Tom Poje

no matter what anyone says, you should follow the instructions indicated on the 5500. you did not really indicate when the plan dropped below 100 participants, so it is hard to answer the question properly. instructions (page 7 for form 5500): a plan that covered fewer than 100 participants as of the beginning of the year should be completed following the requirements for a small plan, and a return filed for a plan that covered more than 100 participants as of the beginning of the year should be completed following the requiremenst for a large plan. use the number of participants required to be entered on line 5 of the form 5500 to determine whether a plan is a "small plan" or a "large plan" Note how the instructions say # of participants at the beginning of the year, not at some other point in time during the year. the only exception given is that if you are between 80 and 120 particpants as of he beginning of the year AND a Form 5500 was filed the year before (hint: its not a new plan) you are permitted to file the same type of form you filed the year before. In other words, if you filed a short form the year before, you can file a short form again. your comments implied a large plan form was filed the year before so the exception would not apply. can not tell from your comments if the count as of the beginning of the year was less than 100. If it is more than 100, you are out of luck despite the fact that at the end of the year it is less than 100.

used FT Williams for the first time this year. No problems. Haven't had any issues of 'waiting' for a 5500 to be received (or taking a number of passes to be finally accepted) like I've seen based on comments from others.

this all depends. you indicate you fail the comp test, so you can't use allocation pay in testing. assuming you use total pay in testing, there is nothing to stop you from testing on an allocation basis (no gateway required) and imputing disparity. if that passes testing then hurray. if you test on an accrual basis, then participant must receive either 1/3 of plan year comp (which must satisfy 414s) or 5% based on 415 comp.

no no no. the name is Smokey Bear. There is no 'the'. (another useless fact you probably didn't know) this misconception was due to a song that added the word 'the'.

yeh, but then I have to run off to the Land of Oz (or is that ASPPA?) for the Conference ...To confer, converse and otherwise hob-nob with my brother wizards in the pension world.

can't amend after plan year end. one such example can be found in Rev Proc 2005-66, which, as I recall was basaed on a discussion when a plan could switch from prior year to current year (or vice versa testing). You are talking about a discretionary amendment, which must be done before plan year end. there is no problem amending a plan before someone has accrued a benefit. so it doubtful anyone has worked 1000 hours yet (unless, like me they have put well above that trying to get out the 5500s ) but watch out, if your document had 0 hours for retirees and someone falls into that category you are out of luck.

there are of course a large number of attachments possible, but i would think 2 other common ones are: Delinquent Employer Contributions (as I understand it, its optional to inlcude this for those late deferral that were corrected) if you are 'signing' then the attachment that has the clients signature

I just pretend the left side says "Who physically mailed this (electronically submitted this)

I would guess the only 'extension' would be, if, on 10/15 so many people file at once the system crashes then a few days would be granted until things were up and running. but I wouldn't hold my breath on it. I've seen the ASPPA reasons given for wanting an extension, eg. Filing signers are selecting a User Role other than “filing signer” when applying for EFAST2 credentials well, I thought the instructions are clear what you are suppose to sign up as. (most of our clients we even sent out a file showing the different screen prints of what they would see and exactly what to check just to avoid this) Even if you did it incorrectly, you go in and modify it and get on with life, I simply don't see that as a valid reason for needing a couple more months. the 5500s we have that aren't completed yet are large plans waiting the auditors opinion (but all in progress) or small plans that the client is just being slow on (e.g. if they want us to file they haven't returned the signature pages) I don't think we could honestly categorize anything we have that might end up being late due to E-Fast2 itself.

mostly finished. waiting for auditors reports, or just plain slow clients on the small plans. I can't blame E-Fast 2, haven't really had any problems with that, but that might be a difference in software, based on the comments I've seen.

leave everything as is. what should happen is your name will 'magically' appear on the left hand side for signer while client's name remains on the right hand side. ok, at least that is what happens with software I use, since the title of the post says Webclient I will assume you mean Relius and I can't speak for what thir system does.

the only examples I've ever seen appear to use would have attained if they had kept on living. (because you make the normal min distribution and then switch things the following year) I'd think the same rule would apply to catch-up contributions...e.g. deferred 20,000 before 50th birthday and then died

but its the DOLs own Q and A (not Janice) that says Thus, if you find it necessary to file a Form 5500 without the required IQPA report, you must correct that error as soon as possible. That looks to me like they opened a small window (though again, the same Q and A does indicate penalties MAY apply.

