chc93

Some comments... I recall filing final 5500's with the "final" box checked, but FreeERISA doesn't show the "final" box checked. All other information was correct. I just checked one plan that terminated in 2008. The 5500 we filed (we file the signed 5500's with the IRS from our office for most plans) and the "final" box was checked. On FreeERISA, the "final" box is not checked. No inquiries from IRS. So I don't think FreeERISA is a good source as far as checking for the "final" box. In your case, if your unsigned copy has the "final" box checked, and FreeERISA has the 5500, I would expect everything to be fine for that plan. But, the approved extension for that plan is curious. Also, you might try calling the DOL/EBSA Public Disclosure Room. I recently called to check on a final 5500 we filed, and the person I spoke with actually looked for and got the 5500 in hand and confirmed the filing. The concern was that we filed a final 5500 for 2009 using the 2008 form on paper before 12/31/09 as allowed, so the 2009 5500 was not on FreeERISA and not on DOL/EFAST. I think it took a couple of days, but the person was very helpful.

Has anyone seen or heard anything on the status of the 2011 Form 5500 release? Thanks...

Based on what I've heard so far, I think the answer to both of your questions depends on if you intend to electronically file or file by paper. If filing electronically, you may need to compete lines 6 (to match the number of participants listed) and line 8, so there are "no errors", otherwise, the electronic filing will be rejected. If filing by paper, it seems you may be able to do whatever you feel is "right", but this doesn't eliminate a letter from the IRS in the future. (my 2 cents)

As far as I know, like Tom said earlier, ftwilliam.com issues a warning if the line 6-7 count doesn't equal the number participants listed... they say the warning is issued since electronically filing will fail. But if paper filing, maybe it's OK?

FWIW... this is what I'm doing... instead of waiting for a 2010 form. Get it over with, and start "fresh" with the 2011 form.

Thank you very much for the information and confirmation. I guess, when reading the Note in the instructions, I read too fast. Note (1) speaks to "filing due date", and Note (2) speaks of "filing". I quickly assumed that Note (2) also implied "filing due date". From the instructions: ************************ Notes. (1) If the filing due date falls on a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday, the return/report may be filed on the next day that is not a Saturday, Sunday, or Federal holiday. (2) If the 2011 Form 5500 is not available before the plan or DFE filing use the 2010 Form 5500 and enter the 2011 fiscal year beginning and ending dates on the line provided at the top of the form. ************************

So, has there been any update on when the 2011 forms will be available. It appears that if the 2011 forms are released before the plan filing deadline, we'll have to use the 2011 forms. Said another way, if the 2011 filing deadline is Dec 31, 2011 (terminated plan), and the 2011 forms are released in Oct 2011, we cannot use the 2010 forms now?

Recently, we had a 600+ participant DB plan... filed 5310 on June 30, 2010... got DL dated May 5, 2011.

I finally called the IRS because the written correspondence was going forward and backward through loops, etc, essentially going in circles. I got the 2848 power of attorney signed. Called the IRS, got put on the customary 30 minute hold, then got the IRS agent, faxed the 2848 while he waited on the phone, then he got all of the information that we mailed to the IRS while I waited on the phone, then we discussed the situation, after which he agreed with what he had, and removed the penalties... all in the single phone call. Note that a large part of the quickness in response was probably because the IRS already received all of our correspondence and documentation of the situation. In our experience, calling the IRS works well when written correspondence doesn't get anywhere.

Back in Sept 2010, we filed the PS plan incorrectly as 001 instead of 002 (the 5558 extension was correct with 002). The MP plan terminated in 2002, and was 001. In Nov 2010, we filed an amended PS plan as 002. We subsequently got a late filing notice for 002. Apparently, the amended PS plan changing from 001 to 002 was not recognized as a filing for 002 which was timely filed, but as 001. There were numerous letters back and forth from Nov 2010 through June 2011. In July 2011, I got a power of attorney, called the IRS, and the agent (very polite and helpful) removed all penalties and updated their system. Maybe the best solution in your case may be to call the IRS and ask for their instruction to fix the problem.

I think the instructions say that a manual signature is required, but for electronic filing, an electronic signature is not required... not that no signature (manual or electronic) is required if electronically filing. Also, we've gone a bit further. We mail the 8955-SSA to the client, ask them to review and sign the form for their files, and then ask them to mail or fax a copy of the signed page 1 to us. After we receive the signed copy, we electronically file the form. Maybe a bit of a hassle, but at least we know they "saw" the form, and hopefully reviewed it too.

I asked this question on the Form 8955-SSA thread. We took over a couple of plans recently which terminated, and don't know if any or all of the deferred vested participants were ever reported as "A". We decided to report them as "D" now that they are being paid out. Seems like this was the general thought, but I don't think anyone knew what will happen if there's a "D" when there was never a "A".

Also, for the general public, I think that EFAST2 will only show the most current filing for a plan, not all amendments, and no status. But, I think that if the filer that signed would log in to EFAST2 (with UserID and password), he will see all forms including amended forms and status of each form filing.

We had 1 large plan (500+ participants) audited in 2010, and they went back to 2005 for the audit. We currently have 1 large plan (200+ participants) being audited, and they are going back to 2007.

