chc93

Isn't this just a way to get the plan to refund the forfeitures to the company without any "appearance of a reversion". That is, the pattern (and maybe timing) of the transactions are effectively a reversion to the company. Also, doesn't the forfeitures in the plan actually "belong" to the participants in the plan... whether to pay reasonable/legitimate fees, reallocating to them, or reducing employer contributions. So second thought, why not have the employer reduce his next contribution by the remaining forfeitures...

We also have not heard or read anything on what is de-minimis for 414(s) purposes. One attorney told us 5% was de-minimis. We've done testing with 2% spread... and assumed that was de-minimis.

Yes... for the past few years (maybe since electronic filing began with EFAST), we have tried to consistently update for first day of plan year entrants. I can't recall where I heard this, but I thought I read or heard somewhere that EFAST will not flag an error if end of year count didn't match next beginning of year count, like they do for assets. I recall, years ago, at the ASPA (yes, one "P") annual conference in the IRS Q&A session, comments I heard were that accountants like to see end of year "numbers" match next beginning of year "numbers"... but I can't recall what the IRS said in response.

For your second situation... we are currently in the process of this situation. The acquiring entity plan is going to transfer all participants (active and terminated) from the acquired entity plan. If the acquiring entity plan is leaving back the terminated participants, the acquired entity plan will still have participants, and will still have Form 5500 filings until all assets are paid out. If the acquired entity no longer exists, and the acquiring entity is not willing to take over sponsorship of the acquired entity plan, what happens then? This might be a consideration to transfer all participants. Not sure about the MEP situation... maybe the MEP "sponsor" will have guidelines...

We had this situation. A separate contract (plan) was set up, and the appropriate participants were transferred from the "first" plan to the "second" plan. I don't recall if keeping all participants in the same contract (plan) was even an considered to be an option.

I would agree with austin3515. Bothered me too. If they know that they don't know, why roll anything forward. Maybe better to leave blank. Then it's up to the preparer to determine what to enter. [since we don't use their compliance package, I wasn't aware that they could pull the actual BOY participant count]

jpod... I haven't found specific instructions for "zero assets" being net or not net of liabilities yet. I think "liabilities" cannot be benefit liabilities. There is also that question on the 5500 that asks if all assets were distributed to participants... and if "yes", then whatever was left were not benefits (fees, in this case) and net assets were zero. I think we only did this a couple of times in the past, and didn't get any feedback from IRS or DOL. The current information on the IRS website only says "distributed all plan assets". https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/plan-sponsors-make-errors-when-filing-their-final-return With electronic filing, maybe would be best to not file as final even if assets left are for fees payable, and file as final in the next year.

What about the following... If the $250 was really to cover fees, maybe the 6/30/19 Form 5500 can show the $250 (or whatever amount on that date) as a liability, then with zero net assets... so final filing. Years ago, we showed final payment of fees after the plan year end as a liability on the Form 5500 with zero net assets, so final filing. No problems... FWIW

In other discussions on using prior year forms, it was mentioned that if it is anticipated that the current year form will be available by the due date of the filing, you should wait for the new form. For example, all assets distributed in July 2019, deadline is Feb 2020. If you expect the 2019 form to be issued by then, you should wait for the current form (2019 in this case) and not file using the prior year form (2018 in this case). <note that I don't like that conclusion>

For 2018 calendar years, Transamerica still provided their Schedule D download file... so we are filing Schedule D's... I guess we'll continue until Transamerica stops providing the download file... or tells us to stop. We haven't heard anything from them yet.

And... what triggered the DOL audit? The Form 5500 question on late deposits? Or something else... from which the DOL just "happened" to notice this during the audit. ,<interested to know>

Curious... how much was lost earnings based on the calculator...

I've always wondered about this. The upper-right corner under the form year clearly states that "this form is open to public inspection". I always thought that a copy of an EZ could be requested from the Public Disclosure Room. But I do know that a SF for a one-participant plan filed electronically through EFAST is not viewable on the EFAST website.... <confused> f5500ez.pdf

Also, although no assets, won't there be active participants at the end of the year (12/31/2018)? Or do they all enter on 01/01/2019...

I think so...

We have the opposite experience. Filled in Line 4 on Form 5500-SF, and *still* got that letter from the IRS.

For $500 and over 15 years ago, maybe look at DOL Field Assistance Bulletin 2006-1. As the FAB indicates in a somewhat similar situation, maybe you can send the check back, since administrative costs to try to do something with the $500 check will probably cost a lot more.

We've had insurance policy Schedule A's that reported commissions/fees in one year, and none in the a following year. We've answered the 5500 question appropriately with "yes" or "no" based on what the Schedule A reported. Now, if this is the first year and a Schedule A was not provided, I would probably answer "no".

I think I agree. And the OP did say that they complied with 402(g) and 415. So unless there are other contributions or compliance issues that depend on compensation, I don't see a problem. Is there anything else that depends on compensation that you are concerned about not capping to 401(a)(17)...

I would be interested in this item...

It's probably simpler to just rely on the in-service distribution provision, thus allowing a participant to request a partial in-service distribution of any amount (RMD amount or not), and in any year (consecutive or not).

I agree... if plan doesn't require RMD's, these distributions were simply in-service distributions that just happen to be the RMD amount. But then, if the plan doesn't allow in-service distributions, this would be "trouble"...

Wouldn't this be the same situation back when we had to change from 7-year graded to 6-year graded. The amendment could, at that time, apply the new vesting schedule to only participants who worked 1 hour of service after the effective date of the amendment.

But isn't this based on the IRS website "explanation", and not supported in Rev Rul 2007-28. (IRS website https://www.irs.gov/retirement-plans/retirement-plan-faqs-regarding-partial-plan-termination) "An affected employee in a partial termination is generally anyone who left employment for any reason during the plan year in which the partial termination occurred and who still has an account balance under the plan. " (emphasis mine) Rev Rul 2007-28... "... number of participating employees who had an employer-initiated severance from employment..." "... Employer-initiated severance from employment generally includes any severance from employment other than a severance that is on account of death, disability, or retirement on or after normal retirement age..." No mention of *anyone* who terminated for *any* reason..

The Form 5500/5500-SF filing search says this... ************************ This search tool retrieves Form 5500/5500-SF forms, schedules, and attachments filed since January 1, 2010. It allows you to search for multiple filings and view one complete filing at a time. ************************ (emphasis mine) I recall at one time reading that 5 years would be available for viewing. But it does say *filed since*. So even older Form 5500's filing now through DVFCP will probably be viewable.