RatherBeGolfing

I agree with ETA, the rules are very clear. Do some less honest practitioners disregard rules because their clients don't like the end result? Sure. Have I lost clients/prospects because I refuse to break the law? Sure. If you are finding yourself in a position where you are contemplating breaking the law or intentionally overlooking regulations in order to obtain a more favorable (and incorrect) result for your clients, it is time to take a serious look at your practice and why you are struggling.

I have plenty of plans like this. It is a bit of a different animal from working with platforms but it isn't uncommon. I don't see any issues with how the accounts are set up (name of the trust, FBO, availability of the adviosor, etc.) So it appears that the only concern here is that while the rank and file have an FBO account with XYZ brokerage, the owner has an FBO account with ABC brokerage and you want to make sure that all participants are given the opportunity to go outside of XYZ brokerage. Most of our communication includes a simple section regarding SDBAs such as "please contact John Doe at 867-5309 for more information". Each plan then has its own procedures that controls the when/what/where/how.

What does the service agreement say as to the service provider's responsibilities? Right or wrong, the employer has made the decision that this is no longer an employee, which has created a severance from employment. The service provider should caution the employer about the possible ramifications if there is a determination that a severance of employment did not actually take place, and should recommend that the employer seek a legal opinion. Beyond that, I don't think the service provider owes a duty to investigate the employer-employee relationship.

I would say the SH could be funded after the sale and after the resolution to terminate. In order for the plan to actually terminate, the safe harbor must be funded and distributed. But I agree that the funding of the SH would not hold up the sale or the merger.

The responsibility would remain with the seller unless the purchasing company agrees to take on the sponsorship and liabilities of the seller's plan.

Can you execute a resolution to terminate prior to making the required contributions? Sure. You still have to fund and distribute the contributions prior to filing the final 5500 though...

Yep. It annoys me to no end. And try having this conversation with one of their screen readers in "customer service" and see if you have any hair left on your head when the call is over...

Well that item was always part of the DOL changes rather than IRS it wouldn't have been sooner effective before the major overhaul anyway. But point well taken, that was one change I was looking forward to. Many of the auditors I know weren't as happy about it though... I also liked the idea of compliance questions rather than compliance codes as almost every 5500 i look at on a takeover has an issue with the codes...

Yea and it makes more change to do all the changes at one time (the 5500 overhaul) rather than some IRS questions, one year, then some more IRS questions the next year, and then DOL and PBGC questions the year after that. We should be good until the 2019 form or later barring another change of heart by the IRS

Yes, it is easily achieved by not using a blanket exclusion of HCEs. For example, in my document, I would use the "other" category and only exclude part of the HCE group. So what you want to do is to narrow your exclusion rather than make exceptions to the exclusion, if that makes sense.

And here is the latest update ASPPA GAC Advocacy Efforts Pay Off as IRS Drops New Compliance Questions (For Now) For those who are not ASPPA members or do not receive the newsletters, here are the highlights A recent concern in this area has been the new IRS “compliance” or “5500-SUP” questions that were originally to be required for the 2015 form but have been delayed ever since. Those delays have come principally as a result of ASPPA GAC’s lobbying work. It now appears that the IRS is finally in agreement with ASPPA’s original recommendation, which was to roll out the new questions as part of the broader Form 5500 modernization initiative which is a tri-agency project which includes the DOL and PBGC. The reason for the optimism is the recent filling by the Department of Labor (DOL) with Office of Management and Budget (OMB) of draft copies of the 2017 Form 5500, including the related schedules and instructions. (OMB approval is required under the Paperwork Reduction Act.) It is noteworthy that the 2017 form DOES NOT INCLUDE the new IRS “compliance” questions. Lastly, the herculean effort made by many ASPPA members to assist in this lobbying effort should be noted. First and foremost, the ASPPA GAC Reporting and Disclosure Sub-Committee, chaired by Kizzy Gaul, continues to do a great job drafting our thoughtful and substantive comment letters. Also critical contributors to our efforts were senior advisors Janice Wegesin and Peter “Mad Dog” Gould who both took a great deal of time out of their otherwise busy schedules to further the cause, including coming into Washington to meet with OMB and IRS. And finally, a big thank you to all the ASPPA members who wrote their own individual comment letters when rallied to the cause by Mad Dog Gould. Those letters really did make a difference. ASPPA GAC will continue to monitor developments with regard to the ongoing modernization initiative and provide additional comments as it proceeds.

