Bill Presson

I think it depends. But based on your description, I don't think you would be required to file.

Yes, the DOL is actively doing this. http://www.cshco.com/News/Articles/DOL_begins_campaign_for_missed_welfare_benefit_plan_filings/

Okay with me bill.presson@warrenaverett.com

Just to give you another option, we do lots of welfare 5500s as well. The firm is Warren Averett; we're the 27th largest CPA firm in the country and I work specifically for our benefit affiliate.

Bravo!

Do they have liability, yes. But most of the impact of the liability can be addressed in the purchase agreement assuming both parties want that hanging out there for a number of years. We've merged only a handful of plans in my 30 years in this business because of this issue. 99% of the plans in this same situation will terminate prior to the sale.

Based on what you've written here, I say yes. If the wording in the document is changed to something like "employees with direct ownership" then no. This is one reason we've had all our plans redesigned with everyone in their own group.

Yes, the person giving the answer is wrong. But it wouldn't be the first time.

How was the LLC the plan sponsor before the S Corp was created? The plan wasn't adopted by the LLC ever. If the EIN isn't the same then it's not the same company. It would be a controlled group if the owners are the same, but if it doesn't exist when the S Corp adopts the plan, I'm not sure any compensation paid by the LLC would count.

Belgarath, thanks for that. I actually now remember seeing that PLR when it came out. My fuzzy recollection is that there were differences between the recovery if the policy or "contract" was surrendered to pay the benefit (no recovery) or if the policy or "contract" was annuitized to pay the benefit (recovery). In the instant case, not sure it's worth the trouble for $1,000, but the op is free to get a more specific opinion.

You have a couple of different questions going here so you need to be very specific. 1. The cash value is not a rollover. It belongs to whatever source of money was used to pay the premium. For this purpose (moving it from the insurance company to current investments) just pretend it's in mutual fund A. There's really no difference. 2. The PS 58 costs (now I think called Table 1 costs) are the amount an insured reports as taxable income every year because they receive a current benefit from the insurance coverage. If the participant dies and the plan pays out the death benefit, the beneficiary may treat the reports costs as a basis in the payout and reduce the taxable amount. If the participant surrenders the policy, the taxable basis is lost and is not recovered.

Did the entity keep the same EIN?

The cash value is already an asset in the plan. If the plan surrenders the policy, the cash value gets reinvested based on the plan rules, whether it's trustee directed or participant directed. The plan is listed as the owner of the policy, right?

I'm pretty sure that EZ filings and SF filings checked as one participant plans aren't available on EFAST.

Why is a 32 person db plan having an audit?

Are you actually doing recordkeeping or just providing TPA services?

Not a bad idea but we've done one for each year each time we've done this.

What facts were mistaken? Some forms have a box for % of pay and another for straight $ amount. He mught have thought he was filling out the box for $50 and put it into the 50%. Just throwing it out there not that I actially believe it. Like you Im not sure where mistake of fact might come in on this one. While not a mistake of fact, that might be something I would recommend the employer look to help fix. A 50% deferral is a little outside the norm.

Peter, they are firms that are starting to provide Plan Administrator services, but that still doesn't excuse an employer from performing their own duties. We have clients of all sizes and some of them are in this arena: very small and so busy they have almost no time available on a daily basis. What we do in that situation is have an agreement with the employer as to how and how often we will contact him. We only reach out when action is required. And we send a letter/email but follow up with a quick call. In return the employer has to promise that he will read and act in those limited times. Maybe a discussion like that would save your client time and expense in switching?

This is what was formerly known as a SAS 70. It's a standard request by every CPA firm for an audited plan. If you are doing daily recordkeeping you should have this done each year, but it can be pricey if you only have a few clients. It allows the CPA firm to reduce the amount of work they test during the audit so it saves your client money.

What facts were mistaken?

I would have the employer estimate anything that was a required entry on the form otherwise it will kick out. Just have them document the reasoning behind the estimates.

Our firm has been heavily involved in this for our clients. I believe that the FSA is not an excepted benefit in this case because of the example you cite. But remember that there is not very much guidance here. This is an example if weighing the risk/reward in deciding whether to report or not.

I would file from the first year and have the employer give their best estimates. We just went through a similar situation with an employer that had a tough time with their early records. Their first year was 1992. I feel your pain.

Using plan assets to buy a typical fidelity bond protecting the plan is pretty standard. But I'm confused as to why State Street needs the plan to do this? As a corporate trustee/custodian, they should have a several million dollar bond in place and I'm pretty sure they are exempt from having to get a bond for each plan.