RatherBeGolfing

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?

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.