nice article that mentioned this, but was not able to find one.

OMG I never even knew I had this! i only pay for the regs/rev procs, not the text books (well that plus the Q&A service which is incredible). Sure enough, this question was answered, and you do have to aggregate both periods of service!

PArtcipant hired February 1, 2021 and worked 2 months before quitting. They are rehired tooday, which is more than 12 months after their termination date so they had a break in service. Plan uses elapsed time. When would this participant satisfy a 6 month eligibility? Does their 2 months pre-break count is really the question? My Basic Plan Document only says "If any Eligible Employee who had not satisfied the Plan's eligibility requirements is rehired after severance from employment, then such Eligible Employee shall become a Participant in the Plan in accordance with the eligibility requirements set forth in the Adoption Agreement and the Plan." I'm inclined to say the 2 months pre-break counts but I cannot find anything straight on point, including the EOB...

I've been saying for a while, 2 reasons all my clients don;t have eligiblity at 90 days: audit and top-heavy. Seems to me if you want to see eligiblity expanded you'd fix/address those 2 things.