RatherBeGolfing

100% this.

Amend the filing to reflect DFVCP?

Correct. Pretty much. Like BG, I filed most as one-participant plans on the SF until we could file the EZ electronically.

If the entity required to file the 5500 is also required to file at least 250 returns of any type, mandatory electronic filing of the 5500-EZ applies. The CPA is incorrect.

Im not sure I would go as far as mandatory pre-tax, but I have come around to embracing auto-enroll for the simple fact that it may help some people save something, and I don't see any harm since you can also opt out.

I don't see this provision causing that many issues. Also, its not just the immediate taxation that is so important. The Rothification of the catch-up is part of balancing the cost of the bill. Since they can say that a certain amount will be collected in taxes on Roth, it counters the cost on other items like tax credits or increasing the RBD on RMDs.

It should be pointed out that this is the general rule in HR 2954, but there are post-enactment exceptions for new and small employers: New businesses that have existed for less than 3 years Small businesses. General rule shall not apply earlier than 1 year after the close of the first taxable year with respect to which the employer maintaining the plan normally employed more than 10 employees.

Without going into the who/what/when, there has been work on this in recent years. As always happens though, the items they/we want to address take a backseat to the items they have to address. AICPA has reportedly been very vocal in its resistance to this change. The project is very much alive.

Yea this is about as clear as a government form can can get. I don't think its an issue if it is included as an "other expense", but I frequently see preparers include such fees/expenses in the investment gain/loss which is clearly wrong and in some cases dishonest.

Favorite answer: It depends. Personally, I prefer to have a fee for everything, and then waive the fee when appropriate. This way the client understands that we have to do some work for every request, they are "happy" when the fee is waived, and I have the fee there for me to bill for clients who do it over and over.

Depends on the documentation around the creation of the plan, but I think there is at least an argument that you have a plan document, just not a sufficient one. That would put you more into non-amender territory rather than no plan document ever existed. Im pretty sure @Luke Bailey has made some creative arguments in the "was a plan adopted" threads on here before.

1000% agree, phantom losses does not reduce the required contribution

I haven't seen any, just a few batches of these friendly reminders. I don't mind these to be honest, even when they have missed that they were filed with a disaster exemption. The DOL has been a lot easier to work with on these Form 5500 matters than the IRS since its almost impossible to get through to them.

Yea, they have sent out another batch of emails. We received some last week.

Not really, that is what the late filer programs are for. You usually have many opportunities to correct this issue before they assess the penalty. You will need a very good explanation for why you didn't file or correct after the fact.

2 years is the minimum under AICPA auditing standards isn't it? I have seen plenty of 3 year requests as well...

What system do you use for annual admin? FTW had the required illustration available prior to the October 15, 2021 deadline, you just needed to elect to include or exclude it from the benefit statement. I assumed all the major providers would have it available by now.

The balance required to be reflected on the statement is the same balance that was required prior to SECURE. The only change is that the 6/30/2022 has to include the illustration as well.

Same here.

Late to the party but they did this last year as well. I responded to a handful at my old firm last year and we have received more than that this year. We did confirm last year that the email is legit and that it does not preclude you from filing DFVCP. When I spoke to the DOL last year they said that they basically compared the returns they expected to see to the the returns that were actually filed. In some cases the returns were filed after Oct 15 but well before other extensions like disaster extensions. We calculated that the DOLs "filed" list was pulled 3-4 weeks after October 15. I hope that helps anyone still scratching their head on this.

I'm not 100% confident either. That said, I have never seen someone include it, and I have read writings from other benefits practitioners and CPAs, but without a citation I could hang my hat on. What makes it more complicated is that my understanding is that it is only treated this way if its within a 125 plan. Otherwise, its included but deductible. Which is obviously different than excluded. I think we need @Ilene Ferenczy or @S Derrin Watson to chime in and set us straight

I think that the contributions are treated the same way as employer funded premiums for group health insurance. Its paid for by the employer and it isn't considered income to the employee.

I'll just add that in a case like this, I believe it should be filed as a superseding return rather than an amended return. A superseding return can be filed after the first filing but before the due date (as extended). A superseding return will be considered the first return except for the SOL on assessments and refund claims, which start with the superseded return. It gets more technical, but I think the gist of it is that a superseding return will be treated as the original return, whereas an amended return changes something that was filed in the original return. Im not sure that it makes a big difference in this situation, but a superseding return can change things that an amending return cant.

Yep, the retro plans under SECURE have been great for flexibility.

You are correct, when you allocate the employer contributions, you will re-characterize the $1,040 to catch-up. What software are you using? I'm not a fan of overrides, most systems will either re-characterize it for you or have a function you would use to trigger it yourself.