RatherBeGolfing

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.

Bundled provider here. We do this for all clients as part of our regular services, no additional fee. I see no disadvantage to doing it. It's very helpful during the sales phase, and both clients and CPAs have been very appreciative. If you collect the necessary information, it's not a heavy lift to provide this service.

The real question is, who do we bill it to??

You need to be 100% vested to elect Roth employer contributions. Partially vested participants cant elect Roth employer contributions. In some circumstances, this means you may have to amend the vesting schedule if your 'target" (like an owner) isnt 100% vested. Other times, your target may be 100% vested but newer employees are not. Other times, you may want to make the source 100% to allow all participants to benefit from the Roth election. It all depends on what you feel is best for the company, the plan, and the participants. Its not going to be one size fits all.

Why bother with after-tax and MBDR when you could just do Roth Match or Roth Non-Electives? When you do conversions, you have a separate 5 year clock for each conversion, only one 5 year clock with Roth Match or Roth Non-Electives, its just an easier solution. We use this for clients already and its not rocket surgery. PM me if you want to discuss @mjbais1489 Edit: vesting of employer Roth contributions (must be 100%) has not been an issue for our clients who have implemented this. They either don't have significant forfeitures, or the benefits outweigh the "cost" of 100% vesting.

It sounds like the K-1 is issued to the partner's corporation, NOT the partner. The K-1 is not plan comp. This is not an uncommon setup, but its also often misunderstood. Based on the scenario you lay out, his comp for plan purposes is his W-2 from the corporation, not the K-1 from the partnership to the corporation. If the income passes from one entity to another (not taxed as income from self-employment), why would it count as plan comp?

If the SIMPLE IRA term date is 6/30/25, the SH 401k has to start 7/1/25. There are exceptions to SH plans being in place for a full year, this is one of them. You only get SIMPLE ER contributions / SH for the time you were in the respective plan To terminate a SIMPLE at year end, you need to notify employees by November 2. You need a 30 day notice for a mid year termination

It depends on the plan document and administrative procedures. For our plans, participants have the ability to change between pre-tax and Roth ER at any time, just like they can for their employee contributions.

It doesn't accomplish the same thing. For a Roth conversion, each conversion has its own 5 year clock. Roth employer contributions have one 5 year clock. I know a lot of providers do not track the 5 year clock on each conversion, but they should. I have several plans who have gone with Roth ER with no issues.

I agree. These are the minimum requirements, and a plan fiduciary may reason that more is required to discharge their duties and protect plan participants. Agreed. @Peter Gulia, FAB 2012-02R removed some of the brokerage window guidance from the original FAB 2012-02 that got a lot of pushback from the industry. The original FAB would have made compliance all but impossible when brokerage windows were offered. Generally speaking, I think you always have a responsibility to monitor investments and fees, and I dont think that brokerage windows are any different. If adding brokerage windows ends up with higher fees and poor investment performance compared to the Ascensus platform only, are they still appropriate for the plan, or could they be appropriate with changes? What level of monitoring is needed in order to determine if they are or become an issue? Those are issues a responsible plan fiduciary should consider. Im not against brokerage windows, but I believe they add complexity to the plan and for the plan fiduciaries. Since they have hired you, it appears they already understand this and might be better situated than most for this type of plan design. Many plans just add brokerage windows and move on. To me, it is just a matter of time until the DOL drops the hammer on plans that offer brokerage windows using the "set it and forget it" approach.

Peter, Who does the testing for the plan? The PS? That is both good and bad. Its good because the availability and use will clearly be nondiscriminatory, but considering the number of accounts the admin of the plan will be more complicated. Are they actually able to restrict the investments in the SDBA? Unless the SDBAs are integrated with the RK platform, it may be difficult to restrict. Remember, they also have to monitor these accounts, and that may be difficult as well. Sounds like they are "shadow posting", in other words, you will be able to see the balance of the SDBA in Ascensus, but probably not the activity. If so, consider the added complications of tracking fees, g/l, dividends, etc. Also, you may want to consider the EBSAs not so favorable view of brokerage windows in general, and whether this approach will allow the plan fiduciaries to meet their obligations (fee disclosures, monitoring investments, etc). It worries me that there is no TPA (unless they have someone in-house that can perform testing, prepare required disclosures, reporting, etc). If they are simply shadow posting balances to Ascensus, reconciliation will be a headache.

Using the penalty relief program under Rev Proc 2015-32 is all based on eligibility and paying the user fee. As long as you are eligible and pay the fee, the reason doesn't matter.

My understanding is that the CBO has to look at it as written, and cannot consider possible non-enforcement.

Had a similar issue a few years back, but much bigger in scope. A well known ERISA attorney told us to just file the forms now. Paraphrasing, but the answer was "since there is no way to cure a late filing, just file and explain the reason if (big if) they ask any questions". Like you assumed, they are very accommodating since there is no correction program. In my opinion, these penalties were never meant to be collected in the first place ($150k for a late 5500?), they are just there to make the DC math work for new legislation.

Not 5 1/4 floppy's? Fancy stuff!

The IRS compliance questions apply to the 2024 Form 5500. While you are filing for a 2021 Plan Year, you are filing a 2024 Form 5500. You need to complete the questions.