RatherBeGolfing

No. Remember, signing as preparer on behalf of the client IS the simplification. The default is the client obtaining signing/filing electronically with their own credentials.

LOL Indeed. Good catch

Nothing wrong with it as long as there is *no* quid pro quo. This is very common with smaller firms. You may want to consider what happens if the client does a bad job and you need to fire them... There are pros and cons to doing this.

Ok so you are importing it using a vendor upload. Are you doing a manual allocation of earnings, fees, etc and importing that using a vendor upload? Why not let FTW do that allocation for you? If you set up accounts and sources properly in FTW, you could have as many sources as you want and you would just enter the total for the year as a manual transaction. If you have a lot of participants you can import/export that data as well. Lets say you have 401k, Roth, SH, and PS. you have 1000 in earnings. let FTW calculate how much of the 1000 is 401k earnings, Roth earnings, etc rather than telling the system what belongs to each source. Does that make sense?

All of it. If it exceeds limits you have some corrections to do, and you those should also be on your 5500 for the appropriate year. You are scratching the surface of issues of SDBA only plans... You need more information to determine contribution sources, like a ledger or payroll report. The brokerage account isn't going to track it by source because that is not what it is designed to do. You need to do source level accounting of contributions, distributions, fees, earnings, etc. outside of the brokerage account. Do you have software that will do this for you? If not, are you an employee of the plan sponsor or advisor trying to do this without a TPA? If so, you need the assistance of a professional.

@Pam Shoup The guidance provides two correction methods: W-2 correction can be used as long as the participant's W-2 has not been filed or furnished to the participant In Plan Roth Rollover correction. The guidance includes a reference to previous guidance on In-Plan Roth Rollovers: With that in mind, I believe the answer to your question is Yes.

Good point. I have done a few of these and have not had the DOL reject the explanation, but it is not a guarantee. You wouldn't amend to a final return on the 5500-EZ just because the plan is no longer required to file the 5500-EZ. The plan still exists, it is just filing a different Form 5500 at the moment. It could return to filing EZ's in a future year if it returns to one-participant plan status.

Yes. You cant file an amended 2023 5500-SF since there is no original 2023 5500-SF. You can file a 5500-SF, but not amended one at this point. Btw, if you have never filed a 5500-SF for this plan, this filing must also indicate "first return". Unlikely, but the IRS will send you love letters, and it may take a bit to get it fixed. What will happen is: - The IRS will say that the 2023 Form 5500-SF was late. - You will need to respond with your explanation that you filed an EZ, then found out that the circumstances were different. I have never had an issue doing this. - The IRS will probably contact the client again looking for a 2024 Form 5500-EZ since you filed a 2023 Form 5500-EZ. Respond with the explanation. Side question, how many years of EZ's do you need to fix, assuming 2023 was not the first year for the plan?

Advised by whom?

I like both. The AI search isn't a huge selling point for me; I was kind of underwhelmed by the demo. - EOB is more technical and goes deeper into the weeds on most topics. ERISAPedia is more plain English explanation of technical topics. - I can get more out of EOB, but 90% of the time I can get what I need from ERISAPedia. - If it is going to be used by less experienced, less technical employees, ERISAPedia is probably better. Its easier to search and easier to understand. - If I could only have one, it would be the EOB. If I could only have one for my staff, it would be ERISAPedia. I hope that helps.

Did they get a 45 day letter from the DOL and not fix it in time? Same. I recommend DFVCP, but even auditors want us to go the amendment route. If Im going to do it, it is with written direction from the client.

I disagree. The question to your quoted answer is must the notice describe the limit on contributions. You have to describe the limit, which is a combined limit based on the length of time each plan existed. The answer must be read in the context of the question. We describe the limit combined limit for those who are not catch-up eligible, those who are catch-up eligible, and those who are super catch-up eligible. We also include the statement that contributions made to the SIMPLE count towards the combined limit and reduce what can be contributed in the SH plan.

Still are.

Agreed, this sounds like 415 excess rather than 402g if its because there wasnt enough comp to defer from. @KaJay forget comp for minute, did the deferrals exceed $23,000 (and catch-up if eligible)?

FTW's document has an opt-out for age 60-63 catch up. Not sure about other providers. ASC did not last I saw it, but that was about 6 months ago and could have changed.