pmacduff

PBM - I wasn't questioning whether the Real Estate attorney might not be subject to disciplinary action in the law community. My point was that he could complete the 5500 per the IRS/EBSA guidelines because he is an attorney without having to have the ERPA designation. Whereas I am a QKA, QPA with 20+ years of experience in pensions/401k etc. and 5500 filings and yet would be required to have the ERPA designation to complete 5500s. We'll have to see where all this goes...

We are a small shop and while we do use RGF but not Web Client. (Turns out that was a good thing from what I'm hearing!) Anyway we did all our client returns by downloading the *.xml files created in RGF to EFAST2 and then either the client went on and signed or we attached the signature pages and we signed. Considering we didn't have the RGF ability to create the *.xml files until June I think we did ok. We had a couple to file today but are all done now. That being said - I think we are going with Ft William next year for 5500 filings as we have heard only good things about that software.

The involuntary cash out provisions are with regard to the total account balance and without regard to source. I would say then that any account balance under the plan's cash out parameters (i.e. $1000) can be cashed out regardless of the "sources' involved. You would have separate 1099-R forms for the pre-tax and roth amounts, though, so end up with 2 for each participant.

Although I agree about the "ridiculousness" I do admit I wasn't thinking of the tie-in between the 5500 and the client's deduction on the 1120 - I suppose that make some miniscule amount of sense to me now but it is Friday afternoon.....

Andy - It's almost as if they are deliberately not mentioning...did you see this in the most recent IRS Plans News (note the "revised" date): "8. Does the PTIN requirement apply to individuals who only prepare payroll or other non-1040 series returns? (revised 9/28/10) Yes. All paid tax return preparers are required to obtain a PTIN." I was thinking today that perhaps although it is an informational return the 5500 series still falls in the "tax return" category? Who knows. It would be nice if the IRS and/or DOL would post something definitive with regard to the 5500 series of forms in relation to the PTIN requirements!! :angry: (the emphasis is mine)

OK - someone in our office filed some returns through EFAST2 and instead of attaching the "other attachment" *.pdf file with BOTH pages of the 5500 form they only included the signature page in the file. Does anyone know if this would require doing an amended return? Page 2 of the 5500 is already there of course in the main filing. I know that both pages were SUPPOSED to be included in the file, I'm just wondering what others think as far as amending and refiling. any thoughts appreciated.

FWIW - I have 2 large ING plans and the Accountants (auditors) were ok with the 2 mos worth of info. I think ING put something in the cover letter to the info as to why it was and going forward it would be a full 12 months. ING did have the fees identified for my clients, so I'm not sure what you mean about "they did not break down the fees"?

Page #3 of the 2009 945 instructions indicate that you can send the withholding in with the filing using the 945-V, but only if the w/h is under $2500, we have also had clients use this option when applicable. (see attached) i9452009.pdf

Yeah Tom - I agree & I have prepared the client. Explained that they may get a letter claiming the EBSA did not receive a final return on the "28" and as you mentioned and also a letter asking why the 2009 "26" return was not marked as a "first return filed"! I guess we'll cross those bridges when we come to them. It will be so much fun! I'm just curious as to why there is a whole set of numbers that the EBSA considers to be invalid characters for the 1st 2 digits of the EIN numbers. I think that it is perhaps because they know for some reason that those numbers were never assigned? They should at least allow the numbers to validate in question #4 in case anyone else has the situation that I did!

Heard from the EBSA this morning. Since "28" contains invalid characters in the eyes of the EBSA, there is no way to put this information on the 5500 form and have it accepted. I was advised to use an "Other Attachment" *pdf file and put the information/an explanation in there so that's what I did. Whew!

here is a strange one: Client had given us the wrong EIN number back in 2007 (new client & plan). I discovered this when I was trying to validate the 2009 5500 in RGF this year, it would not validate the number. I verifed with the client that the number was in fact incorrect and they gave me the correct number. 5500 and schedules will validate with the correct number. Now...when I fill in form 5500, Part II, 4a, 4b & 4c (so that the EBSA and IRS will know that we updated the EIN number), the form will once again not validate. I even tried importing it to the EBSA website anyway but it won't accept the form for import. When I spoke with Relius support the first time, they told me that the system isn't "smart" enough to know that the number was invalid. No one is sure why the number wouldn't validate before. I have a new incident in to try and fix this newest problem but since the wait is long I thought I'd see if anyone else has had a similar problem and/or any fixes?? ok - addendum to this...I found out that "28" is not an acceptable start for an EIN. You can't even enter it. This is why it won't validate. The problem is that the 2008 form WAS filed with the EIN beginning with "28", so I've emailed the EFAST help area and hopefully will get an answer soon. I'll update this post when I hear back....

