RatherBeGolfing

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...

If the DRO contains all the things that are needed for a QDRO, would additional information/language that does NOT impact the plan make the DRO not qualified? The issue I have with it is that the order would need to be very detailed and spell out exactly what applies to each plan. This percentage as of this date, etc. There can be no question as to how the order is to be applied to either plan. I think it can be done, but I would prefer one order per plan.

Did he have a distributable event other than plan term?

If TPA/RK does not know that there is excess, for sure it will be coded wrong. If the TPA/RK is notified(or knows) that there was an excess, and that excess cannot be be distributed until a future event, the excess and allocable earnings could be moved to separate excess source. I have never seen that in conversion data either though...

This is the answer!

Indeed. I never understood why a document would refer to knowledge or "reason to know" of a pending divorce. Absent something actionable (like A will get X% of B's assets), how is a plan supposed to deny something a participant is entitled to?

Also, the DOL has stated that the email inquiries the DOL is sending out do NOT prevent you from filing DFVCP. More proof that the goal is to get people to comply, not hammer them with insane penalties.

I would also quickly file under DFVCP. I agree that the goal is for people to comply, not to punish as many people as possible., Personally, I think it is allowed unless they have contacted you for that plan year since each return is limited to a specific plan year.

I agree it should be blank. If the plan is not a 401k plan, it doesn't apply.

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.

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

Yes, if you purchase a retroactive bond that covers the period you are filing for, you check yes.

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.

Is this person a US citizen or permanent resident (green card)?

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

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.

Not a mad rush, but I have more than a handful so far.

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.

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.

What is you definition of a "complete system"?

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)

Dang MoJo, this really has you fired up!

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)