RatherBeGolfing

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?"

I agree this doesn't seem right. Is this coming from someone with authority? The DRO will usually refer to the valuation on or closest to the determination date. The valuation date is the valuation date, whether it is daily valuation, annual valuation, or whatever it is. If it is on a RK platform, it is probably daily val right? I don't see how an RK could argue that they can simply ignore gains and losses pursuant to a court order. And if they are saying they can't do it, it is even more problematic.

If we ignore the ineligible part, both of them taking primary residence loans doesn't make it wrong or illegal. It just had to be a valid reason at the time (in 2021 and 2022)

I agree, you are fine just adding them to the 2022 8955-SSA. I have never heard of anyone getting penalized for late reporting. If they were handing out penalties, there would almost have to be a correction program...

It's up there with "a 1099 employee of mine"...

You can't find it because you can't do it. There is no correction program for a late 8955-SSA. Does she still have a DVB? If not, she should have been registered and deregistered, and I wouldn't worry about it. If she does, submit a amended 2016 8955-SSA.

Simplified version: New rules (Sec 101(b)) if the plan is established after enactment of S2.0. Unless you fit one of the exceptions in Sec 101(c) of course.

If they are guaranteed payments for services (line 4a) but not guaranteed payments for capital (line 4b). I think the amount in 4a should also be 14a though, at least that is what every CPA has done if I question why there is an amount in 4a but not 14a. *Edit. I'm 99% sure that guaranteed payments for capital is never plan compensation, even if SE tax has been paid. A general partner generally has to include both for SE tax purposes, while a limited partner only includes guaranteed payment for services.