RatherBeGolfing

Considering 46 billion added to current enforcement spending, I'd be surprised if some didn't trickle down to TE/GE. Not holding out hope that someone will actually answer phonecalls when a client gets an IRS love letter though...

I agree with @Peter Gulia's "no advice" above. It shouldn't be an issue for the IQPA, just a bit more time and an additional line on the invoice...

Different situation, different answer. A one participant plan is still subject to Form 5500-EZ, but you are not required to file if you meet certain criteria. As you point out, you cant turn a governmental non-ERISA plan into a plan covered by ERISA by filing a Form 5500. Late filing penalties does not apply because the plan is not subject to Form 5500.

Filing a 5558 does not create an obligation to file if no Form 5500 is required.

The return has a due date. The return was filed after the due date.

Agree with Peter and Bill. I'll also add that tail coverage has been required by the purchasing entity in several M&As that I have been involved in.

Every time we have a discussion like this, "I'm just bill" starts playing in my head....

It sounds like they had restated to their document rather than Schwab's, so it would be one plan document and two custodians.

The other option is to simply make the restated plan "002" as a successor plan and have them transfer the assets. No distributable event, but gets the assets away from their locked in product.

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...