austin3515

But would it be enough to say "Plan Admin, you gave us bad data, and as a result the 1099-R I issued is incorrect" and let them deal with it? Or do I have an obligation to correct it? I wouldn't think who is at fault would affect my obligations; I presume it only matters that we know an error occurred.

Our contract is definitely silent on the 1099-R's.

You don't qualify for the ACP Safe Harbor if you have after-tax. Now if you said you qualified for the safe harbor and you don't then you've got a document problem.

Example. Client took a taxable distribution in 2015 from a brokerage account which we did not know about until recently. What is our responsibility to provide a 2015 1099-R? Assume they have already filed their taxes and assume the amount is "significant." And assume we prepare their 5500. Does the answer change if the participant took 2 taxable distributions, and we reported one but not the other (and therefore a corrected 1099-R would be required). I think it is perhaps different if we learn that the form we actually filed is not accurate). Obviously the practical answer is simple: Do the corrected 1099 and do the amended 1040. That is NOT my question. My question is directed at understanding what our legal requirements are under the paid preparer rules.

I just think they need a carve out, even for plans with less than 20 participants with balances.

WE have a ton of plans on Fidelity's small non-prototype platform. But guess what? There is nowhere for them to go. Well, that is other than an insurance product with expenses of 2%+. Or I'm sure the employer would be happy to spend the $750 out of pocket for RK Direct (a sweet platform of course, but out of pocket is bad...).

Absolutely! But honestly some of these new requests are ridiculous. I'm not opposed to change. I'm opposed to regulators who possess not the ability to view the world from a vantage point of practicality and reality.

back up now, agreed. Thanks.

Let's see how many sponsors just say "you know what, never mind. I'll just terminate this thing." Tell ya one thing, I am all over pooled plans now... They are regulating these participant directed plans to the grave, literally...

http://us.practicallaw.com/w-002-7791 Well this sucks... New Information for Retirement Plans The proposed regulations would also add new questions to the Form 5500, Form 5500-SF, and Schedule R on participation, contributions, and asset allocation by age, and participant-level diversification. Questions include the number of participants: •Making catch-up contributions. •Investing in default investment options. •Maximizing the employer match. •Deferring compensation. •With account balances as of the beginning of the plan year. •That terminated employment during the plan year that had their entire account balance distributed.

Not one of my clients wants to part with $12,000 unless they have to.

Anyone having the same problem?

I nominate Tom! Sell it on Audible!

I have to say Tom, once they let that cat out of the bag it would seem to me there would be a clamoring to get that effective 1/1/2017. OF all the changes, this seems to be the one that would be limited to changing 5 or 6 words in the instructions. No new technology, no revisions whatever to the form itself. Instant relief. I hope ASPPA pounces on this!!

Any word on when this would be effective?

WOW... WOW... This is HUGE.

That was on page 772

That's a fascinating question actually. It seems to me it is an individual protection though and not to non-human enterprises. But then again I do not include J.D. in my listing of credentials and rightly so! "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

Oh. My. God.

Oh. My. God. You have to guess how many pages it is before you actually open It. It will be more fun that way! https://s3.amazonaws.com/public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2016-14893.pdf

you meant the POST was old, and Regs are new! I didn;t realize the new proposed regs addressed this!

Thanks! Where can I get the proposed regs (other than your post ) Really, thanks! Do you agree that a match of more than 25% would satisfy? They wou;dn't get the match but for the deferral.

Can someone point me to a good write up of when you can send statemetns electronically? We work with a recordkeeper who we converted a bunch of plans too. New recordkeeper essentially has no email addresses. But yet they do not send statements. Instead they say we deliver them electronically. To me this sounds way off-base and I would love to point to some DOL document that clarifies that this does not work.

hey we can both respond however we choose! This a democratic society!

What does counting hours have to do with the question?