RatherBeGolfing

I am 100% sure. You are reporting for the plan year, not the life of the plan. If the distribution took place in a previous year, you are no longer covering that participant, and cannot report them on the current return. I would reference the instructions to the SF and EZ, they are quite clear. A one participant plan is not eligible to file a 5500-SF, it must file on a 5500-EZ. The DOL will likely reach out when you don't file the 5500-SF because they cant tell that you filed an EZ with the IRS. When they reach out, you just tell them that the plan became a one participant plan and was no longer eligible to file an SF. They will tell you to have a good day and that is the end of it.

Yes. Financial information is only one part of the return.

Yes. To be clear, you file the form that is required for the reporting period. For a calendar year plan, if the plan only covered the owner during 1/1/22-12/31/22 it is a one participant plan and you are required to file on an EZ.

I'd go a step further than "EZ is ok to file" and say that you are required to file an EZ.

The question is whether you can file DFVCP after the IRS has assessed penalties, correct Eligibility for DFVCP https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2013/01/29/2013-01616/delinquent-filer-voluntary-compliance-program an IRS notification or penalty assessment does not make you ineligible for DFVCP, that is limited to a DOL failure to file notification. The IRS will not impose penalties if you take the plan through DFVCP. Notice 2002-23 Relief From Internal Revenue Code Late Filer Penalties

Its in the rev proc that established the permanent administrative relief program Rev. Proc. 2015–32

Q&A-4 is indeed limited to EZ filers. You can file DFVCP for 5500s filed for plans other than one participant plans and foreign plans after you receive a CP283 notice. You cannot use the IRS penalty relief program after CP283 (penalty was assessed after notice and follow ups), but you can still request penalty abatement (with no guarantee of approval). If you request abatement and get denied, you are no longer eligible for the penalty relief program. You cannot file DFVCP after the DOL has notified you in writing of a failure to file. I belive that DOL procedure says this has to be certified mail, but they also say they can change this at any time without notice. The DOL is now sending emails letting you know that they did not receive a 5500 they expected, and they have stated this does not prevent you from filing DFVCP.

Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler....

Yep, same here. If I had it my way I would default everyone to $7000 with all force-outs being rollover IRAs to avoid stale checks...

if its the old penalty, it is $1/day/participant. This should include Code Ds and required Code As (excluding voluntary reporting). So if you had 1 A and 1 D with a $660 penalty, thats either 330 days late under the old fees or 33 days late under the new fees. If the 8955-SSA was mailed rather than e-filed, I could see the IRS scanning them 33 days late (we are seeing long delays with physical mail to the IRS). This of course ignores the the fact that it would have been mailed before the deadline. Or the system has gone completely wacky and the math doesnt add up all.

What was the due date for the 8955-SSA on these ones? I believe the applicable rate is $10/day/participant.

What penalty rate is used on these notices? Is it $10/participant/day?

What about the ones that were not filed timely? There is no correction program for a late 8955-SSA. To my knowledge, the IRS has not systematically sent out penalties on late 8955-SSAs before. If this is something they are going to start doing, we need a correction program.

Yea I think so... Mine have been super slow this year as well, but since I have proof of mailing I'm really not concerned.

FWIW, I still think this causes an issue if there is no 5558 with that EIN and PN. You are likely to get a love letter from the IRS that you need to respond to, so you might as well initiate it and get it over with.

When I have had this issue, I file the 5500 with the same information that is on the 5558, then send a letter to the IRS (address below) asking them to change it to the correct information with an explanation of what happened. A few months later, client gets a letter from IRS explaining a change to their Form 5500. Internal Revenue Service ATTN: EP Accounts MS 6552 Ogden, UT 84201

What does the BPD say? I bet it goes into more detail and clears up any ambiguous term in the AA.

I'm another happy convert to FTW. I have used it since 2008 or so. Customer service is great, and it makes complete sense to use them for admin when you use their document. The modules interact with each other, so you can push plan specs from doc to admin, participant count and 8955 data from admin to 5500, etc.

You answer "no" (I have seen many people answer yes even without retro coverage, but it would be technically incorrect) Fixed at the beginning of the plan year (ERISA 412(a)) Technically, it should be "no" if you at any point during the year had a plan official handle or deemed to handle funds or property of the plan without adequate coverage*. That said, I have had both IRS and DOL tell plan sponsors to get a current bond if none existed, without requiring retroactive coverage. You report the amount of coverage. This could mean the face amount of the bond, or another amount if the bond has a rider that applies 10% at the time of the claim. So, you could have a face amount of $20k, but with a rider to cover 10%, in which case you would enter the greater of $20k or 10% of BOY assets. Yes. Its one or the other, and you cant file electronically if you answer yes but do not enter a bond amount. * edited for context.

I put it more in "pipe dream" territory than unlikely... I'll guess 🤔. I think this is a big enough issue that they have to provide something that practitioners can rely on, even if its just a notice of nonenforcement.

And dare I say, time for service agreements. I know some folks still resist service agreements, but I think its getting harder and harder to defend running a business without them.

Even if it was, what is your remedy and how would you enforce it?

Depends on how fee sensitive the client is. I have had clients do their own to save a buck, I have also had them say "just take care of it". Its really not difficult to complete if you understand industry terms

I agree with CB. What is their reasoning for not wanting use the the E-sign authorization? It just sounds like an odd request to me.

I'm trying to confirm the same thing, and I don't see a problem with applying the vesting schedule. If the nonelective was meant to be 100% vested, there would be no need to distinguish between nonelective and QNEC in the Rev Proc. Anyone disagree?