RatherBeGolfing

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?

@gc@chimentowebb.com The issue is that there are non-standard features in the PDF on the IRS website, and these features are not supported by the program trying to open the PDF (in this case your browser). When you get this message in your browser window, simply download the form and open it with a PDF reader on your computer and you will have the full fillable PDF.

Data mining is much more accessible now though. I could download the IRS list of approval letters and do a data dump of the 2023 5500 with a couple of clicks and have a table of all plans with 2023 returns and who their document provider is. If I was still with a small TPA firm, that would concern me.

I agree. There is a learning curve to the EOB that you don't have ERISAPedia. Casual or less experienced users will get more out of ERISAPedia, experienced users can get more detail out of the EOB, like old caselaw or rev procs that is used more sparingly in ERISAPedia.

So do we. I also think that Derrin's "whos the employer" is a must have.

EOY count is your BOY count.

In my example, the RK offers the SDBA through a "connected" provider. For example, if you use the [redacted] RK platform, you can establish an SDBA with Schwab (and only Schwab). In these cases, I think technology is more likely to be the issue than privacy concerns.

In this situation, I think it will depend on the RK. Back when I only did TPA work, some RKs would have an SDBA option that was part of the same trust. In that case, the SDBA activity could be accessed through the RK platform. Other RKs would have an SDBA option where the balance could be seen, but not the activity. This was as of 2020 or so. I wouldn't be surprised if more RKs are able to provide all activity at this point. Third party developers can API millions of data points every day for many of the apps in your app store, there is no reason SDBA data can't push to an RK in real time or at least daily.

If the RK cannot or will not provide the services required (in this case to comply with the terms of the QDRO), does this create a fiduciary issue? At a minimum, I would think this would need to be taken into consideration as part of the process of monitoring current service providers...

Excellent detail David. This is what Id call a "but why" answer. Many might know that you can't file DFVCP or that you dont get a penalty notice automatically when they file late, this explains the "but why?"