Kristina

When was the deduction taken for the 2000 contribution?? The plan was effective for the 2000 year. The whole year the fact that it was in writing for a few months has no impact on whether the plan was in existence for the whole year. Regulations clearly state that one may adopt a plan on the last day of a plan year to be effective for the whole year. Also, since the plan was effective for the whole year and since the plan files the 5500s now and not the sponsor, a plan that was effective in 2000 and communicated to employees and funded within the corporate return period would be required to file a 2000 5500. (B5 or no B5) Since it was a B5 firm that came up with the no filing required, I would ask for the code sections and the regulations they base that opinion on. I would also ask the sponsor why it is such a big deal to file for the 2000 year? I'm thinking there is something here you haven't been told. I also think you have a delinquent filer situation.

You can not automatically assume that there were 148 participants at BOY for 2000 just because there were 148 participants at EOY 1999. You must look at who entered the plan on the first day of the plan year which would increase your count and who may have terminated/and paid a distribution on the first day of the plan year which would decrease your count. You are correct that if the BOY number on Item 6 of the 2000 5500 is greater than 120, you are required to have an audit of the plan. If the number of the participants is less than 120, you may continue filing as a small plan. Have you reviewed the plan provisions to see when terminated participants with no vested benefits can be disregarded for the participant count? (I believe that you mean that this plan filed the 5500-C/R in the past as the 5500-EZ is for owner participant only plans.)

For those of you who were wondering where the documentation is for the change in the amended or delinquent forms for pre-1999 years, you will find it on page 11 of the "Troubleshooter's Guide to Filing the ERISA Annual Report". It is at the bottom of the page as a Caution. You will find this on the EFAST website. By the way, this took 3 conversations with the DOL to determine where this was in writing. I had seen it here, but it seemed so casual that I expected a more formal announcement from the PWBA. Apparently not. So now we get to be hypervigilant, too.

The real question is is a bond a service or a purchased "commodity" (for lack of another word at this moment)? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. It is a promise to pay if the trustee runs off with the money. Would that be a service? I don't think so. Bonding company is not one of the service provider codes for the Sch C. Insurance agents are, but their service was the selling of the insurance product to the plan and the amount for them is their commission and/or fees. So, in my way of thinking the bond premium is the amount invested just-in-case the trustee is a bad guy. Which means that I would not include it on Sch C, but I would want to see a footnote regarding it in the audit report explaining that it was required by the court. I would be interested in other's thoughts however. Just as an aside, is the bankruptcy trustee a shareholder of the sponsor? Courts never fail to amaze me.

Did the plan pay for the bond?? If no, then it is not recorded on the Sch C. The Sch C is for fees paid from the plan. If the plan did pay for the bond, I think you have a different problem. Why would the participants pay to bond someone who is supposed to be looking out for their interests?

When you say you are doing the filing for the DFE, do you mean you are filing for the Bank? If so, you want page 2 of the Sch D. If you are filing for a plan that has a master trust, the EIN you want is for the DFE and not for the investment company. Therefore, you need the EIN for the bank holding the investments. Otherwise the DOL will not be able to tie your Sch D to the DFE.

Only Trustees sign the Sch P. Custodians are appointed by the Trustees.

I think you mean that the plans sponsored by the purchasing company are not covered by ERISA. It is my understanding (regarding qualified retirement plans only) that one files the 5500 for the plan. An employer whose plans are not covered by ERISA may elect to be covered by ERISA by, I believe, complying with the provisions of ERISA and an written election. The plan is thereafter covered by ERISA. This plan was covered by ERISA prior to the purchase and I believe that once covered, always covered.

The instructions refer to the filing date, not the due date. A filing date is the date you send (or file) it to the PWBA.

The address is Internal Revenue Service Center, Ogden UT 84201-0027. The 5558 is used to file an extension request for the filing of 5500s, 5500-EZs and 5330s. All 5558s are filed with the Ogden Center.

The IRS has indicated that they will forward any 5558's filed at the old address. If it were me, however, I'm not sure that I would want to depend on a mailroom person to understand the importance of the form. Therefore, I would mail a copy to the Ogden address if I knew that I had not previously mailed a 5558 there. After all there is no penalty for filing too many copies of the 5558.

When you say that 30,000 participate in the thrift plan, do you mean that they, as incorporated entities, adopted the thrift plan?

The revised 5558 says that it was revised in June, 2001, but it was not published until 7/11/01. (Little hard to put it in any software in time to be useful.) The only change between the old 5558 and the new 5558 is the revision date. The IRS will continue to accept the old 5558. The instructions changed in regard to the Ogden address as mentioned above.