We have a client that changed their plan year from fiscal to calendar in 2008. Of course there was a short plan year filing in 2008. This year when we did the 5500 extension request back in July no one checked the dating in the RGF software and consequently the extension had the wrong plan year ending on it. (The old plan year end date which would have been 04/30/2010). The extension did, however, have the correct requested extended date of 10/15/2010. The client received a notice from the IRS that the extension was denied. The notice stated that it was received after the filing deadline?? [i'm not sure why that is because if it truly was a 04/30/2010 plan year ending it is well within the timeframe, wrong dates and all - probably a standard form notice] The notice had a phone number (with a 30+ minute wait) and then an address if the client preferred to write. We had the client send a letter back with a copy of the corrected extension, explanation of the plan year change and asked them to please approve. We have already filed the 2009 5500 online. Has anyone else had this happen? Do you know what the odds are that the IRS will approve the extension? They did receive it timely and it had the correct extension request date, just an incorrect plan year ending date. Thoughts?

ok - in the our new world of EFAST2 can others tell me what they do for this situation... I have a JHancock plan with redemption fees. We report these on the Sch A. The report does not give me the street address, city, state or zip for the Fund Company. The Sch A does not validate without that info. What do others do or can someone point me to where I could find a valid address for a Fund Company? In this instance it is Vanguard Group Inc but I know there are bound to be more. Thanks in advance.

Be careful what you wish for Tom. I was camping in the Adirondack Mtns. this past weekend and the low on Friday night was 30 degrees...YIKES! Saturday night was a balmy 62, but it rained all night. And if anyone was wondering - I was in a tent [not a trailer or cabin ] Who thinks of that in August even up here?!!?!

and what more does the ERPA designation cost start to finish? While I'm on my soapbox - would a Real Estate Attorney or be better equipped to complete a 5500 form than I? Yet he/she doesn't have to obtain any extra credentials in order to do so. I understand that it means that ASPPA and NIPA and the like would all want to be recognized, but are there really THAT many different pension specific credentials that could be acceptable? I think not. my 2 cents.

chc93 we too agree about the revenue source. with the new EFAST2 system there probably won't be as many late filing penalities! I don't know how many of the $15,000 late filing penalties actually get wavied over the course of a year, but I'm guessing that there are client who just pay the penalty without trying the tear soak letter and the like. Then there is always the 2007 "late" letters that went out, many for clients who actually did file and filed timely!!!

The ASPPA ASAP I received today says that while no one is sure; the regs do indicate that 5500 preparation IS included. ASPPA is also awaiting the impact on Third Party Administrators and searching for clarification from the IRS. BTW - just had to add another thought...any TPAs out there like us insulted that once again the IRS is going to "grandfather" CPAs and attorneys for this new requirement but not recognize any ASPPA designated (i.e. CPCs and QPAs) or other credentialed Pension professionals? This is getting to be too much! Another slap in the face. And yes - I do have ASPPA designations, been in the business for 20 years......

We collect the signature pages only back for our files and we have many clients that will send us back those copies via certified mail. We hope that means that they are also sending the EBSA copy certified, but you never know! As K2retire says, we wonder if they even read what we send to them!

I believe most if not all of the letters have been sent by the IRS. When this whole debacle (of clients getting letters on returns that were filed) started I think I heard that the forms were not being sent between the 2 agencies (ie. the EBSA was not forwarding the forms to the IRS or the forms were getting lost in the shuffle or something like that....)

sorry - I guess I didn't have any like that yet! Can you validate again in EFAST2 like you can in I-FILE?

Andy - Our Relius Gov Forms validates when we answer (m) no and leave (n) blank. I guess because (n) says "if (m) is "yes..." I assumed it SHOULD be blank. All of the forms I have processed through I-FILE have gone through without a hitch (and I have validated the forms both in my RGF and on I-FILE) Hope this helps.

Anybody know how I can remove the date in the lower right and the "Page 1 of 1" on the RGF SAR template? I can't seem to "see" those on the screen to remove them when I try to edit the template or create a new template. Thanks in advance!!

Although page 1 is the only signed page, I believe the EBSA has always held (since the change was made) that you have to attach both page 1 and page 2, in other words, a complete 5500. Perhaps just an error in the ASPPA release?

so what do we suppose will happen if I did not mark the 2nd filing as amended?

WDIK - I guess I didn't use the right verbage....when I clicked on the client name (on the screen that showed Filing _Stopped) I then clicked on "edit" and the system put the return back in my "waiting for signature" listing. Perhaps I should have marked "amended"(??) but since the original filing was not "received", I assumed that it wasn't necessary.