RatherBeGolfing

I know some that don't, or at least did not have E&O for many years...

Very few contracts are bulletproof, but is it worth the cost and headache to maybe be able to shift some of the burden to the prior service provider? I agree with Lou, refer them to outside legal counsel. Also, consider that there are probably three sides to the story: the client's side, the TPA's side, and the truth.

Thanks MoJo, I dont disagree with this approach at all.

ARA requests immediate administrative relief in the form of of delay of application and enforcement of LTPTE rules... https://www.napa-net.org/news-info/daily-news/american-retirement-association-asks-irs-more-time-ltpte-rule https://www.napa-net.org/sites/napa-net.org/files/ARA letter_relief re LTPTE Rules_112923.pdf

I agree. My point is that I don't think we can say that excluding "interns" is impermissible per se, it depends on whether the exclusion could have the effect of requiring more than 1 YOS&A21. Best practice is to avoid it, I just don't think we get to "you cant exclude interns because it implies that they are part-time and therefore its a service based exclusion".

Im playing devils advocate here as well. We know that you can't exclude "employees normally scheduled to work 20 hours or less per week" since they could work more than "normally scheduled" and complete more than 1,000 hours in the year. What if the employer's interns can only work one 6 month period, no repeats? No excluded intern would be an LTPT because they have at most 6 months of service. For that employer, would it still be impermissible? From the discussion portion of the proposed rule (section c item 3) Accordingly, proposed § 1.401(k)–(c)(3) would clarify that the long-term, part-time employee rules of § 1.401(k)5 do not preclude a plan from establishing an eligibility condition that must be satisfied in order for an employee to participate in the CODA, provided that the condition is not a proxy for imposing an age or service requirement (that is, the condition does not have the effect of imposing an age or service requirement with the employer or employers maintaining the plan) that requires an employee to complete a period of service with the employer or employers maintaining the plan that extends beyond the close of the earlier of the periods described in section 401(k)(2)(D)(i) and (ii).

Right, but are they impermissible service conditions? Wouldn't that depend on how the employer structure the internships?

I think many intern definitions do fall into that trap, but I don't think it is service based per se, at least not in the sense that it would always be an impermissible exclusion.

Student or trainee gaining practical experience in their field of study?

Hmmm. In your situation, all interns would be LTPT, but would all LTPTs for the plan be interns? Intern isn't service based exclusion, so I wouldn't jump straight to not valid. Would there be other employees that enter as LTPT that are not interns? Its makes for a more reasonable argument if you are not excluding all LTPTs, just the interns

There was a journal article in JPB 9-10 years ago on ERISA and Sharia. The author was someone at DOL. As I recall it was a very good article. I know I have a hard copy somewhere, but I'm pretty sure I have a pdf as well... I'll see if I can find it for you.

Right, but they should also consider the cost of going back and forth. Lets say that 2022 was audited but not 2023. They now need and audit for 2024. Guess what year the auditor will need to audit anyway in order to state that the 2024 BB is correct? 2023... I have had this discussion with several auditors, and some said they would be willing to do a simplified review (less expensive, maybe half?) in off years to keep the engagement rolling. This would make it easier for years they need to audit, since there would not be an interruption during off years. Some auditors may even reject the client if its not an ongoing engagement... so that's something to consider as well before saying why pay anything for off years.

I think you are referring to a plan EIN rather than an EIN for the plan admin. You would use this to establish accounts, prepare Form 1099/945, etc. These EINs are plan specific. Otherwise, you wouldn't know which plan an account was established for, what plan issued a distribution, and so on.

A resolution/record of action declaring the decision to make such a contribution for that plan year?

Get out of here with this common sense nonsense!

How about this logic? You can't take a deduction for a contribution you also receive a credit for You can deduct the contribution in the allocation year or contribution year (if different and if timely) The credit belongs to the same tax year as the contribution, whether that is year of allocation (incurred) or year of contribution (paid)

It refers to the taxable year, so I would agree.

It sounds like the software is not picking up that this is SH only and deemed to pass TH. In some systems, you have to indicate it is deemed to pass TH to prevent it from going into the THM calc.

That is interesting. Would fees also decrease if CPI went down? If yes, that means you would need to be very careful to get your baseline correct.

As long as you are otherwise eligible, you can use it as many times as you need to. The purpose of the program is to allow you to fix your error and pay a user fee. You can even correct many years at the same time, with the user fee capped. It is capped at $1,500, so in theory you could file 10 years worth of late filings for $1,500 instead of $5,000.

That's a great idea. It doesn't come up much in my practice, but sounds like a good way to keep things separate.

That's why I sort by EIN+PN instead

Ha! Especially when it makes it just long enough to need a second line! And then some forms don't have a second line and the IRS complains about a name mismatch...

Absolutely. A lot of practitioners (not just TPAs) get stuck in mindset where they don't want to lose clients or do not want to replace clients with high annual invoices. I have seen people struggle to keep a client that represents 10% of revenue but 30%+ of work. Most TPAs don't track time or billable hours like CPAs and attorneys do, and it is no doubt a PITA! What diligent time tracking does do is show how valuable a client is, or if they are a vampire. For example, lets assume your hourly rate is $300. You don't bill your clients $300/hour, but $300 per hour is what you are worth to you firm. The $300 "rate" covers your salary and benefits, overhead, and estimated profit over the year. If you work 20 hours on a client and bill $3,000, you are only realizing 50% of your calculated rate. If this rate is calculated to allow you to continue your practice, this client is a vampire, especially if your combined realization rate is less than 100%. This is something I see TPAs struggle with all the time.

403(b)s aren't my specialty, but doesn't the universal availability requirement cover both coverage and nondiscrimination testing? And <20 hours per week can be excluded under UA, so no coverage issues?