chc93

What about component plans. Component #1 with owners cross-tested on benefits basis. Component #2 with daughter tested on contributions basis. This has helped us in cases with a young child entering such plans. edit: Oops... rcline beat me to it... while I typed.

my comment: in our office, we've asked clients to fax the signed first page to us before we file electronically.

If you have a welfare plan "wrapper" so that they are all part of the same plan, you could report both on the calendar year 2011 5500 and use the matching schedule A and the schedule A ending within that year. Many, many plans are like this. This is how we do it too. I think the only "requirement" is to be consistent year-to-year.

We combined 2009 and 2010 for all of our plans, except for one. A large bank wanted to keep the SSA information for 2009 and 2010 separate on separate forms (there were large numbers of participants required to be reported for 2009 and for 2010).

I agree with Tom. If I recall correctly, the initial 8955-SSA instructions said that a form must be filed each year. However, the final instructions say that the form should be filed only for years in which there are reportable participants. So you file a 2009 form and report both 2009 and 2010 participants, and don't file a 2010 form. That is no different that not filing a 2009 form at all if there are no reportable participants for 2009 and 2010, or not filing a 2009 (or 2010) form if there are no reportable participants for 2010. Then if there are reportable participants in a future year, you file a form for that future year. That's also how the previous Schedule SSA was done, or at least how we've done it (and I didn't think anything finally changed in this regard).

The question we have is that the IRS Employee Plan News doesn't quite agree with the 2011 Form 5500-SF instructions. For one-participant plans, the instructions contain the following note: ************* Note. Information filed on Form 5500-EZ is required to be made available to the public. Form 5500-SF is open to public inspection and the contents are public information subject to publication on the Internet. ************* The only thing that the IRS is apparently saying is that the one-participant SF will not be on the online database. But the DOL controls the online database... so what if the DOL feels that since the SF is open to public inspection, decides that it should be available on the online database... Am I concerned about nothing?

For whatever it's worth, I've never heard of Form 3115 until now, so obviously never filed one. Glancing through the instructions, is this form really for corporate tax returns that change methods of accounting, and not applicable to Form 5500's... kinda like the question of PTIN's, and Form 5500's/Form 1040's. PTIN's not required for 5500's since it's really an "information" form rather than a "tax" form.

Tom, can you please explain Plan B. The terminated NHCE is not getting a benefit because of the last day rule, as opposed to not getting a benefit because his "individual group" contribution is zero. So why would this preclude ABPT for coverage (failed reasonable classification) if the terminated NHCE is not getting a contribution for a reason that is not related to his "individual group". Seems like the last day rule can be used to allow ABPT for coverage for both Plans A and B. Thanks...

I've been told by auditors in the past that changing "once" is OK... that is, change and be consistent. I've actually changed a few plans since then, and the year of change from cash to accrual showed "double" company contributions (prior year cash deposit, current year accrual). Never had problems... (and hope I never do).

Can't they also try to get a fidelity bond to cover the non-qualifying asset. As I understand it, the amount of the non-qualifying asset is determined as of the last day of the prior plan year. So if a non-qualifying asset is acquired during the year, a fidelity bond is not required until the following year. And, while the fidelity bond has to be in effect on the first day of the following year, I think the DOL has relaxed that to "as soon as the non-qualifying asset value can be determined".

We had an exact situation, and we did file the 8955-SSA reporting 1 previously Code A as now a Code D. As posted above, this takes the participant off the SSA data base, so no questions 20 years from now.

I was discussing this in the office, and this "pre-funding" of the DC plan is what the IRS didn't like in the past. So, while everything "allows" it, it's still "pre-funding" the DC. Also as mentioned, if the excess transfer is large enough, there will not be any additional contributions to the DC plan until the excess is used up, for which a tax deduction has already been taken. So there is no real "abuse", except for the "pre-funding" ("earlier" tax deduction) issue... which may be viewed as "abuse"?

I also heard of the IRS uncertainty in these cases. However, we recently terminated a large DB plan with excess assets. 100% of the excess was transferred to their existing PS plan. The ERISA attorney for the plans was clear that transferring "at least" 25% of the excess reduced the excise tax to 20%, and further, transferring 100% (the "amount transferred" is not subject to excise taxes), resulted in $0 reversion to the employer resulted in $0 excise tax.

The 2010 Form 8955-SSA instructions were released this morning. It looks like if 2010 information was already filed on the 2009 form (whether combined with 2009, or 2010 by itself), all is well, and nothing further is required for 2010. But if 2010 information has not yet been filed, the 2010 form must be used. I think this is what the instructions say...

I think it is a pretty risky stand to not issue the notice. Based on people I talk to, at all size firms, most are just putting a blurb into the SAR/AFN as Andy said. I don't know anyone who isn't doing it. Effen, I agree. Just passing on comments I've seen on this question.

A comment in the ACOPA message boards... ERISA 101(d)(1), last sentence... "Such notice shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary may prescribe." Since such time and manner has not yet been prescribed, there is no requirement yet. Also, another comment that many are apparently not issuing such notices.

Another question.... can we still use the 2009 form to report 2010 information, or must we use the 2010 form for 2010 information. We've prepared a bunch using the 2009 form to report 2010 information, but not yet filed...

I have the same situation. Since Code D has to be put somewhere to file through FIRE, if a Code D would have been put on a 2009 form, I entered on 6a, if a Code D would have been put on a 2010 form, I entered on 6b. As far as I know, Code D should be put on the form year in which the participant was paid.

Thanks for the comments. We've done a couple of our larger plans through FIRE with both 2009 and 2010 information without problems. Our smaller plans are being done now. My concern is that the IRS issues the final 2010 form before we can finish what we're doing. Option is to wait for the final 2010 form, but again, who knows when that will be and how much time we'll have before the deadline. I expect to file in a week or two, and really hope the IRS doesn't pull a "fast" one this time and issue the final 2010 form quickly.

I just read in Sungard/Relius that the IRS released the draft of the 2010 Form 8955-SSA. The kicker is that once the IRS releases the final 2010 form, the transition rules which allows use of the 2009 form to report 2010 information will not be available. And the deadline for the 2010 form is still Jan 17, 2012. Since we already started preparing the 2010 information on the 2009 form, we'll be filing that very soon now, or else we'll have to re-do the 2010 information on the 2010 form... and who knows when that will be.

What I've seen and done... the beginning of year amounts are brought forward from the prior year. Then, the contributions reflect the cash basis contribution from the prior year, and the current year receivables... essentially doubling-up contributions for this year of switch. I don't think you can change the beginning of year amounts... I think they must be equal to end of year amounts from the prior year.

I've heard from auditors in the past that you can do it either way... just be consistent year-to-year. And, you could probably switch now, but then again, stay consistent after the switch (also assuming it was consistent before you switch).

I thought I heard at ACOPA conferences that signing the SB is not considered to be a certification, and that a separate certification is required. Form over function, to me...

pmacduff, thank you very much for the information.

Did Relius mention a 2010 and/or 2011 form? Or, is the 2012 form the "next" form after the 2009 form. If so, how or when do we do the 2011 form, seeing that the 2010 "form" is done on the 2009 form. This is getting confusing. Anyone with info or ideas?