this sounds like that part in The Hobbit, when Bilbo and Gollum (DOLlum?) are playing the riddle game and all Bilbo can do is mutter "Time...Time" (short for "I need more time") ................ so the DOL Q and A seems to say yes you can file without the attachment, it won't be rejected, but its sort of like being filed on florescent paper because the filing status will indicate such, and you still may be subject to whatever penalties are involved (because ultimately, it still is considered to be a late or incomplete filing). but i guess a partial filing is better than no filing.

the DOL will look for every possibility, including coming out here to see if there was a discussion about doing that. In all seriousness though, as far as I can tell, there are limited checks, its not a 'bar code' that is read by the system, so who would know until it is actually looked (e.g. if under audit) and its entirely possible to actually make a mistake like that...I think.

I have no experience in that area. the software we have gives a warning message if you run the verification indicating there is no attachment. I haven't tried it, but I suspect efast2 will reject it if there is no attachment, so that is probably not an option. if your attachment simply says 'the audit isn't ready', then what will the DOL do? again, no experience in trying that.

I've mentioned this a few times previously on one of the webinars, or phone sessions, or whatever the DOL conducted early in the year in regards to efast2, they specifically mentioned that it would no longer be possible to send in the 5500 without the auditor attachment. such filings would no longer be considered to be filed timely. the auditors know the due date for the forms as well. yeh, its hectic this time of year- we are waiting for a bunch to be finalized as well. If the client is non-responsive, well, we've done the best we can about warning them about the penalties involved for late filings. ............................... by the way, make sure the attachment is not inadvertantly password protected. Tell the auditors to check for the following on the pdf file they send. (I would never have known to check for this, at least the software we use gives a good desacription) ERROR! The file is either corrupt or is password protected. The DOL will not accept password protected files. To check if the pdf is password protected open it in Adobe Reader, press ctrl+d, and then select the security tab on the pop-up window. If the 'Security Method' is anything other than 'No Security', then you will need to have the file's author remove the security settings (only the file's author can remove security settings). Once the security setting has been removed, re-attach the file.

that's what I had been taught but... there is the rather cryptic 5500 EZ instruction under the title EFAST2 Filing system which says a one-participant plan may satisfy the filing obligation by filing a 5500-SF instead of 5500 EZ provided the plan covered fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the year. and then even more confusing is the statement that one participant plans that covered more than 100 participants as of the beginning of the year are not eligible for the 5500 SF and MUST file the 5500 -EZ now explain that one to me! that really goes against everything I would have imagined.

but if son is considered a partner, then maybe the EZ is available, since plan covers only partners and spouses

on the average, Yankees spent more for 9 players than Tampa did for the whole team yet Tampa finished with a better record. hopefully now someone will beat the evil empire!!!!! Team 2009 2010 Average Yankees $201,449,189 $206,333,389 $8,253,336 Red Sox $121,745,999 $162,747,333 $5,611,977 Cubs $134,809,000 $146,859,000 $5,439,222 Phillies $113,004,046 $141,927,381 $5,068,835 Mets $149,373,987 $132,701,445 $5,103,902 Tigers $115,085,145 $122,864,929 $4,550,553 White Sox $96,068,500 $108,273,197 $4,164,354 Angels $113,709,000 $105,013,667 $3,621,161 Mariners $98,904,166 $98,376,667 $3,513,452 Giants $82,616,450 $97,828,833 $3,493,887 Twins $65,299,266 $97,559,167 $3,484,256 Dodgers $100,414,592 $94.945,517 $3,651,751 Cardinals $77,605,109 $93,540,753 $3,741,630 Astros $102,996,414 $92,355,500 $3,298,411 Braves $96,726,166 $84,423,667 $3,126,802 Rockies $75,201,000 $84,227,000 $2,904,379 Orioles $67,101,666 $81,612,500 $3,138,942 Brewers $80,182,502 $81,108,279 $2,796,837 Reds $73,558,500 $72,386,544 $2,784,098 Royals $70,519,333 $72,267,710 $2,491,990 Rays $63,313,034 $71,923,471 $2,663,832 Blue Jays $80,538,300 $62,689,357 $2,089,645 Nationals $60,328,000 $61,425,000 $2,047,500 Indians $81,579,166 $61,203,967 $2,110,482 Diamondbacks $73,516,666 $60,718,167 $2,335,314 Marlins $36,834,000 $55,641,500 $2,060,796 Rangers $68,178,798 $55,250,545 $1,905,191 Athletics $62,310,000 $51,654,900 $1,666,287 Padres $43,734,200 $37,799,300 $1,453,819 Pirates $48,693,000 $34,943,000 $1,294,185

