RatherBeGolfing

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.

Thanks Peter!

Even without a shutdown, I dont expect much in the form of rulemaking in the next 12-18 months. The 10-1 rule in a recent executive order means that agencies must repeal 10 existing rules for every new rule. Im not entirely sure what the impact is on sub-regulatory guidance, but Bondi reinstated the prohibition on "improper guidance" from the first Trump administration (which was withdrawn by Garland during the Biden administration). Under the memo, guidance is improper when issued without undergoing the rulemaking process but has a direct effect on the rights and obligations of private parties governed by the agency, or otherwise acts as a substitute for rulemaking.

Hi @Ilene Ferenczy, What is your opinion on the effective date of the safe harbor plan? Some are taking the position that as long as deferrals do not start until the day after the termination of the SIMPLE, the plan itself can be effective 1/1. This way, you don't have a short initial year, and you don't need to prorate any limits other than max deferrals. This wasn't addressed in S2.0 or the guidance, but I think it would violate the exclusive plan rule under 408(p)(2)(D).

Paging @QDROphile... Care to share your thoughts?

Florida Practitioner here. Unfortunately, this is very common. IRS has told me informally to attach the disaster relief announcement as an other attachment, but its still 50/50 on an IRS love letter. I set up template responses each season so that we can reply to them quickly.

We have moved away from restatement fees in favor of a slightly higher annual fee. Clients are happy with it, and on the practice side you end up collecting parts of the fee for clients who leave or term prior to the restatement window. Works for us but YMMV

Agreed. There are some functions on my wish list, but nothing I cant live without. The new single step processing function is really nice.

That's what I have heard from my provider. They are working on the system part now and expect them to be available for restatements late Q2 early Q3. Off the record type conversation though, so who knows.

Schwab has SRT. Id say they are more of a competitor than Congruent/CORE at this point. CORE has some great functioning modules right now (contributions, distributions, etc), but aren't quite there as a total solution yet.

Ive been at firms that use Relius for RK and other software for compliance. No issues there. The devil is in the details though. How many plans do you need to convert if you switch systems? What kind of plans do you work on? What features are you using? And so on... Its a fairly small industry. Software development is expensive and takes time to recoup. When users only have a handful to pick from, are you better off being #4 and spending little on improvements, or spending millions to be #1? Dont get me started on the scarcity of RK software.