Jump to content

RatherBeGolfing

Senior Contributor
  • Posts

    2,438
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    131

RatherBeGolfing last won the day on February 1

RatherBeGolfing had the most liked content!

4 Followers

Recent Profile Visitors

4,017 profile views
  1. I think I heard that the the proposed rule has left OMB and is back at EBSA, but I'm not 100% sure. ASPPA/ARA submitted a pretty lengthy comment letter during the first comment period.
  2. Yea the auditor community reacted as expected to the change in participant count for audit purposes. It tough to find someone wiling to accept a new audit client unless it's an ongoing relationship, and even then it can be difficult. Filing without a bond could be red flag, but I have seen so many filed with no bond that don't get an agency love letter that I'm convinced you need really bad luck to get picked for follow up due to no bond. Even then, they will most likely just tell you to get a bond. YMMV
  3. Yes, if you purchase a retroactive bond that covers the period you are filing for, you check yes.
  4. You make them a participant by accepting the rollover, so I would argue that "not a participant as of EOY" is incorrect. They are a participant who has not met eligibility for contributions other than rollover.
  5. That begs the question, what does "completed" mean? When it was prepared? When it was sent to the client for review? When it was reviewed by the client? When the client communicates to CPA/preparer that they agree with the K-1? When the full return is accepted/signed by the client? When the return is filed with the IRS? The list goes on, which is probably why you have never had an auditor ask the question
  6. It also allowed Starter 401(k) as a replacement, which is deferral only... not surprising that this was removed in the technical corrections bill. Although, since that bill hasn't passed yet, I guess you could technically replace the Simple with a Starter 401(k), but that is really pushing it.
  7. I could probably argue both ways in good faith, but I agree that we need guidance ASAP so we can put a pin in it. We have gotten plenty of requests already.
  8. You did have a plan in place "as of the day after termination date". My issue with your hypo is that you also had a plan in place before the transition year (the period beginning after the termination date and ending on the last day of the calendar year during which the termination occurs". Sec 332 adds adds 408(p)(11), which lets you terminate the simple mid year, and allows you to accrue benefits in the qualified plan during the "transition year". By making the plan effective 1/1 for profit sharing, you are maintaining the qualified plan while also maintaining the Simple. The reason you are allowed to terminate the Simple mid year is because you replace it with a qualified plan. It seems clear to me that the intent is for one arrangement to be maintained at any point in the year, rather than allowing both to be maintained at the same time. So, while I agree that 408(p)(11) does not specifically preclude the SH plan from being effective 1/1, I argue that 408(p)(2)(D)(i) already precludes you from doing this.
  9. There is not. Sec 332 states: (11) is Simple (12)(B) is SH Match (12)(C) is SHNEC (13) is QACA (16) is Starter 401k (removed as an option in the proposed technical corrections bill since its a deferral only plan)
  10. Dang MoJo, this really has you fired up!
  11. You could have an amount less than $5,000 (or even less than $1,000) and have a default rollover and IRA provider. It depends on what the cash-out limit is. If cash-out is $0 or any amount that is less than the force-out, you would need the rollover provision. I do agree that that an amendment is likely needed if you haver to add the IRA provider particulars (or really anything other than the just the force-out limit)
  12. Agreed. Our letter also has an "a" after the six digits. The IRS list of approved documents does not include the "a" on the letter serial number.
×
×
  • Create New...