RatherBeGolfing

The outside window applies to small plans as well. The 100+ plans are just not eligible for the 7 day safe harbor. I agree with don't panic. But they should correct and report.

Well you shouldn't ignore the outside window, but I would say that there is a better chance of a blizzard in Florida than the DOL concluding that a months delay due to an oversight is timely because it fit the outside window... My understanding is that the outside window was never meant to determine what was timely, but rather determine what is never timely. Anything outside the outside window is deemed to not be timely, no matter the facts and circumstances.

None taken. If I were you i would call the IRS to get an explanation. Don't risk your ERPA on your 10/1/14-9/30/17 interpretation.

No but the FAQ and the Publication 5186 may help clear it up for you. Your renewal cycle is 2014-2017. 2014 is your first year. You start in January unless it is your first renewal and your initial enrollment was mid year in which case it is 2 credits per month active. Second year is 2015, third is 2016. Your renewal application period is April 1, 2017-June 30, 2017, and the IRS will issue your renewal before September 30, 2017.

I'm not an actuary, nor have I ever played one on TV. However, I have been told by several actuaries that I consult with that this is not a permanency problem.

LOL, no worries. I had the same questions last renewal cycle so I spent a lot of time getting clarification from the IRS.

1/1/2014 - 12/31/2016. It would only be different if it is your first renewal.

Yes, it was explained to me that as long as you satisfy your ERPA CE requirements you are deemed to satisfy your ASPPA CE. In practice, you will almost always meet your 40 credits for 2 years with ASPPA if you also meet your 16/year 72/ 3 years for ERPA.

I think the chance IRS accepting a session that cannot or will not offer a letter of participation is questionable at best. I wouldn't feel comfortable with that risk knowing I could have gathered the credits elsewhere. Since you are an ERPA, you automatically satisfy the ASPPA CE requirements and if audited by ASPPA you just provide your current enrollment card.

How is the auditor challenging the entry dates? Are they saying someone should be enrolled on their eligibility date because the payroll company can calculate immediate changes to deferral rates. I have had my share of arguments with auditors but this one has me scratching my head. Basically the auditor is looking at entry dates and payroll dates. They believe any payroll date after the entry date should include deferrals unless the participant has opted out. (And I agree with this interpretation.) The payroll company is looking at entry dates and pay period end dates. Because payroll is 5-6 days later than the end of the pay period, some people are being started one pay period later than the auditor thinks they should be. And the payroll company is also randomly starting some people earlier than they should. Ok. I don't envy your situation. I would call the inconsistency an administrative delay, but that may not pass the auditors test.

I disagree. No such thing as a 1099 employee, so the CFO would be a terminated employee just like any other employee. I agree. It is a BRF failure, and a failure to follow the terms of the document. Bottom line, can't be done in the manner proposed.

How is the auditor challenging the entry dates? Are they saying someone should be enrolled on their eligibility date because the payroll company can calculate immediate changes to deferral rates. I have had my share of arguments with auditors but this one has me scratching my head.

I don't think you can get more than one PIN. And they are probably not using a PIN for the plan EIN since it is de-activated, right?

Personally, I would just sign up as a batch provider with EFTPS, get a "Reporting Agent Authorization" (form 8655) from the client, and make the deposit for them. After that, you would be prepared to handle the issue if it ever came up again. It is free and simple to do. I have never had a broker who was actually allowed to do a tax deposit if it wasn't done through their corporate channels. That could simply be because of the brokers I work with, but I have always been told that they are not allowed to assume that liability. As for deposit coupons, can you even do that anymore? I thought they were phased out after the electronic deposit requirement and after a certain point they would no longer accept coupons...

Yes you can file the 5558 now There is really no reason to NOT file it now if you know you will need the extension. I know TPA firms who submit all their calendar year 5558's in early February. No, it will not create a flag in the IRS system, other than extending your form to 8/15/17. you are correct. You mark the 5558 if no 5500 has ever been filed, you mark the 5500 when no further 5500 will be filed.

Yep. Not arguing that it should be done, just that it can be done. 99.9% of the time I would advise a client to stick to the 30 days and make change next year.

I am going to respectfully disagree with ETA to a certain extent. As practitioners, we generally speak of the deadline for the SH notice as 30 days before the plan year, or December 1 , 2016 in this case. However, the law simply requires that the notice is distributed within a reasonable period before any year. A notice distributed 30-90 days prior to the beginning of the plan year is deemed to meet the reasonable time period requirement. That does not mean that a notice does not meet the reasonable time period requirement because it is less than 30 days. You would need to satisfy a facts and circumstances test to show that your notice period was reasonable. I am not saying that it is reasonable in the OPs situation, but if the circumstances were right, it is possible that it can be.

Professional Limited Liability Company. Basically an LLC for licensed professionals. (Edit: not irrelevant at all. As far as I know PLLC would be taxed the same way as an LLC. In some states, I have seen clients that were partnerships switch to PLLC. I believe the use of an PLLC is common when an LLC is not allowed for your type of business.)

I would recommend the Plan Administrator (eg employer) not approve it. Credit risk is still supposed to be a portion of the approval process even if a credit report isn't pulled. I generally agree with this position. However, if enough time has passed and the employees circumstances are different than they were at the time of the first default, It shouldn't automatically disqualify an employee from a second loan. Better yet, just allow one loan (or none) and this will never be a problem

If it is as cut and dry as that, yes. The more common approach would be to amend prospectively. For example, you could amend to 1,000 hours starting 1/1/17 and keep the current participants in even if they never had 1,000 hours.

This would be my interpretation as well (in the absence of specific plan language or company policy)

This is exactly what it is. I was told as late as last year that EZ's and 5558's are still entered manually and the IRS letter generating software will kick in as soon as the mistake or omission is made by the data entry person. Simple phone call should do it, but it is aggravating that we have to do it after doing it right the first time.

Always know your document. Period. I think the example that started the conversation at Annual was a plan where the owner's wife and kids were in the plan but had never had 1000 hours. The question was, do we now have to exclude them from participation if we change eligibility to A21 1YOS? So sometimes you are trying to keep people in rather than keep them out.

This very question actually caused a stir at a session on anti-cutback at ASPPA Annual this year. The presenter (correctly) explained that since participation is not a protected right you could change the eligibility requirements and "exclude" current participants who had not met the new eligibility. I was surprised to see the number of people at the session who passionately argued that the presenter was dead wrong. I often use the "once they are in, they are in" phrase when discussing employees who normally work under 1,000 but for some reason may have a bump in hours. I think people mix those situations up sometimes

For purposes of the final rule, which established the 7 day safe harbor, a small plan is a plan with fewer than 100 participants at the beginning of the year. The 80/120 rule does not apply. A plan with a BY count of 115 would not be able to use the safe harbor, even though it may still file as a small plan for the 5500. Were the deposits made right around the 7 days mark or were they made at varying times before 7 days (2,3,4,5 days)? On limited information, it sounds like the 5500 was prepared correctly.