RatherBeGolfing

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

Short answer, whenever I need one Seriously though, I get a 2848 signed whenever I need to deal with the IRS because the assumption is that if it involves ANY information specific to the client, the IRS will (or is supposed to) require the 2848.

How do you, a "fiduciary", contract out of your co-fiduciary responsibility under ERISA?

As long as he can show that there is a legitimate hardship, and he has a balance available in nonrestricted sources, he should be able to take hardships as needed.

Im quite certain I have participated in several threads dealing with 3(16) in the past 12 months

Absolutely correct. This does not make a future mortgage payment a hardship. What your highlighted passage means is exactly what it says. Contrast that to section 457 unforeseeable emergency which requires the expense to be beyond the participants control. You still need the mortgage payment to be currently due in order to get a hardship distribution. future payments, even if you know you wont have the money to pay them, are not a hardship until the payment is actually due. I would even go as far as to argue that a past due notice is not enough unless it also specifically mentions foreclosure, but others might disagree.

Which takes us back to BG's earlier post... Exclusion of employees by name or other specific criteria having the same effect as an exclusion by name is not considered a reasonable classification.

pffffft. Like anyone actually files before the last possible day.

April 18

Honestly, you probably just need to find a better person to talk to at the RK... This sounds like it is coming from someone who just does not understand plans

The recordkeeper is not just wrong, they are so wrong it is cause for concern... I agree with what you are illustrating, but I would say that the last year of service is not really earned until the end of the limitation year (12/31/2017) so it would be 30 months for the 3 years.. Unless the participant terminated right at the 24 month mark of course...

I agree with ETAs analysis above.

I agree, check with your document provider. That said, I think ADP only is correct.

Enjoy!!!!

I agree, amend and file with audit.

Thanks. I was able to convince the sponsor that refunding the deferral will be cheaper in the long run :)

I'll second this