RatherBeGolfing

From what I hear we are expecting final regs, not another delay. I don't see it on the OMB Dashboard yet, so it may be a December surprise.

Amen Brother Bill!

Sure! There are tons of GPTs in ChatGPT and other AI apps. For example, there's an excel GPT in ChatGPT that is focused on excel, so your answers are going to be tailored to excel. I'm creating a few custom ones for my own use or internal use. For example, an EPCRS GPT. I have limited it to using the current version of EPCRS and my instructions (which are expanding and help narrow answers). It's still in early stages, but so far its a good way to find answers or the correct section quickly. Another one im playing around with is a Controlled Group GPT. Instead of feeding it all the data you think it needs, it prompts you for input. In a nutshell, the CGGPT starts by asking you how many entities you are working with. Lets say you answer "3" The next question it asks is how many owners between all three entities. After you answer, it asks about each owner's equity in each entity. And so on. The basic idea is to have the GPT ask you for all the relevant data instead of you asking it to make a determination based on the data you give it. The more prompts you pre-program, the more questions are asked. You can get super detailed or very basic. It's a fun process to go through (for us pension nerds 🤓) and hopefully you get a useful tool in the end. I also have another one I have started uploading different plan documents to and building instructions in order to determine where certain provisions are and how they are similar or different by vendor. I know of at least one company put there working on a document AI to help you map from one vendor to another. It's exciting stuff as long as you have guidelines you use it properly.

A recent reply to an old thread got me curious, what do you use AI/LLM ("AI") for in your practice, if any? Are you allowed to use it all? Do you use it internally or externally (with clients)? I have had this discussion in smaller settings, and I recognize that use of AI varies greatly. I'll start us off with some easy examples from my practice: - We do not use AI for anything with PII data, even if the workspace is locked down (not used to inform the AI outside of our workspace) - We do not use it for legal or compliance questions. I have seen many benefits adjacent professionals do this and the answers can be frightening. "ChatGPT said we are not an Affiliated Service Group" is a scary sentence... - We use it to review and revise communications. Don't like how your email sounds? feed it to an AI to make it easier to read, understand, etc. - We use it as a tool to help with formulas and macros for excel. - I am playing with it as an internal Q&A tool. By creating your own GPT, you can have the AI prompt you with questions (instead of asking it questions) and limit the source material it looks at to the specific documents you provide.

If a plan is subject to mandatory auto enrollment, you have to satisfy all the requirements for MAE in S2.0.

Don't forget that LTPTEs have to be auto-enrolled (absent affirmative election) if the client is subject to AE.

An employee is a LTPTE if the only reason they are eligible for the plan is because they met the LTPT rules. You are only required to offer the opportunity to defer, employer contributions are only required if they meet the plan's eligibility for employer contributions. If the issue is employer contributions, LTPTEs are not a problem since you don't have to provide employer contributions to them. There are two ways you can make sure you never have LTPTEs: - Eligibility for the plan is 500 hours or less - Eligibility is based on elapsed time.

Im not sure I see the issue. Eligibility is 1 year. Employee does not meet regular eligibility. Employee does meet LTPTE requirement. Why would the employee not be considered an LTPTE?

Since this thread is 20 years old, one can only hope that it has been resolved by now...

No. Remember, signing as preparer on behalf of the client IS the simplification. The default is the client obtaining signing/filing electronically with their own credentials.

LOL Indeed. Good catch

Nothing wrong with it as long as there is *no* quid pro quo. This is very common with smaller firms. You may want to consider what happens if the client does a bad job and you need to fire them... There are pros and cons to doing this.

Ok so you are importing it using a vendor upload. Are you doing a manual allocation of earnings, fees, etc and importing that using a vendor upload? Why not let FTW do that allocation for you? If you set up accounts and sources properly in FTW, you could have as many sources as you want and you would just enter the total for the year as a manual transaction. If you have a lot of participants you can import/export that data as well. Lets say you have 401k, Roth, SH, and PS. you have 1000 in earnings. let FTW calculate how much of the 1000 is 401k earnings, Roth earnings, etc rather than telling the system what belongs to each source. Does that make sense?

All of it. If it exceeds limits you have some corrections to do, and you those should also be on your 5500 for the appropriate year. You are scratching the surface of issues of SDBA only plans... You need more information to determine contribution sources, like a ledger or payroll report. The brokerage account isn't going to track it by source because that is not what it is designed to do. You need to do source level accounting of contributions, distributions, fees, earnings, etc. outside of the brokerage account. Do you have software that will do this for you? If not, are you an employee of the plan sponsor or advisor trying to do this without a TPA? If so, you need the assistance of a professional.

@Pam Shoup The guidance provides two correction methods: W-2 correction can be used as long as the participant's W-2 has not been filed or furnished to the participant In Plan Roth Rollover correction. The guidance includes a reference to previous guidance on In-Plan Roth Rollovers: With that in mind, I believe the answer to your question is Yes.

Good point. I have done a few of these and have not had the DOL reject the explanation, but it is not a guarantee. You wouldn't amend to a final return on the 5500-EZ just because the plan is no longer required to file the 5500-EZ. The plan still exists, it is just filing a different Form 5500 at the moment. It could return to filing EZ's in a future year if it returns to one-participant plan status.

Yes. You cant file an amended 2023 5500-SF since there is no original 2023 5500-SF. You can file a 5500-SF, but not amended one at this point. Btw, if you have never filed a 5500-SF for this plan, this filing must also indicate "first return". Unlikely, but the IRS will send you love letters, and it may take a bit to get it fixed. What will happen is: - The IRS will say that the 2023 Form 5500-SF was late. - You will need to respond with your explanation that you filed an EZ, then found out that the circumstances were different. I have never had an issue doing this. - The IRS will probably contact the client again looking for a 2024 Form 5500-EZ since you filed a 2023 Form 5500-EZ. Respond with the explanation. Side question, how many years of EZ's do you need to fix, assuming 2023 was not the first year for the plan?

Advised by whom?

I like both. The AI search isn't a huge selling point for me; I was kind of underwhelmed by the demo. - EOB is more technical and goes deeper into the weeds on most topics. ERISAPedia is more plain English explanation of technical topics. - I can get more out of EOB, but 90% of the time I can get what I need from ERISAPedia. - If it is going to be used by less experienced, less technical employees, ERISAPedia is probably better. Its easier to search and easier to understand. - If I could only have one, it would be the EOB. If I could only have one for my staff, it would be ERISAPedia. I hope that helps.

Did they get a 45 day letter from the DOL and not fix it in time? Same. I recommend DFVCP, but even auditors want us to go the amendment route. If Im going to do it, it is with written direction from the client.

I disagree. The question to your quoted answer is must the notice describe the limit on contributions. You have to describe the limit, which is a combined limit based on the length of time each plan existed. The answer must be read in the context of the question. We describe the limit combined limit for those who are not catch-up eligible, those who are catch-up eligible, and those who are super catch-up eligible. We also include the statement that contributions made to the SIMPLE count towards the combined limit and reduce what can be contributed in the SH plan.

Still are.

Agreed, this sounds like 415 excess rather than 402g if its because there wasnt enough comp to defer from. @KaJay forget comp for minute, did the deferrals exceed $23,000 (and catch-up if eligible)?

FTW's document has an opt-out for age 60-63 catch up. Not sure about other providers. ASC did not last I saw it, but that was about 6 months ago and could have changed.

We feel that they are pretty clear, but caveat with "for informational purposes only, not tax advice, etc." After all, this is based on the information we have on file, and the client/CPA may have additional information that would change things.