Bill Presson

Actually, we charge a maintenance fee to cover a small part of our cost of processing the loan payments each year. Not to try and cover the auditors fee.

Any chance that someone might not like this idea? "Please explain to me again why I get charged more in fees just because That Guy took out a loan and those extra fees I'm paying are because of That Guy's loan." Just sayin'. An annual loan maintenance fee sounds like a workable solution if it's based on some reasonable cost estimates. And I agree with Kevin C that the timing could be an issue. But if you're going to do that what about: 1. the guy that doesn't defer, but only has profit sharing 2. the guy that doesn't take a hardship withdrawal 3. the guy that didn't screw up the payroll files and the auditor has to spend extra time checking deposits (none are late just not clean) 4. the guy that didn't mess up the schedule c etc. etc. I would find it very difficult to start allocating audit fees specifically based on the attibute being audited.

When does the plan schedule the liquidation? Typically the liquidation is within a day or so (just enough to clear pending transactions) of the beginning of the blackout. So in your scenario, the plan will likely be better off because it went to cash at the beginning. But that's how we would do it.

Is the annual fee in addition to a regular loan maintenance fee? If so, I might question that. If not, I would question why you aren't charging a maintenance fee. Also, if the employer is worried about the audit fee, just have the plan pay the audit fee. It can be allocated in different ways (pro rata, per capita); maybe that's what the discussion should be.

We leave it up to the employer, but if we respond (and it is something that wasn't our fault) then we bill our time.

We're using Penchecks for all of our balance forward plan distributions now. We charge the same distribution fee we always have and we pay the Penchecks fee. Works great.

Without looking at the plan document itself, it's almost impossible to tell you.

And maybe the training was a Good Thing for plan sponsors and for TPAs for whom potential mistakes by staff were reduced (reducing the risk of liability for resulting damages), even though in hindsight the training was not required? It's likely the training hasn't happened yet, just the expense.

Happy New Years, everyone! Have a fun & safe holiday and Roll Tide!

I've heard of it if the assets are all held by an insurance company. Is that the current situation?

This is where I always go: http://benefitsattorney.com/modules.php?name=415

SARSEP's had to be established before 1997. Does that change your questions?

Find a good attorney. Assuming everything you have said is accurate, you shouldn't have any trouble finding someone to take the case.

We just processed 8 people on staff this week. Gotta love the IRS.

I don't think so, because the SS benefits aren't going to change. And only the Govt can keep the benefits the same while lowering "contributions".

Where did you see this (bolded)? I've never (last 5-6 years) had an IRS or DOL auditor allow us to represent a taxpayer whether we prepared the 5500 or not. We always have one of the CPA's get the 2848.

Here is the rub. We don't need higher taxes, we need higher tax REVENUE. The Republicans haven't done a very good job in a long while in making the distinction. Or in being prudent with spending when they have some control.

Then you'll need to get the ERPA designation. I'm planning on doing it next year.

Why would your CPA designation not allow you to do any of those items?

With all the electronic filing issues this, the IRS has been pretty reasonable in abating penalties.

But don't they have to make the election by December 31?

Perfect, Gary. I was hoping you would reply!

Hoping a SEP guru will see this and can point me in the right direction. Let me first say that I have asked for a copy of the SEP document (page?), but have not yet received it. We are working with a law firm that has had a SEP for a number of years. All the owners make well over the compensation limit. For 2009, their contribution was about $35,000 for each of the owners. We asked why they didn't receive a maximum contribution since they had indicated that was very important. The law firm’s accountant is telling them they did max out their SEP because it is 10.7% on first $20,000 and then 15% on remainder for max of $35,770. I know that an SEP CAN be integrated, but this seems to be a very unusual formula to me. Does this make sense to anyone else? Thanks.

Hmmm. Perhaps the irony is unrelated to the name, but is related (apparently) to a Ms. listening to a Mr. Mostly along these lines. It just appeared to be what my wife would post had I provided an answer.

And you need to think about how the tests are going to pass in 2011. Probably have to change to current year.