RatherBeGolfing

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?

In a very general sense, I think this is a common issue for small to mid size TPAs. Fees stay the same for long periods of time, and then comes the dreaded increase. This is why I do not like evergreen service agreements. When I was attached to a decent size CPA firm, pricing and service agreements were reviewed, revised, and sent for signature before work started every year.

There should be a message on EFAST if an attachment is not displayed because it is under review. It is likely that this is the case since it is difficult to submit a filing without the correct attachments using major provider software. There are so many flags and warnings that it is almost impossible to do by mistake.

You file the Form 5500 you are required to file. If it is a one-participant plan in 2023, you file an EZ. Will they follow up looking for an SF? Probably, but you are ineligible for the SF in 2023 if its a one-participant plan.

I have heard that NIPA has a good group for owners/management, but I can't speak to it first hand. I never got much out of ASPPAs counterpart. Depending on how many credentialed folks you need pay for, NIPA is less expensive. ASPPA has an edge in education and credentials. ASPPA's advocacy / government affairs tip the scales for me. I put a lot of time into it, but I also get a lot out of it.

I thought the same, but Kelsey corrected me, it is "12 month periods" not "plan years" or "consecutive years". Arguably, the "overlapping" periods are still consecutive because there is no period with less than 500 hours in the sequence.

So Friday 12/29 right?

An example that was presented at ASPPA Annual used 1/31 PYE, 2/1 & 8/1 entry dates, and switch to plan year after the first period. Employee was hired January, 2021 and worked more than 500 but less than 1000 in the first computation period and the 2021 & 2022 Plan Years. Participant enters 2/1/2023.

To be clear, Kelsey said that in her opinion it should be OK as long as the class is otherwise OK to exclude. In other words, you can't invent a new division B that just happens to be all your LTPTs, base the exclusion on service, or a disguised service exclusion. She also said that we have no idea if the IRS guidance will allow the exclusion of LTPT by class. Just adding a bit more context here since it was an opinion answer rather than here is what will or is likely to happen.

Whether they are an LTPT or not depends on whether they meet the requirements under either S1.0 or S2.0. We still need guidance on whether they can be part of a class exclusion.

Thanks Peter. So technically, that means they can only asses or remove the penalty, they cannot reduce the penalty to a lower amount, correct?

But the IRS has discretion to reduce or remove the penalty

I'll be honest, I don't think these penalties will actually be collected, except for extreme cases. Going to 10X penalties was the "revenue raiser" to make the math work on paper, but there is just no way they will collect these penalties in 99.9999% of cases.

Yes, you should still be eligible as long as you haven't gotten the CP283 notice. CP 220 is the notice informing you that they made a change and what the result of the change was. A CP403 notice will probably follow, which is a notice of late penalties. I would not waste any time and file through the penalty relief program asap. IRS should be able to confirm that you are eligible for penalty relief. For a small fee of $500, I think it's worth it to know you are good rather than wait for them to make a call on abatement.

Thats a risky proposition. If you request abatement and get denied, you are ineligible for the penalty relief program. In this scenario you pay the $500 and go with the sure thing.

This is the right answer for a 2022 Plan Year.

NO! See Q 33a EFAST2 FAQ