Andy the Actuary

All valid but client has a choice. He/They can obtain signing credentials and navigate the IFAST website.

"It's twoo, it's twoo." So what if some unknowing attorney files a class action suit againt you because your name appears on the electronic copy. You can always clear this up in federal court. The on-line filing includes a copy of the 5500 signed by the plan sponsor/plan administrator. Also, you have in your files a form signed by the plan sponsor/plan administrator authorizing you to file. I've spoken with the DOL and assure that's the way it's supposed to work. (The forms were already finalized by the time the DOL relented to a 3rd party signer.) Hopefully, some of the lobbying groups (e.g., ASPPA) will be able to encourage the DOL to modify the 5500 so that the filer's name appears in a separate entry (sort of like on the IRS 1040). In short, I had the initial reaction as you but soon got over it.

Seriously consider not being involved with a client who does not follow the law.

precisely!

But I don't have this information because there is no such information because I am submitting in behalf of the client who may not even own a computer let alone has any computer savvyness. So, if what you're suggesting is the case, I would be certifying that I won't share my ID or PIN.

The DOL going after someone on this basis would be analogous to Monica Lewinsky suing the tabloids for reporting what she said in her TV interview with Baba Wawa.

Which begs the question, "Why would they want it?" Thanks for the explanation. So, I guess this means if you send the auditor a copy of the 5500 after it is submitted to EFAST that you are in violation?

Next thing you will tell us that the "of" was extraneous and actual title of the song was "On Top Old Smokey."

Told ya I've been simply going through the motions. Thanks for the correction.

I've been so concerned about getting stuff out the door that I entered the monkey-see-monkey-do mode. As such, having gotten caught up, I've paid a little more attention to reading the crud I'm now required to proudly disseminate. Here is the boiler-plate acknowledgment for receipt of the client's authorization to file his 5500 in his behalf: PART II - Acknowledgement of Receipt of Authorization On behalf of Potrezebie Consulting, I hereby certify that the firm will use the authority granted only for the express purposes described above; that the firm will not disclose confidential information to any parties other than the DOL, as required for EFAST filing; and that the firm will take reasonable steps to assure that confidential information provided by the Plan Administrator or Plan Sponsor is protected from unauthorized disclosure. It finally occurred to me that the information being provided and to which I am swearing on my grandmother's grave that I will not disclose, will be posted on the DOL website and become public record. In such case, what constitutes "unauthorized disclosure" and what are the reasonable steps I must take? I'm unsure but in good faith, I've decided not to divulge my middle name to Mike Preston and David Rigby.

My interpretation. There are typically 5 attachments that can be added through the "edit attachment" button. (1) Accountant's opinion is one-page letter (2) Assets held (3) 5% Reportable Transactions (4) Assets acquired/disposed of (5) Information used by accountant to formulate opinion, which is everything not contained in (1) - (4). If you look at EFAST editing screen drop-down menu for attachment type, you will note the same categories. What I'm doing is busting the auditor's massive report up into little pdfs. I would advise against requesting the auditor to do this because if one of the pdf files is corrupt, it may not be easy to detect.

hope to be done this weekend. traffic on website could cause gridlock. Would appreciate an extension of life expectancy to replace all of the wasted hours futzing with IFILE/EFAST2.

This is like the "bad beat" in Texas Hold-em!!!! One wonders whether this mean that all of our credentials are going down the potty since we may not use them for another year? From the St. Louis Post-Disgrace, February 14, 2010 (before DOL backed off 3rd party submitter prohibition): "A $15,000 fine for not being online? - If you own a business and have a 401(k) plan for your employees, you're required to file reports with the Labor Department. Paper forms used to be OK, but according to consultant Brett Goldstein, businesses now have to file electronically or pay a $15,000 penalty. That's a hardship for some small businesses, says Goldstein, who runs a firm called The Pension Department in Plainview, N.Y.: "Unfortunately, 20-28% of small businesses don't use email and may be forced to pay a $15,000 penalty. Small business owners who don't have email [or] high speed Internet connections, and older business owners, are going to have a hard time trying [to] comply with the DOL's mandate that everyone use the Internet to electronically file their forms." I'm all for saving the government money, but we should be trying to encourage more employers to offer 401(k) plans, not throwing roadblocks in their way. For some very small firms, mandatory e-filing could be a roadblock. (2.9)" The point is the DOL is not terminally rigid and may amend its processes. I've found folk on their 800 hot-line to be friendly and helpful and there is no significant wait time to get to a human. That said, I haven't gone so far as to include the DOL on my Thanksgiving dinner invitation list.