Unintended consequences. Here is the thing though, when you are (or hold yourself out to be) a subject matter expert, you have to be able to discuss the theories and and conclusions with those who disagree or fail to understand your argument. This is especially true when the things you publish are meant to educate others Just about every business trying to find an edge uses SEO to generate traffic and name recognition. Blogs and semi-educational posts are very effective tools for SEO. But you have to be able to take some criticism or engage in a conversation when someone disagrees.

Dont get me wrong, I have nothing against HR or the function they fill. I'm not saying they do it maliciously or even because they want to. It is just their responsibility to nip things in the bud. Which in BGs case happens to be butt nekkid rolling in cash

Ha ha I believe it, HR are notorious kill-joys. Humor is such a great tool in education

Are you sure? I take out $10,000. Unlike BG, I don't make it rain and take selfies, I just like looking at a $10,000 stack of non-taxed cash. I then get paid $10,000 and I mix my taxed cash with my non taxed cash. I repay the loan with $10,100 ($100 interest)from the mixed stack and Im left with $9,900 in my stack. Out of my $20,000, $10,100 went to repay the loan. I only paid taxes on $10,000 out of the $20,000. How much of my loan was taxed twice?

An extra "like" for the use of wicked long time on a dragging Friday!

I agree, it would be a deemed CODA.

Well the original question was " For which situations does a TPA get a Form 2848 to represent a taxpayer before the Internal Revenue Service?" That is probably why everyone is focused on the 2848 The new question seems to be: If you are not representing a client before the IRS (presentation to the Internal Revenue Service or any of its officers or employees relating to a taxpayer’s rights, privileges, or liabilities under laws or regulations administered by the Internal Revenue Service), and you are not rendering written advice to the client, is it still practice governed by 230? I think I will use the old law school answer of "it depends". There is that little qualifier in the definition If you are subject to 230 and part of your practice is something that does not neatly fit the definition, could those actions still be practice under 230? I think so. Is it possible that they are not? Yes.

The TPA as an organization, no. Me as a practitioner, yes. The removal of the 230 disclaimer was not because the practitioner was not covered under 230, but rather that the 230 disclaimer was not meant to be a CYA disclaimer on all correspondence, which is why the IRS said to remove it. If you provide a client with a written opinion on a certain transaction or procedure you still need to make sure that the client understands what we used to have in the disclaimer, they just didn't like the generic disclaimer. At least this is my understanding of why the IRS forced us to remove it.

110% agree

FWIW, this is how I look at it too. If the deferral is a 2016 contribution and it is not timely deposited it goes on the 2016 Form 5500.

If you prepared the form knowing it was false? I don't see how you can avoid exposure. If you, the preparer, is also subject to Circular 230, its is a big no no

Unfortunately, I see this all too often with smaller companies who use a small accounting firm to do the W-2. Those W-2's are not calculated by software, they are manually entered and most likely the put $18,000 because it is the limit rather than the true deferral This is the same reason I just had to tell a client to go back to their CPA to redo the W-2's because they did not reduce Box 1 income by the pre tax deferrals...

Code 8 - taxable in current year. (excess plus earnings) The also need to amend their W-2's to show $18,465 as deferred (but only exclude $18,000 from income).

Yes. I get one if the client gets a notice from the IRS that MAY require me to speak to the IRS to clear up a matter or clarify why the IRS sent the notice. A simple response to a notice can be done without the POA but I get one as soon as I start working on whatever the issue is. This way, I have it if and when I need it. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it