Gadgetfreak

I spoke with the IRS today (only a 15 minute wait). They told me the same - I need to wait until it is processed (either as good or as an error) before they can do anything. If good (which I expect it will be), I can either call them to have them remove it and then upload a new one OR I can upload an amended one. While on the phone, she also mentioned that they are switching to a new system soon. I will need to create a new Fire.gov account using ID.me. There may be another thread on this so I am not going to discuss it here but I am just letting y'all know.

So I created an amended form through FTW and want to upload it to Fire. Look at their website: My file has not yet been processed. I should be able to upload a Replacement File. But it is grayed out. Sadly, I expect I will be on the phone with the IRS for a while today.

I just uploaded an 8955-SSA file to the Fire system. There was an error on the file. Does anyone know how to cancel the filing?

People are still dizzy from Secure 2.0 :).

Yes. That is what I am asking. We know that most new plans over 10 EEs will need an EACA. We also know about the new LTPT rules that start in 2024 require that sponsors allow LTPT EEs to defer but are not required to give an employer contribution. I thought that it might be possible that they would also be exempt from the EACA rules. Of course, I also confirmed that, should an LTPT end up having a balance, they WILL count in the new calculations for an audit requirement.

This is really a HUGE deal. Why isn't this garnering more attention? I have many clients with 100+ eligible employees and under 50 participants with balances. They are going to save a bundle!

Does anyone know if participants that become eligible because of the LTPT rules will ALSO need to be follow the EACA rules?

Ah. I forgot about the 12-month period. I was just thinking 500 hours in a calendar year. OK. I agree 1/1/24 is the earliest, which will bring in anyone who worked 500 hours in 2021, 2022 and 2023. But, without guidance on entry dates, future eligibility after 1/1/24 is going to be a nightmare. What is someone worked 500 hours spanning two calendar years, etc?

In your first example, you could have someone eligible on7/1/23 (if they worked more than 500 hours in 2021, 2022, and 2023). But everything else we read seems to indicate that we don't really need to worry about this until 1/1/24. Just add to the confusion. And then, of course, what if a Plan has quarterly, monthly, or even immediate entry dates?

When we speak about this new rule, is it just for service credit? How are entry dates handled? For example, if someone worked 500 hours in 2022, 2023 and 2024 do they become eligible to start contributing: A) The day they complete 500 hours in 2024? B) The next Plan entry date in 2024 after completing 500 hours? C) 1/1/2025 - The first day of the next Plan Year after 3 consecutive years working 500+ hours? Thanks.

Correct me if I am wrong, but doesn't the FTW Document Maybe language from November 2021 say something like "We will tell you by November 2022 if we are going to make it for the 2022 year". I don't believe there is a notice that says "No, we are not going to make it". Just the notice that says "Based on what we wrote last year, we ARE going to make it for 2022". Again, I could be wrong.

I am not usually a fan of any ACA but I do see the value in the 2-year vesting schedule of a QACA. That is definitely the main draw for my clients - much more than the 0.5% savings.

If it is truly a SoloK (one that only covers the owners/spouses) and the Plan has less than $250k in assets, then no annual work is needed. HOWEVER, what most of the "1-800" shops don't tell you is that you will need an annual 5500 when assets exceed $250k AND testing/calculations are required if there are other employees. Furthermore, I have found that they never tell their Solo clients about mandatory document restatements. Use (and pay for) a TPA that will offer those services or take on the responsibility on your own (and don't mess it up :)). TPAs offer value.

Thanks. I suspected it but I just wanted confirmation.

Anyone know if this is allowed? Same employer, two different plans. Thanks in advance.

Also, don't you need the 3% SHNE notice anyway if you want to have the ability to stop it in the middle of the year (and be subject to ADP testing)?

100% agree. I just wanted to confirm my understanding as well. If the employer wants to waive eligibility for existing EEs when they start a plan, they cannot exclude part-timers (unless the exclusion is by class).

"Just write the provisions to say anyone who has worked 12 month with 1000 hours into the plan enters the plan on the next entry date...." But if you are doing that, you wouldn't need a special eligibility provision. I can see a situation where an employer wants all FTEs eligible when they start a plan (i.e. waiving eligibility requirements using the special eligibility provision), all new EEs after that date would waive 12 months with 1,000 hours and never allow PT EEs to participate. I am just thinking that, absent excluding a class of EEs (subject to coverage testing each year), I don't think it can be done. Anyone disagree with that?

This brings up a different question I want to ask. They want the document to say that everyone working on 1/1/21 is eligible 1/1/21. Let's assume that, for everyone else they have a 12 month eligibility requirement using Counting Hours (1000 hours). What happens to all the part-time employees that never worked 1000 hours in the past? I think they come into the plan on 1/1/21 because you are waiving all service requirements if employed on that day. And you wouldn't do a special 1/1/21 eligibility that would say (only those that worked 1000 hours in any prior year) because that defeats the purpose of the special eligibility provision. So, I don't think so, but would there be any way to allow FTEs to enter on 1/1/21 but not part-timers?

Sounds like you are offering to do even more work for no compensation. I like the other options better - either give the doc to the new TPA or the client. Charge the client for your time if they want to "review" it with you.

You also need separate testing and, if JH is going to only have one account, their reporting may not make it as easy (even with divisions) - but not impossible.

Just to play devil's advocate: We send to anyone that had a balance during that year - even if paid out the current year and before we send out the SAR. And there is a downside - we get a bunch of calls from the paid-out participants asking why they got it and to help them check if they have more money. Dealing with those calls and emails takes time.

Penchecks may be one.

https://www.rpgconsultants.com/resources/company-retirement-plan-comparison/

Speaking from personal experience, starting and running a TPA and/or recordkeeping business takes a tremendous amount of work and expertise. It is not something to just "dabble" in. Furthermore, an unbundled platform (separate FA and TPA/RK) has many merits and the main thing we promote is that the client gets an expert in each field instead of a "jack of all trades - master of none". I would suggest you consider a small to mid-size TPA/RK (where you are a big fish in a smaller pond for the personal attention) that is specifically non-producing (they don't compete with you at all). Send me a PM and we can discuss further.