RatherBeGolfing

Here is what happened: PPA §1103 directed The Secretary of the Treasury to modify the requirements for filing annual returns to ensure that one participant plans with assets of less than $250,000 need not file a return for that year. §1103 also modified the definition of a “one-participant plan” to treat 2% S-Corp shareholders as partners for annual filing purposes. PPA §1103 did NOT amend the definition of an employee benefit plan. DOL regs treat a shareholder (no S or C distinction) as an employee if there are two or more shareholders who are not spouses. As of 2019, IRS and DOL had not implemented or issued interpretive guidance in regards to the 2% shareholder issue, so the instructions had never been changed. We have Janice Wegesin to thank for the 2020 change we are discussing. While she had retired a few years earlier, I had a chat with her about this back in 2019. She reached out to an IRS contact who happened to be working on the 2020 instructions.

Agree on both points

Technically, 12/30/2020. Id be surprised if they deny people with 12/31/2020 distributions though

I know this was directed at @Bird, but I'll add my thoughts as well. @Bill Presson is correct that money in an account due to an uncashed check is a plan asset. It doesn't matter whether it sits in the plan's account or if the financial institution holds it in a different account until it clears, it is a plan asset. In situations where the check is issued in December and clears in January, or we know that $xx.xx of trailing dividends will hit in January, I have no problem making the accounting work so that liabilities cancel out assets, and we can avoid a new plan year just for the sake of a slow clearing payment or trailing dividends. When those events start taking longer and longer, going in to February, march, or beyond, it loses any nexus it had with the prior plan year. I would not treat a check clearing in March as no plan assets on January 1. I believe it was mentioned in another thread that "client does not want to file a Form 5500 for an additional year". I think we all know that what the client wants to do or does not want to do in regards to reporting and disclosure is irrelevant.

This. It needs to be a a third party appraisal, and it needs to be FMV.

And here I would have guessed Teamsters...

Well said.

I'll second FTW. Software is easy to use. You can do them one at a time or a batch upload using a csv. The distribution tracking system is great, and if you use it correctly throughout the year, you just push the data to the 1099 module. You'll have them all done in a half a day. Ask them for a demo, Holly is awesome and can answer all your questions. They also have the best customer service in the business. If someone isnt available when you call, they call back quickly.

The rule is an individual NOT more than 10 years younger than the decedent. If the age difference is 10 years or less, the beneficiary may use his or her own life expectancy instead of the 10 years. And yes, once a child reaches majority the 10 year clock starts.

I know this is a side track, but this is also where detailed time tracking comes in. As much as I still hate the task of accounting for every 6-8 minutes spent on a client, you need it if you are going to hit 2.5-3X. You have to know how much time you spend on the different tasks so that you can charge accordingly and train accordingly. If admin A takes twice as long on simple corrections as Admin B, maybe Admin A needs more training, or maybe a specific task should be centralized to a small group of employees. Most importantly though, are we charging an appropriate amount for task XYZ.

Absolutely the exception. I guess that ties into the 40 hour work week with no overtime

I think the goal nowadays is 3X. This is also why NEED support staff. The biggest eye-opener for me once I had to use detailed time-tracking was how incredibly wasteful it is to have highly competent personnel perform clerical tasks, which is often the case in smaller firms where each employee does it all for their client list.

Its impossible to say "typical" workload to be honest. Depends on the plans and what task support you have. If the plans are complicated enough, maybe you max out at 30-40, if they are simple enough, maybe 130 would doable. It does sound like a troubling situation though. No matter what the typical workload is, if you feel you cant give clients the quality service they should get, its an issue, and it needs to be addressed. I would start looking for a backup plan in case you need to leave though. Remote work isn't as rare as it used to be.

I think comments and "recommendations" have been made, but I can't recall hearing that someone got in trouble specifically for using P+1

Yep, this was the counter the IRS faced as soon as that phone forum was over.

My guess would be ASPPA Annual Conference.

I feel like it is Déjà vu every time there is a medical conference somewhere. "Yes Dr. Acula, I understand that your brother at Google can make this kind of contribution, but it is not going to work for your plan...."

Ha ha, I remember that call too. I also remember that plenty of people called them out on it, pointing out that some people could indeed get a secured loan at Prime, and certainly at P+1. And seem to recall that they had to come out with commentary after this call, clarifying the they NOT say that Prime+1 was unreasonable, even though that was pretty much what the presenter said while pushing P+2. In fact, don't they still to this day refuse to say whether P+1 is reasonable or unreasonable? And they still approve documents (or at least they did before post-PPA) with an option to hardcode interest at P, P+1, or P+2.

Have you looked at MS Planner? It doesn't measure up to the CPA/law firm tracking software, but it may work for you if pension pro pension pal is more than you need.

You also disregard the sec 165 requirement that only losses in excess of 10% AGI are deductible

I agree. I also believe this was answered by IRS at ASPPA Annual many moons ago. You might be able to find it in the transcripts of the Q&As on ASPPAs website, pre-2000 years. Its not a "here is the citation" answer, its more along the lines of it is not prohibited. I think @Larry Starr was closely involved with these Q&As, so Larry if you are available to chime in ?...

Ah, the fun one can have with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure...

I think the misunderstanding has to do with how the documents are structured. While Peter did a great job of explaining the finer points of both complaint and order, I'm going to put it in very simple terms. Everything in the complaint is not alleged breach of fiduciary duty. Most of the complaint is a statement of the facts (or at least what plaintiff claims are the facts) and relevant law. The actual alleged breaches start on page 23 of 28 (paragraph 63). What you are reading as an "alleged breach" are just the facts of the case as presented by the plaintiff. The "one size fits all" wording in the complaint is not trustee directed vs participant directed, it is the investment strategy of the plan (or lack thereof). The order to dismiss is not an opinion on what has been alleged, it is only a ruling on the motion to dismiss. It really has nothing to do with what happened in the case, it is a ruling that the complaint itself alleges something that could be true and for which relief could be granted. Any discussion in the order has to assume that the facts as alleged are true. Part of the discussion in the order goes as far as to say

Thank you Peter. Clearly this is another case of imprudent investments (fairly common) and not following the IPS (also common), and not an issue of pooled vs participant directed accounts. The complaint mentions (and misstates) that participants were not allowed to direct investments, but does not claim that this itself is a fiduciary breach (which would have been a summary judgment slam dunk). Rather, they use this to set up their claim of imprudent investments and failure to follow the IPS. Incorrect. Also incorrect.

No. It is segregated when it is no longer under the employers control. Like when you submit withheld taxes to the feds/state, or deposit contributions to the plan.