RatherBeGolfing

I've run into a lot of lazy drafters lately. Reusing the same DRO over and over, often having incorrect plan names and other things left over from the previous DRO. We kick it back and they change half of the items we asked them to correct. Some will even get the order signed without fixing all the items....

I'd have to check to be sure but my gut says that an affirmative election should be good for both your examples.

It's an EZ. 2% S-Corp shareholders are treated as partners for filing purposes. It was part of PPA but didn't make it into the 5500 instructions until the 2021 5500.

Isn't that what self certification does?

As someone who has used Ilene's services MANY times, I can highly recommend them! I have worked with Ilene, Alison, Adrienne, and several others from the firm and they have always been great.

I think @jsample is referring to an "unallocated suspense account" rather than a forfeiture account. I don't recall where this is discussed, but I don't think its EPCRS. If I remember it correctly, the excess is moved to an unallocated suspense account and is not an annual addition. You then have to use the assets in the unallocated suspense account before you make any further contributions, and they are an annual addition when allocated. So from a deduction perspective, you can deduct it when allocated, but not when deposited.

When you say "group", are these unrelated employers? Or were they part of a controlled group or affiliated service group? Are ABC and/or DEF single employer plans, MEPs, or PEPs?

ASCs position (using their pre-approved C3 document) appears to be that unless further guidance provides an option to bifurcate regular catch-up and the 60-63 catch-up, the 60-63 catch-up is allowed if catch-up is allowed. Anyone know if other major providers are taking a different approach with their pre-approved C3 document?

I agree with @ratherbereading and @Bill Presson. This is way beyond what can be addressed on a message board, OP needs to engage an attorney ASAP.

Amen @Bill Presson!

Without seeing the plan document, I agree that Ascensus is probably correct (especially if its their document). That said, if the document allows for a truly discretionary match, you could make the match 0% on the first 4% deferred, and 100% on the next 2% deferred. You would need to BRF and ACP test it, but its possible.

It can be applied to new participants only, but if you limit coverage to new participants you don't get the 6 month deadline for corrective distributions.

Agreed.

This is a first for me. I'm looking at a PEP with a 12/31 PYE, but the document for one participating employer has a 6/30 PYE. Looks like the plan joined the PEP in October of 2023, so the PEP will be testing and reporting using the 12/31 PYE, but this plan is really a 6/30 PYE. I think its obvious that the document needs an amendment to align with the PEPs 12/31 PYE, but how would you address the 12/31 PEP testing and reporting, as well as the 6/30 PYE in the participating plan document?

You include both catch-ups. They could have drafted the language better, but the reason is that 414(v) is referenced in 402(g) but it is not referenced in 408(p). That's why they mention it for the simple.

What rule/mechanism can you cite for a retroactive opt-out? I honestly don't care about what the participant wants. This is a plan issue, you correct and move on. Do not make the situation worse by trying to do what they "want" instead of just doing what is right.

Nope, no problem extending and then not filing. Extension simply extends the due date if you are required to file.

Well, considering the 5330 progress or lack thereof...

If you have proof of mailing them timely, you did what you are supposed to do. It's a PITA, but as long as you did your part the IRS will remove the penalty. I have had plenty go missing after being received by the IRS, but I have never had any returned as refused (and I have mailed many thousands of extensions) Are you 100% sure that you mailed the extensions to the correct address for your method of delivery?

Yes, but I have seen people raise some legitimate issues. @MoJo mentioned in an earlier thread that they had concerns with "actual knowledge to the contrary" and whether the employer's knowledge is imputed to a third party contracted to carry out functions like distribution approval.

Indeed. And if it wasn't under audit, it would be VCP. IRS Notice 2023-43

Could be a couple (married or unmarried) where only one partner is on the mortgage. In that scenario, there probably would not be an agreement for rent, just shared expenses. Without the distribution, they miss payments and are foreclosed on. I think that's enough for a bone fide hardship.

This is not official, but for the purpose of this conversation: Industry groups have reached out to IRS regarding the e-filing issue looking for a a resolution like "you can file on paper until...". It has been pointed out that website already has language to accommodate exceptions. The IRS is well aware of the issue and the number of providers who can provide e-filing services. If you rely on this and file on paper, save everything just in case. Someone recently told me that there is probably little risk here even if they reject your paper filing since you paid the penalty on time. You can also extend the due date of the filing. Several of the big software providers have said that they are very unlikely to be able to get IRS approval by 7/31/24.

Thats Read The F...abulous Document

I haven't looked at the edit checks for the 2023 changes, but generally speaking the edit checks will look for constancy between schedules. At least that is my experience with FTW, its been a while since I worked with FIS and other software...