RatherBeGolfing

I haven't seen this letter, but it sounds like the IRS notice generator needs tweaking. No check boxes or anything on the letter? I have seen some recent DOL correspondence stating that they have no record of a 2019 Form 5500, requesting a response in 15 days.

👍

POA and submit as practitioner?

I saw that too. On mine it says "featured post" and "[user] featured this post" so I think its an option for the mods

Good question. 1103 didn't change the definition of an employee benefit plan, it directed the Sec of Treasury to modify the requirements for annual filing purposes. I think you can argue it both ways, but I would stick to what the instructions were in 2016 and file DFVCP with an SF.

I believe the exception is for events that are unforeseeable or beyond control of admin. Agree that change in TPA might qualify.

New EPCRS is "in the works", and I think this is one of the driving issues. No word on when we can expect it as far as I know.

I like it so far, it is "softer" on the eyes and easy to read on my laptop. I especially like how longer quotes default to a condensed view that you can expand, this makes it a lot easier to read for those of us who like to use several quotes in one reply. Also, if you use the @ {user} function, the inserted user name is easier to read. I haven't tried mobile or custom stream/view functions yet

As long as accountant deposited it as a 2020 tax liability, you wont have any problems. If accountant deposited it as 2021 tax liability, you will get IRS love letters.

Happy accident. We were working on missing participants, but since Janice was the 5500 guru I asked her for advice on an S corp issue. She was always very generous with her time both before and after retirement.

I think @C. B. Zeller laid it out perfectly. The 2020 Instructions reference 1372(b), which reference attribution under 318, so a 2% owner via attribution should be treated as a partner.

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