RatherBeGolfing

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.

Same 5500 manual @Belgarath, I have the 2014 authored by Janice and the 2023 by Protos on my bookshelf.

This is a great product. I highly recommend it. It goes line by line and includes commentary and practitioner notes.

Agreed, due date is absolutely last day of the 7th month following PYE (later if extended), but as @Paul I pointed out, if you put an earlier date on the 5558, that is your due date unless you file an updated 5558. Say what you will about IRS rules, but they do not create 365 potential due dates.

The change is how you count participants for the audit threshold. You now count participants with a balance. Eligible participants without a balance are still participants, you just get to exclude them for purposes of determining whether the plan needs an audit.

2023 Form 5500 Lines 5a and 5b should report all ELIGIBLE PARTICIPANTS, even without a balance. Participants with a balance at BOY and EOY are reported on lines 5c(1) and 5c(2). So if you had 50 eligible participants at EOY 2022, you report 50 participants at BOY 2023 in 5a (unless you have a new entry at BOY). 5c on the 2022 Form 5500 had participants with a balance at EOY, that is your number to use for 5c(1) on the 2023 Form 5500.

Yes, if its a calendar year plan. Isnt this simply saying that you apply the definition of 5% owner in Section 416 to the period defined in 401(a)(9)? It doesn't say anything about a determination date (which is also in Section 416, but in a different section from the 5% owner definition). Instead, apply the 5% owner definition (416(i)(1)(B)(i)) to the period defined in 401(a)(9) (the plan year ending in the calendar year in which the employee attains the applicable age.) 5-percent owner - 416(i)(1)(B)(i) For purposes of this paragraph, the term "5-percent owner" means- (I) if the employer is a corporation, any person who owns (or is considered as owning within the meaning of section 318) more than 5 percent of the outstanding stock of the corporation or stock possessing more than 5 percent of the total combined voting power of all stock of the corporation, or (II) if the employer is not a corporation, any person who owns more than 5 percent of the capital or profits interest in the employer. Determination date - 416(g)(4)(C) The term "determination date" means, with respect to any plan year- (i) the last day of the preceding plan year, or (ii) in the case of the first plan year of any plan, the last day of such plan year.

If we ignore the other parade of red flags, I would assume this would have to be prospective. Still seems like a ticking time bomb though.

Quick caution, 402g limit and 414v catch-up limits are based on the individual's taxable year, not the plan year. I have never encountered a participant with a taxable year other than 12/31, but it is possible. Check out the linked thread for more insight.

I did an M&A earlier this with a handful of entities and two plans. We probably had at least 10 calls to iron out what everyone needed in the paperwork. There were at some points 20+ lawyers on a call, with representatives from buyer, seller, third party benefits coordinator, and a couple of ERISA attys as hired guns for the transaction. Everyone made some changes to the plan merger paperwork, and nothing was signed until approved by all. It was a PITA to get done between all parties in a very short period of time, but a breath of fresh air to see the engagement in plan matters from the M&A folks.

@austin3515 If the merger effective date is already spelled out in the merger documentation, I don't see the point of using the transfer date as the effective date of the merger in the AA. I see the merger and the transfer as separate issues, and to me it is natural that the transfer date follows the merger date. Perhaps I'm missing one thing though... Do you already have plan merger documentation at this point or are you generating that documentation?

How do you treat it if you get the assets transfer on more than one day? If there is a residual a month or two later?

I prefer ASPPA. I have looked at NIPA a few times, but it doesn't offer as much as ASPPA does (my opinion). From an advocacy standpoint, ASPPA/ARA is much stronger. NIPA is less expensive, but I cant speak to the CE requirement cost. If you don't need CE to be IRS approved, you can easily get enough credits for ASPPA credential renewal with free webinars (I imagine NIPA can be satisfied free or close to it as well) What do you want to get out of it? Is it just to have a credential? Access to education and continuing education? A voice in the industry?

HA! I I think I have received one card out of all the renewals I have done. For some reason I never get them, and we have confirmed addresses several times. They sure send it to the right place if I owe money though

Adoption Agreement / Participation Agreement. Like Bill said above, I'd go by the transaction date or effective date in the merger documents. The trailing assets are not an issue as long as its done within a reasonable period following the merger.

I agree with @david rigby. Merger docs over AA/PA everyday.