RatherBeGolfing

@David Schultz In addition to what CB mentioned above, throw in a DB plan and you have to apply 1563 attribution for the PBGC (as opposed to the 318 attribution for filing purposes).

They have to. Attribution under 318 makes father and daughter 2% S Corp shareholders. For 5500 purposes they are threated as partners, so 5500EZ it is.

Nope. Termination is no longer a distributable event

They disappear to another dimension. Few have crossed over, only one has returned, matthew mcconaughey. He reported vast wastelands full of 401k plan documents, annual reports, and participant notices. And socks. Soooooo many socks. And yet, not a single matching pair. I need coffee...

I agree, its when it leaves the ER control. I don't think this rule needs to be pro-participant though, if the delay between employer and participant is unreasonable, thats a fiduciary breach issue rather than a prohibited transaction.

Why you would not count 1/4-1/5?

1/4 no question. It is only deemed timely if separated during the safe harbor window. The 7 days are not applicable if you go beyond the safe harbor window. I think the only question for this type of calculation is do you use the day of separation from the employer assets, or the day it cleared the participant account. But that becomes a fiduciary issue rather than late contributions.

I don't see how you possibly add enough revenue without going deep into 3(16) services. Certainly not enough for the potential risk you are taking on. Even less feasible for a smaller provider that isn't already staffed to keep up with the policy decisions, education, and training that comes with it.

What does this mean? Which information? Trust records? Payroll? Employer records? Why isnt it available? Not available is rather vague. Have they done all the possibly can do? Is cost a factor? Like Bill, I have always been able to get what I need in the end, but some of them werent pretty. I even had a client who had several decades of records destroyed in an explosion manage to get their audit done after considerable effort and expense.

See the comments above. Its a lot of potential issues with very little return for you. You are probably better off streamlining/automating the back and forth for signed documents.

This is NOT a 411(d)(6) issue. Continued participation if you no longer satisfy eligibility is not a protected benefit. It may be a document/operational issue if you dont word the amendment correctly or if you document automatically grandfathers such an employee. It may be a discrimination issue if part of a pattern of amendments that are in effect discriminatory.

Not a specific software, but I saw a bunch of them when I was with a CPA firm. They arent cheap, but look at CPA scanning and organizing software. They do everything from W-2s, K-1s, and brokerage statements.

If it's an ACA, not EACA or QACA, yes.

My experience has been in line with MoJo's when "invited", but declined if not prompted by agency action of some sort. The only exception would be cases where it was bad enough that we said "we either fix it all the way or you need to find another service provider"

Can you go into more detail? This isnt my area of expertise, but I have looked at disclaimers as a tax issue first, and benefits issue second. Without a qualified disclaimer, the disclaiming party retains the tax liability per the code, right? From a plan perspective, it doesn't make much sense for tax liability and benefit to go to different people.

I agree with BG here as well, protect yourself from any fallout of this ticking timebomb. As for 2020, they may actually be better off with DFVCP. If they got a 45 day letter now, are you that confident that you could get two years worth of audits done in time? The DFVCP user fees are rather small compared to possible penalties if they are not eligible for DFVCP. I'm more surprised that the TPA filed using the short plan year exception for the first year without actually having a short plan year. Did they even indicate on the return that it was a short plan year? What date did they use for the effective date?

Is 12 months less than 7 months? Agree with BG and Bill.

The plan had to allow loans first since CARES temporarily increased the limits rather than establish an additional type of loan. I think retro amendment is ok as long as long as the loans were made primarily to NHCEs.

Following up on this since it was just discussed from the podium at the "ask the experts" session at ASPPA annual. The conservative answer was to file as a delinquent filer when the audit is available. If you do file on time but incomplete, you still have to answer the questions truthfully, meaning that if you attach an "audit coming soon" page in place of the audit, you also have to answer that the audit was not attached on Sch H. In other words, when you amend to include the audit, you also amend to answer the audit related questions on Sch H. The DOL will mine the filings for data, and one of the things it looks for is large plans that file without an audit, and flag them for manual review and follow up. How are others preparing schedule H if filing without an audit? Do you answer the Sch H questions as if the actual audit was attached, and attach an "audit coming soon" note, or do you actually prepare Sch H saying no audit attached? *edited for clarity

Denise, the only mention of distributions of less than $200 in Notice 2020-62 is the paragraph in the sample notice explaining that withholding or a direct rollover option were not required, but that it is eligible for a 60 day rollover.

That isnt the issue. The new penalties apply to returns required to be filed after 12/31/19, yours were not. The penalty amount is a programming error, they had the same issue early 2020 and fixed it, but the fix somehow got rolled back (I confirmed this with IRS last year.) As for asking for the same form again, it is probably a mail issue. The mail sorting and processing at the IRS is still facing backlogs. I had some stuff mailed in October 2020 that still had not made it to the right place by July 2021. In July, I was told to expect longer delays for a while when you send them papercopies.

Absolutely. Im just saying it may be one of the reasons for the misconception that the notice isn't required for payouts less than $200.

There is no exception for less than $1,000. You have to give them notice before you do the involuntary distribution. There is an exception to the WH requirements when the total distributions for the year is less than $200 (or for the first distribution of less than $200 if subsequent distributions gets you over $200). My understanding is that there is no exception to the the 402(f) notice requirement for distributions under $200, but some of the language in the notice will not apply to a distribution of less than $200.

Good point, so the return would not be treated as incomplete/failure to file. I still think consequences are possible if this is abused (always filing incomplete, or as a preparer, filing many incomplete returns year after year)

I would say that this is the case until it isn't. If you abuse the 45 day "grace period" (for lack of a better word), I would not be surprised if they simply started marking your return (if you are the plan sponsor) or returns (if you are the preparer) as incomplete and therefore not actually filed.