I can speak only for IFILE, but your name will appear as plan administrator and plan sponsor as well as person who will be signing as PA and person who will be signing as sponsor. In all, 4 times. The fact that there is an attachment of the signed 5500 will in conjunction imply that you have signed/submitted in behalf of your client. I have verified this via the DOL 800 number.

4 months = 10 seconds in government time. While clock is ticking, penalties technically are accumulating. Odds are less than trivial that "they" will detect this filing omission. You may want to review the written materials you've provided the client in this matter to ensure you have adequately informed him of the exposure and attendant risks.

Adopt an amendment now on applicable date that modifies NRA to 62 and actuarially increases benefits multipliers (careful if integrated with SS not to exceed maximum disparity limits). Issue will be if anyone terminated to ensure he received at least as much as under the revised formula and make compensating adjustment if needed. Discuss with legal counsel.

I'm now an IFILE sufferer. You should sign a copy of the SB and send your client a PDF. The client can then add this attachment through the IFILE editor. The client would need to select "MB/SB Actuary Signature" in the drop down menu after specifying he wanted to add an attachment. The Client can then create a temporary PDF of the entire filing and can attempt to verify that the SB he created matches your SB. UGH!

At least in the editions I have, neither the ERISA Outline Book nor Pension Answer Book address this issue relative to the SAR, which should be the same issue.

Let's see: Except for the small plan exception, wouldn't the AFN (for a calendar year plan) be due 4/30? So, presumably, small plan exception applies. In such case, by the time the AFN would be due, the plan no longer has any participants or undistributed benefits. In short, to whom would you distribute the notice? I offer a very loud "no." This is based on no "new information" but on common sense as the information contained in the notice is of absolutely no value to the former participants -- they're already received their benefits. For this reason, the SAR was not distributed in similar situations.

I am using IFILE to create the xml for importing into EFAST2. So far, success. However, when the 5500 is viewed on EFAST2, the filing does not flow. In short, you would expect to see the schedules in order with the attachments following and then the complete audit report. I see no way to move the attachments around in either Relius or EFAST2. Can anybody help????

Don't understand the tie-in. Actuary performs valuation and determines maximum deductible but client does not submit 5500. Is the deduction invalid even though actuary shows development of maximum in report (which also shows development of minimum)?

I had similar thoughts: I thought Martin Luther King was named after a boulevard in St. Louis.

EFAST2 passwords expire every 30 days. This makes perfect sense because you certainly wouldn't want anyone getting into the website and stealing your life savings or using your credit card. Oh, wait, this is not a personal financial return. Never mind. "You will be prompted to create a password. The password must be a combination of letters, numbers, and special characters, and must be re-set after 30 days." [note, you cannot reset to the same password] S.O.A.B I would suggest MMMYYYY. E.g, OCT2010 (all caps). This seems like a good but no-good solution. First, it's not long enough. Second, you may not remember your most recent password if you log into the website sporadically. The user is almost relegated to writing the $%#@ thing down unless someone has come up with a memory algorithm they'd like to share.

ASPPA ASA indicated: "A tax return preparer is any individual who is compensated to prepare, or assist in preparing, all or substantially all of a tax return or claim for refund. This includes Form 5500 preparers." In reviewing IRS announcements regarding who will need to obtain a PTIN, I do not note where 5500s are mentioned. If I have overlooked the obvious, would appreciate someone pointing out where. The 5500 is an information, and not a tax return.

There are all nice conjectures regarding the bear facts. However, what we have is the amalgamation of two questions: (1) Is the Pope Catholic? and (2) Does the Bear go you-know-what you-know-where? Blaspheming the Pope was a no-no. So, the question was posed of the bear.