well, the one large plan I just did, the auditor included it as part of his opinion. (I must have a good person who looked at the 5500!) and the DOL website Q and A says one 'may' use this schedule to satisfy the requirements the auditor is required to make. I suppose if I had been real smart, I would have done a couple of attachments - one for the opinion and another for the schedule, but as it is part of the opinion I am assuming it doesn't matter. The software issues no warning about an attachment, so I don't think its 'required' the software will warn about the schedule of assets (which was also part of the auditors report), so that definitely has to be a separate attachment. I don't see it as being much work, all that is on the report is amount that was late and the same amount under "corrected outside VFCP" I don't think it something that is 'access electronically' like the 5500, I would expect the DOL to electronically see the item saying 'late deferrals' and then maybe take the rouble to check for an attachment. maybe they have has sensisble logic. in the case of the large plan, the assets are over 18 mil, the amount of late deferral was 400, deferrals for the year over 225,000.

effective date can always be 1-1-10 (in your example), but you still can't defer on past compensation, only on comp going forward from 10-1 (in your example). now, under the definition of comp (1.401(k)-6 ) you would use the plan year comp (which, since the deferral didn't start until 10/1) if I understand things correctly means you would prorate the comp limit (if you actually had someone making lots of money for that last 3 month period). On the other hand, under the definition, you could also use the calendar year comp, which means no proration of the comp limit for testing purposes. so despite the fact you can only defer on comp for 3 months, you could test using a full 12 months of comp. In your case its a safe harbor so there is no testing, but since you asked about 401ks in general....

on a webinar or tele conference or whatever the DOL had on e fast 2, the question arose about filing a large form without an accountants opinion. the DOL said or hinted strongly or implied heavily you couldn't do that. no longer could you file w/o the opinion, then get a letter months from now saying you indicated there was an opinion, but no opinion was attached and then send it in as if it was ooops, I forgot to arttach it. I would assume the same works for the SB. since the 5500 indicates its a DB plan, I would expect the EFAST 2 audit check to look for an attachment, and if there was none it would be rejected, unacceptable, etc. if you were to attach a blank schedule, saying to yourself "I will amend later and send it in (implying the first filing was an error and I discovered it)" I wonder if the DOL / IRS will look at the initial filing, see a blank form and say "error my foot, how do you attach a blank schedule" In other words, I'd be very careful about such practices. might get away with it the first year, but I have a feeling the DOL / IRS are trying to close thise type of loophole. but then, I don't do DB, so what do I know.

I would clarify that the 5% figure, while it can be based from date of participation, it must be based on 415 comp (e.g. you could not use comp less deferrals, or comp less bonus, etc.), while testing comp can be any of the definitions that satisfy 414(s) comp, which can also be from from date of entry. I believe I've seen an example somewhere that for avg ben % test if someone entered 1/1 for deferral total comp was used for the deferral and mid year comp was used for the profit sharing and the sum of the 2 E-Bars was used, but maybe that was one of those 'pigments' of my imagination. for rate group testing I would think you would still use comp from date of partic, not date of entry for deferrals. otherwise a plan that provides a 5% contribution would fail testing because someone who enters midyear would appear to have only received a 2 1/2% contribution based on total comp.

I did try running the report for 'all plans' rather than a single plan. I think it took 21 minutes, (I can tell based on the time uindicated on the report) but that of course depends on how many plans on the data base, computer speed , etc. You save the reports to a file when you run all plans. a different report is saved for each plan a min distrib might be due. this was written for DC plans, so DB plans don't work because they don't have a balance, though cash balances plans are also pulled, but the info on the report makes no sense since you would have to pay out cash balance in an annuity rather than using factors.