Mandatory use of Schedule SSA for 2002 5500s -- are they serious?

[Guest LVanSteeter]

Beginning with the 2002 Form 5500, only multiple copies of page 2 of Schedule SSA may be used to report information about participants with deferred vested benefits. No attachments will be permitted or accepted.

Are they serious?! They can't possible realize how many pages of SSAs are going to be sent.

Any updates on this?

[david rigby]

No doubt this will come up at the Enrolled Actuaries meeting in March, if no other feedback sooner.

[MGB]

Yes, they are serious. I presume it is to make their life easier scanning the information into their systems rather than receiving the information in multiple formats that they must manually deal with.

[Guest LVanSteeter]

So, I can understand the reasoning. But why not have the vendors (like Relius, etc.) come up with a standard attachment format?

[JanetM]

Hope they do - I had over 300 names on 401(k) plan SSA last year. They are getting the return in a large box this year instead of an envelope.

[maverick]

Janice Wegesin's website (author of 5500 Preparers Manual) has has some infotmation on this issue. She also includes a format for setting up a spreadsheet to import the data. Here's the link:

http://www.form5500help.com/index.html

Maverick

[Guest Kristina K]

So, in regard to having the software developers create a standard attachment for you, how about just a standard attachment? The problem is not those people who followed the instructions for the SSA in creating their attachments, the problem is with the companies that provide data for SSAs that are in any format and the TPAs just stuck them in with the 5500s. Scanning only works if the things scan look basically the same every time for every plan.

The Sch H has standard attachments which most software companies include. The problem here is that those attachments were requested by the IRS. The SSA comes under the SSA, who apparently know how many people, but are used to handling them one at a time.

Import spreadsheets will be the answer until the software developers can come up with a better interface.

[david rigby]

The form designer could help by putting room for more than four.

[Guest Kristina K]

Yes, but that would be the SSA in combination with EFAST. And EFAST were the people who decided that the Sch D would be required rather than having the financial institutions come up with a standardized report for the information they had been providing for years.

EFAST means fast for them. Not fast for TPAs.

[Guest Robin Vatalaro]

Consider sending your comments to Joe Canary at the DOL. He is an individual in a position to do something about these suggestions (they are good ones). If anyone wants his phone number I'll see if I can find it (I'm not in my office as I write this).

[Guest Kristina K]

I think either his email or his mailing address would be more appropriate. My experience with calling some (I emphasize some) government employees, has been that it is extremely hard to get through to them. On one hand, I understand because there are so many more of us than of them. But on the other, I don't, because there is no way to be heard.

[Guest Robin Vatalaro]

email and address certainly would be better, but I am certain I have neither of those pieces of information

[Theresa Lynn]

John J. Canary

Chief, Division of Coverage, Reporting & Disclosure

Office of Regulations and Interpretations

U.S. Department of Labor

Employee Benefit Security Administration

Washington, DC 20210

[Guest Kristina K]

Thank You!!