RatherBeGolfing

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.

I think Leading Retirement Solutions will do bundled plans for that industry

Thanks!

I'll throw another twist into this scenario. How are the employees compensated for this "backpay"? Isn't it usually an award rather than compensation for the services actually performed? That is an important distinction to make, as compensatory damages would not be compensation for qualified plan purposes, and lost benefits should have been considered when the award was calculated.

@Dave Baker Im not sure if you have tweaked anything since BGs post, but it looks fine on my laptop. On mobile (for me), the job ads appear after the first page of "latest posts", which is fine too. It made the ads more visible, but not obtrusive. It does not change or lessen my enjoyment of the site

I mean if you ask the IRS, they tell you to use "state-disaster-FEMA#". Would it cause an issue to just put Ida, maybe not, but why risk it. With the FEMA #, they compare the zip on 5500 with the zips granted relief.

Generally, the IRS likes the following formula: State - Disaster - FEMA # So for Ida in Louisiana you would enter Louisiana Hurricane Ida FEMA 4611

@Luke BaileyI'd offer a different interpretation, and say that you don't necessarily need to treat every participant the same, but you do have to treat reasonably similar circumstances the same. In other words, if you do an interim valuation for Joe due to a market decline of 10% from the last valuation, you don't necessarily have to do it for Jane when the market is up 2% from the last valuation. I'd put a policy in place that dictates when an interim valuation will be done. The policy would depend on the plan, in a small plan, you might have so few participants that you could do an interim valuation for each termination, but in a bigger plan, it might be triggered gains or losses that exceed a certain threshold. We have a small plan that put a policy in place last year that called for an interim valuation with the valuation date being the last day of the month following a distribution request. This was done to allow sufficient time time for the valuation to take place, and so that there was always at least a month between the request and the valuation date, making it impossible to strategically request a distribution due to a sudden shift in the market.

What kind of account are you dealing with? Just tell them to close the account and keep the 5 cents, or asses 5 cents in fees. its a rounding error, no one is going to give you a hard time about 5 cents.

Well they must have processed a bunch of 5558s recently because it seems a lot of folks are getting notices. Assuming you have proof of shipment and delivery, get a POA on at least one of the cases, and call until you get through. I probably re-dialed 50 times the last time and I finally got put on hold instead of disconnected. After you get through, you plead your case (with prof of timely shipment) and you explain that you sent them bulk and would like to provide a list rather than deal with 150 POAs. Depending on circumstances, they should let you fax a list or send a list on electronic media. The last electronic media I sent was in October of last year, and it wasn't processed until April... They are ware of these issues those so most of the folks will be pretty understanding and will find a way to help. Must haves before you call to avoid a wasted 3 hour call: - POA - Proof of mailing the 5558