I've electronically filed with IRS/FIRE on July 28, and did not mark any extension box. As far as the electronic filing, the status is "Good - Released". I'll post later if we get any kind of notice from the IRS. None so far...

I've done one big DB plan that terminated in 2008 with final distributions by Dec 2009 (our first 8955-SSA experience). I printed the forms, mailed it to them, told them to review it, and if OK, then sign the form and keep in their files. Only after they tell me that they signed the form did I electronically file through FIRE. The process worked well. I guess we can ask them to fax a signed copy of Page 1 for confirmation before we electronically file, but I don't think this is necessary for some (if not most) clients. The FIRE filing had one initial glitch. I'm using ftwilliam.com, and downloaded the .txt file for upload to FIRE. In the file, our company's EIN had a hyphen, which FIRE rejected. I got a call from a FIRE agent the next day telling what the problem was. While on the phone, he had me edit the .txt file to remove the hyphen and re-file as "original". After he confirmed the re-file, he marked the first filing as "bad, not processed". The second filing was "accepted and processed". I notified ftwilliam.com, and they fixed the problem within minutes. Very good support/response from both IRS/FIRE and ftwilliam.com.

Tom, thank you very much again for your insights. Much appreciated. I understand the concept of the SSA, and I guess my concern is that, per the instructions (contrary to regulations), reporting Code D participants is mandatory. If it was optional, I would think that ignoring such "missing" participants is the better way to go. Turns out that the rollover institution only has "place holders" SSN's (000-00-0006, for example), and the address that they have has already been identified as "invalid". So... the adventure continues.

I have another situation that I'd appreciate some thoughts. The company went bankrupt in 2008, and currently ceases to exist. The bankruptcy trustee is still handling all plan matters. We have 2 participants that were terminated in 1986 and 1992 for which we don't have SSN's. They terminated way before we took over the plan. When we took over, the SSN's for these 2 participants were not available/provided. They are still "missing", and their benefits were rolled over to IRA's. We are attempting to see if the rollover institutions have obtained SSN's. Assuming we cannot get SSN's, would it be better to report them on the 8955-SSA with Code D and SSN of 000-00-0000, or not report them at all. Since they terminated so long ago, we don't have information that they were even reported with a Code A at some point in time. Also, I'm hopeful that the difference between the instructions (mandatory reporting of Code D) and the regulations (optional reporting of Code D) is resolved as "optional". Then, not reporting may be the path of least "question".

Thanks, Tom. We also have some plans that only require a "2010" form, since there are none to report on a "2009" form. I guess the "2009" form should work for this too.

Has anyone heard if a 2010 Form 8955-SSA will be available, if ever? For some plans, I'd rather keep the 2009 and 2010 information on separate forms. I think I can use the 2009 form with 2010 dates for only 2010 required information, but would rather use an actual 2010 form. But if it's never coming, then I'll use the 2009 form. How long should I wait? Any ideas? Thanks...

Another question... has anyone heard more about "Enter each participant’s name exactly as it appears on the participant’s social security card." I already submitted electronically through FIRE, but didn't think about this... just used the name as I have in our files...

Thanks again, Tom. We're also inclined to include them as a Code D, assuming they were previously reported correctly as a Code A.

Tom... thank you for your reply. I agree with your points. The question I have is for participants that we don't know if they were previously reported as Code A (remember, take-over plan). As you say, if they were never previously reported, that's a problem itself. But, since we don't know if they were previously reported, should we report them as a Code D now since we know they were paid. Any thoughts?

Question on Codes A and D (taking over a plan) As far as we can tell, vested terminated participants who terminated before 2008 were never reported on any SSA as a Code A (at least back to 2006 that we have copies of 5500's). Since the plan has now been terminated, we know that a lot of these participants were paid in 2010. Would you include these participants as a Code D on the 2009 SSA? If reported as a Code D, but was never reported as a Code A, does that raise a flag? I saw ASPPA comments on the draft instructions that reporting of Code D appeared to be mandatory, and requested that the instructions be made clear that Code D was optional, as specified in regulations. I went through the final instructions, and cannot tell if Code D was still mandatory. Can someone point me in the right direction? If Code D is optional, I realize that if the participant was previously reported as a Code A and never reported as Code D, he will probably get a letter from the SSA when he retires that he *may* have benefits in the xxx Plan, and it may be years from now... major pain, at least. We normally report participants as Code A, so no problem reporting as Code D. It's in takeovers, where we don't know if or when a participant was reported as a Code A, that concerns us. Thanks...

I agree with Tom. I also recall Janice's comment on not reporting terminated participants who are eventually paid as her opinion at that time. And I think the final instructions are clear. We have a large DB plan that terminated in April 2010, and all benefits paid by May 2011. Participants who terminated in 2008 and later were never reported since 2008 was the last SSA filed, and 2008 terms were not required to be reported there. Since the 2009 form is not required to be filed until Jan 2012, I do not intend to report any participants terminated in 2008 and later as Code A AND Code D, instead they will not be reported. Only participants terminated in 2007 and earlier who were previously reported as Code A (and not yet reported as Code D) will be reported as Code D.