RatherBeGolfing

@BG5150 We have gotten two of them. both were completed properly and mailed in the same batch as all the ones we have gotten the automatic approval on. @ConnieStorer, if you look just above where it says "additional information", does it say that you didn't file your request on time? Also, do you know when your 5558 was postmarked and when it was received by the IRS? I have reached out to ASPPA GACs Reporting and disclosure committee to see if they have had more incidents reported.

Count me in! Can we add a session on "my payroll company said they would do my plan for free"?

Dangit @ConnieStorer, you are bad juju! I just got my first denial as well. Clearly IRS error as it was filed timely. I guess its the new twist on the old "we never got your 5558"...

Were the extensions filed at the same time?

If that is it, I agree it is not adequate. A simple link access sounds more like a large file transfer solution than secure transfer. I'm not super familiar with sharefile, but I think they have an email encryption feature as well don't they? Our IT department has us set up with a program that works two ways. We can put secure in the subject line which trigger encryption protocol. The software automatically scans our emails and attachments for things that indicate sensitive information (like SSNs) and applies the encryption protocol regardless of "secure" in the subject line. It is compliant with FINRA, HIIPA, and a bunch of other stuff (I'm not IT I just try to pay attention when they explain things).

You are missing the point. If the link and credentials are sent through an encrypted message, only the recipient actually see the link and credentials. The encrypted message would just be scrambled data to anyone else. Now, if you send the message with the link and credentials unencrypted, then I agree with your assessment unless there are other things at play

Obviously things will vary depending on the system. On a very basic level, when something is sent encrypted, the data still travels the same way it would without encryption, but it is useless until decrypted. Encryption does not prevent it from being captured in transit, but what is captured would be of no value. Encryption is more important than password protection, but that doesn't mean that you shouldn't use passwords. Passwords are great for controlling access at the end user. For example, the client might not want everyone in their office to access the file, and it is unlikely that Betty in AP will try jump through hoops to break the password for one of Steve's files in HR. Passwords are not great for securely transmitting data. If I send a password protected file unencrypted, chances are very good that if someone has the ability to intercept it in transit they also have the ability to backdoor an excel password. If it is worth password protecting, it should absolutely be sent with encryption. If I send an encrypted message with a link to john.doe@ABCcorp for a file download, that link will not be accessible to anyone except for those with access to the john.doe account. If intercepted, it will just be scrambled data.

I doubt the "tax savings" of your hardship withdrawal is even close to the benefit you would have had if your retirement funds had been left in the account to generate more tax deferred income... If you do the math from the time of your withdrawal, whether you paid less in taxes when you took it out than you would now is probably a small consideration.

I was speaking in very general terms, but the answer is probably no if you want to restrict access of the document to specific people rather than just the recipient. What I am saying is that it is enough to protect your data from point A to point B, but it is not enough to restrict who can see it at point B (or that you sent it to the correct point B). From an IT security standpoint, sending a password protected file without some sort of secure file transfer system, is not enough to consider it secure or safe. Getting around passwords is easy, getting around encryption is not easy.

Its because secure file transfer and restricted file access are not the same thing. At a VERY basic level, when you send data over the internet without a secure connection, it is like passing an open letter hand to hand until it gets to the end recipient. Someone could access that letter at any point until it reaches the end recipient. A secure file transfer uses algorithms to scramble what is in the letter, so that the data is useless even if accessed before it reaches the end recipient. It doesn't restrict who can access it at its end point, but it is secure from point A to point B.

Paging @Larry Starr for his rundown on why real estate inside a qualified plan is not a wise choice, even when legally doable....

Was there an arms length negotiation for this offer or did owner unilaterally decide to offer this "option"?

Ditto!

I'll be there Austin. I got a later flight than usual on Wednesday so I'll actually get to stay for the entire last session

I left out an important word in my prior post. AP is not the ONLY* party with rights that should be protected.

I would give notice to all parties that a DRO has been received and will be reviewed to determine qualified status. 100% agree. This is fairly easily distinguishable from simply knowing that P is going through a divorce, and that QDRO may or may not be issued at its conclusion. AP is not the ONLY* party with rights that should be protected. *Edited for clarity. I somehow left out the only in my last sentence. Of course AP also has rights that need protecting.

None. It has made it easier because we can tell people there is no gray area here, we need X to do Y.

I agree with @QDROphile on this one, I prefer simple and clearly defined over discretion, especially when the practitioner may not be the best suited to exercise that discretion. Suspension of Participant distributions or loans. If the Administrator is on notice (verbal or written) regarding a pending domestic relations action (e.g., a divorce) and has a reasonable belief the Participant's account may become subject to a QDRO, the Administrator may suspend processing the Participant's distribution or loan requests pending resolution. What is notice? Phone call from the ex? water cooler gossip? Participant complaining in the lunchroom that s/he was served with divorce papers? What is reasonable belief that participants account may become subject to a QDRO? You could probably say its reasonable to believe that an account may become subject to a QDRO in all divorces, because you just don't know. What if the participant says its amicable and they will just leave with what is "theirs"? is it still reasonable to expect a QDRO? When do you pull the trigger for the "may suspend" part? When do you decide not to suspend? When is it no longer "pending resolution"? Does a plan fiduciary have to review and "approve" of a property settlement to know that resolution is no longer pending? Why not something that is clearly defined? When you get X you do Y, otherwise Z! Just my opinion of course, we all have our preferences.

Im pretty sure citizenship is not required if there is legal residency, green card for example.

@Bill Presson Bill is it too late to get this question in for the "ask the experts" panel at ASPPA Annual? I wonder what kind of discussion we could get with a whole panel of "pension celebrities"...

This is one of the more important takeaways from this thread. Stay within the terms of your engagement, period.

Technically the "regular" 5500 is late so its DFVCP, but you would at least have an argument that you filed an EZ beleiving it was a correct form. You would not have that argument if you relied on the $250k filing exemption. For the EZ i think its $500 per late filing, and I had people "forget" that its combined value of plans, not each plan. I have also seen where some thought the assets were less than they were, etc. No such issues if you take 5 minutes to fill out the form and mail it to the IRS, at least then you can amend if you make a mistake on the numbers.

Never. But I have seen plenty of cases where someone thinks they are exempt so they don't file, only to find out they did not qualify for the exemption and now have to pay to file as a late filer. If you have a TPA for calculations or whatever, it doesn't make sense to me to not file a Form 5500. I could understand someone not wanting to engage a provider just for the 5500, but if they are already servicing the plan in some capacity...

Fair enough, I just wanted to clarify what I said in case it came off as rude or dismissive. Good Luck

We also file 5500s regardless of assets, and we make that clear to the client from day one.