RatherBeGolfing

Yea, I'm seeing a lot of people say that the final rule permits or allows a plan to incorporate Roth cacth up prior to the applicability date using a reasonable, good faith interpretation. I have yet to see anyone say that you must comply with the statute prior to the applicability date. It sure sounds like you would still have to comply though...

So.... They don't need to extend or modify the administrative transition period because there is now a final rule with an applicability date?

I agree.

It's scary how many plans don't do this. We also require photo ID, verify bank account ownership for ACH, and more. People are sometimes unhappy with all the hoops we make them jump through, but most accept that we are trying to protect them as much as we are protecting ourselves.

The reg does not refer to small or large plan. The safe harbor is available to plans with fewer than 100 participants. The methodology for counting participants for audit threshold purposes does not impact the availability of the 7 day safe harbor. Your plan does not qualify for the safe harbor.

Yea, but you would need to spend the money on development if it was enforced, so does forcing the IRS to enforce the law change anything? I think that is what Peter is hinting at in his question. What is the injury if enforcement means you need to spend the money anyway? I dont disagree with you with you though...

My recollection is that the IRS/Treasury did not technically have the authority to delay it in first place, but no one would challenge them on it since we all needed the delay. Who is injured by nonenforcement, and is there a remedy to cure it? Good question. Congress does have oversight, and the executive branch could order the agency to enforce the law. I think we have a better chance of winning the powerball than someone challenging another delay

I'll raise you the 10x in penalties that "paid for" S1.0 Last I heard from the DC folks was that no one expects a delay at this point.

Not that I have seen. FWIW, I draft my documents using forfeitures to pay fees first, then offset contributions, then any other permissible use. I do have some docs that first offset contributions, then pay fees, but those are getting phased out. This is not necessarily in response to these forfeiture lawsuits Taking your hypo a step further, wouldn't there still be discretion in how the document was drafted? *edited for clarity

Like @Paul I said, the amendment should be drafted in such a way that it only applies to this person. "working out of the country" is to broad in my opinion, and could apply to future hires.

That works for the purpose of adding them now. I still question whether the employee should have already been in, and may be an issue for past years.

Us resident? Citizens and residents are generally subject to US taxation even when working outside the US. That aside, was she an employee or contractor prior to this? This is not an HCE right?

No, but it may help shed light on the remote work situation. If they were a US citizen living and working outside the US, its possible that you should have gotten a W-2. The fact that you worked outside of the US does not mean that you don't get a W-2, there are other factors that determine that. Depending on the circumstances, its quite possible that they have already met eligibility and should have been in the plan already. I think the issue is much more complicated than what do we need to do get them into the plan immediately.

I dont think we know what their status is. My initial read of OP was a citizen or resident who worked remotely from outside the US. Its also not clear whether the employee had US income. As an employee? As a Contractor? Paid by whom? Taxable where? A US citizen? US Resident? Foreign national without resident status? What does technically mean in the context? Were they on company payroll? were they a contractor? Or paid by someone else? *edited for clarity

This is actually a really good question... Off the top of my head, I want to say that you determine the related employer status for the tax year on the last day of the tax, not for a portion of the tax year. Assuming the plan excludes comp prior to participation, right? @Belgarath hypo is more interesting if it does not exclude comp prior to participation as it really cuts to the question "does the transaction date matter"?

No, because part of the 80-120 rule is that if you filed as a small plan last year you can file as a small plan this year. Its a new plan, you didn't file last year. The determining factor for a new plan is the number of participants with a balance at EOY.

Soooooo, because someone else may not have do their job the contributions were not late? I agree with Peter, if this is what you are going to do or advise the client to do, you need to speak to legal to protect yourself. There may be an explanation, but you need to make sure its reasonable and can stand up to scrutiny. Edit: just re-read the OP. Why go through this for $1.31? Especially after it has already been reported and the IRS/DOL are aware of it (they data-mine the 5500s). Just deposit the $1.31 and move on.

Yes to all the above. ASC is clunky to me as well. If ASC seemed like the 90s, Datair is the 80s. They both (and relius) have more total features than FTW, but I have never missed any of them after migrating to FTW. I have migrated many plans from Relius, ASC, and Datair to FTW. Migration from Relius is pretty simple. FTW will help you build a DER to extract the data, and then you use a template in FTW to import. 80 plans won't be that bad to migrate.

Yea, thats it. You do the calculator and hit next/continue, this takes you to the application and payment, then you are done. Use your contact information in the application; otherwise, all the correspondence (like filing confirmation) will go to the client instead of you.

Just FYI, If you are using FTW for testing, it will use 3 months and you may need to do a lot of overrides for eligibility.

@austin3515 So you can use it, but the issue is the language that shows up in SPD, annual notice, etc. Yea that is disappointing. This may be another non starter, but I bet they can do a custom dev project to remove the failsaife language from the notices and SPD. We wanted custom language in the SAR and didnt want to have to edit each one, so we had them create a different SAR just for us. We did a couple of other ones too, saved a ton of time. There would be a cost associated, but if its common enough it may be worth it. Talk to Holly if you want to spec out a custom project, not support.

Why not though? It doesn't say that you can't use ET, it says the HOS failsafe applies. If your "other" is 60 days elapsed time, would the failsafe ever trigger? My guess is that the response from FTW support will be that" it can be interpreted to allow elapsed time". I look forward to hearing what they say, though. We would use "specified months - elapsed time", but I understand that isn't an option in your case.

And do so yesterday.

95% of the book does not change from year to year. You can find a good condition older edition for a lot less than $1,000. You can probably get a 2018-2019 edition for about $100, and the vast majority of the information will still be useful.

Janice was great, I worked with her on a bunch of ASPPA/ARA projects over the years, and she was always super generous with her time. I used the 2014 edition of the book until my rep gave me a new edition last year, and a lot of the commentary still held up after all these years.