5500 requirements in the 1980's

[Guest Al Bear]

I had a solo plan (at first Keough and later on 401k) that ws started in 1981. Only filing was a 5500-R in 1985. Having a hard time finding out what the requirements were at that time. IRS has old forms but not old instructions. Even Google Books only goes back to 1987, although the description says it goes back to 1985, it lies.

Plan was terminated in 1997, so I am planning on filing a 5500-EZ final for that year under the current no-penalty late-filer program for solos, which will be open until June 2015.

Was the 5500-R all I needed at that time? Assets in plan were always small, well under $100,000 in 1990, but I don't know what the cutoff was prior to 1990.

Would be happy to read the instructions myself, but where to find them?

[Andy the Actuary]

May have required Schedule P to start the 3-year statue of limitations.

[ESOP Guy]

I don't say this very often but if the plan terminated in 1997 and no one has come a calling for the missing returns why not let a sleeping dog lay?

[Guest Al Bear]

Andy,

I believe that the 5500-P was attached.

In any case, the statute of limitations refers to challenges to the plan's qualification, which is not an issue anyway as it was a prototype plan.

[Guest Al Bear]

ESOP,

There were some some recent 5500's that were missed too. The highest Plan Sequence number would be 007. I would like to make sure I'm covered going back to 001. Otherwise, when they see 007 they might wonder what happened to 006, 005, 004, etc.

In 2012 my 401k balance hit $250,000. From that point on I was be required to file a 5500-EZ on all plans except those that had been terminated. I didn't do that, so I am playing catch-up.

Recall that this is all under the new Late Filer program that opened up in June. The fee for using this program is currently zero, so why not take advantage of it?

[Tom Poje]

The sequence number might not be as big a deal as you think.

I think that is used mainly to distinguish between one plan from another.

I've seen some form use 333 or 555 for a particular type of plan, not to imply that there were an additional 332 plan before.

the DOL website only goes back to 1995, showing the forms needed, with instructions how to file electronically for the old forms, etc

http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/5500main.html

[Guest Al Bear]

Tom,

The DOL website doesn't have the 5500-EZ forms in any case. 5500-EZ goes straight to the IRS. I don't think DOL is involved. IRS website has 5500-EZ with instructions going back to 1990 here:

http://apps.irs.gov/app/picklist/list/priorFormPublication.html?value=5500-EZ&criteria=formNumber

The 1990 instructions give the cutoff as $100,000. Asssets were well below that at that time. Because the plan was reported in 1985 on a 5500-R, I am probably ok. But it would be nice to know for sure.

Should I call the IRS? Is there a help number for 5500-EZ questions?

Or should I just assume that they are not going to go back to 1986 through 1989 to see what I filed or did not file at that time. After all, the employee handling my 1997 5500-EZ (final year filing) probably doesn't know any more about the 1980's requirements than I do at this point.

[Tom Poje]

correct. dol doesn't consider an owner an 'employee' so they don't care about the 5500ez (though the instruction for the 5500 may refer to them.

buried in the material at the website are the 1988 instruction, which had the ez filing at 25,000, but that is as close as I could come to finding anything on a quick search.

I'd be surprised if the IRS cared about anything going back that far.

http://books.google.com/books?id=dDM4AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA74&lpg=RA1-PA74&dq=irs+form+5500ez+for+1986+instructions&source=bl&ots=NAmVm_m6iz&sig=SPdtHhzV73LRCX1ePDVAi4HEbBs&hl=en&sa=X&ei=bCFhVIn7CsWfgwT-s4CYCQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=irs%20form%205500ez%20for%201986%20instructions&f=false

[Guest Al Bear]

Good find. Seeing that there was a cutoff, and that it was set at $25,000 for 1988, I'm going to assume that I'm covered as far as the 1980's are concerned. Like you said, it seems very unlikely that they would look into anything that old anyway.

Thanks for your help, everyone.