DOL tracks a plan by the EIN of the sponsor and the three digit plan code. There is no mechanism to notify the DOL of a change in the plan name, however, to be on the safe side, I would attach a statement to the 5500 as to the fact that the plan name changed and showing what the old name was and the new plan name is. Because there are many plan sponsors who have not followed the plan numbering system (001, 002, 003,...) the DOL is finding that they are getting filings for separate plans of the same plan sponsor with the same three digit plan code. They are looking at the plan name carefully.

An officer of a corporation MUST sign for the corporation if for no other reason than there is no place on the corporation to put the pen. (hee hee) However, a third party is not mentioned in the instructions as an acceptable signor. An agent with the power to sign on behalf of the corporation would be acceptable, I am sure. However, few TPA's are given that power by their clients and wisely so. I don't know of many people that would accept the responsibility of signing for the Plan Administrator, if the Plan Administrator is an individual.

I agree with MTransue. If you do not file, you will receive a letter for the year that you do file because of the effective date of the plan. It might have been better to have amended the effective date of the plan when it looked like the company would not fund.

A third party is not authorized to sign the 5500. Even though a few forms may have been filed in the past without adverse results, it does not mean that filing such a form under EFAST would produce the same results. Also, because the first filing is incomplete in that appropriate signors have not signed, late filing penalties could be assessed. I would caution any TPA about signing on behalf of their clients. The DOL seems to have a bee in their bonnet about "bad" TPAs. Putting yourself in their sights is not a good idea.

Aha. This is a change in instructions from 1999 to 2000. (Wouldn't it be nice if they would type in bold any instruction that is different from the prior year?) So for 1999, one would enter the EIN of the payor (or the EIN shown on the 1099) even if it is the ER's EIN. For 2000, one would only enter an EIN on line 2 if it is different than the EIN shown in Item D. If it is a profit sharing plan and item 1 is 0, and the EIN is the ER's, then no Sch R is required. This now begs the question as to why the ER's EIN is being used to report distributions from a Qualified Plan. With the electronic deposit requirements, does it not make more sense to have a Trust ID# for the reporting of 1099s, 1096 and 945s than to try to accomplish an electronic deposit of federal income tax withheld from the Trust. I would be concerned that plan funds would flow to the ER to accomplish the electronic deposit of funds. Or maybe I am missing something.

recline46, How would you see a cross-tested plan as not meeting the description of code 2A? Aren't cross-tested plans designed to give the most to the HCE's? Thanks, I look forward to your answer. Kristina

I would recommend that you call the DOL helpline (866/463-3278) to determine how the REIT needs to be reported. (Because the people answering the phone are contract labor people and not DOL employees, be sure to rephrase and reask your question two or three times, or just ask for an agent.) Since REITs are often more closely held than the limited partnerships of the past, I would be surprised if they want them reported as other than real estate. But they have surprised me before. Could you post the answer you receive to this thread so all can benefit?

Tom's interpretation of the instructions matches the IRS explanation of the form. (I tend to think of the Sch R as the Schedule Ridiculous.)

Life insurance in a qualified plan is considered to be a welfare benefit and not a retirement benefit. The 5500 example cited above is correct. However, Section III of the Sch A is the appropriate section to complete for the life insurance. Item 7 is marked to indicate life insurance and Item 9 is to contain the premium amount. I realize this flys in the face of the way we have completed the Sch A's in the past, but after 3 calls to the IRS and the DOL last year, I am a believer. The responses I received all three times were the same and called for Part III of the Sch A. Because it was the first year for the DOL to take over the 5500's, their perview under ERISA was the basis for the change. The webcast was correct!!!

The income and expense portion of the Sch H (and Sch I) indicates the changes that have occurred in the plan assets from the last day of the prior year to the last day of the most recent year. While you would like to avoid the calculation, I do not see how you can avoid calculating the unrealized gain/loss on the basis of the market value of the assets on the last day of the prior year compared to the market value of the current year. You would also have additional adjustments to the unrealized gain/loss if you insist upon using the cost basis to determine the realized gains/losses. If this is a dc plan, the amount you report on the 5500 should be the amount allocated or held in reserve for future allocations as of the last day of the year.

I would agree with Tom Poje in that the premiums are "payments made . . . to or on behalf of participants or beneficiaries". The list of other expenses in the Sch I instructions does not seem to include anything but administrative type expenses.

Stephen, don't be cynical. While I can't comment on whether c-1 and C-2 will be split into two sections, it makes sense. There was always a ton of stuff to learn in C-1 and C-2, little time to learn it in, and inadequate time to test for knowledge.