Eligible for 5500-EZ with a controlled group?

[Below Ground]

Before 2009 you not use a 5500-EZ for a controlled group.  Apparently, this has changed and you can use 5500-EZ if the plan qualifies as a one life plan.  Basically, we have a situation with a plan that covers only the owner and has less than $250K, but is adopted by a controlled group with the same owner.  One form is a proprietorship and the other is an LLC.  Just want to confirm that even though there is a controlled group the 500-EZ can be used.  Also, want to confirm that no filing is needed since the trust is under $250K.

[Towanda]

When you have a Controlled Group or Affiliated Service Group, there is a sponsoring employer and adopting employer(s).  The 5500 is prepared under the name of the Sponsoring Employer, and the filing is treated as a single employer filing, even though it may be covering more than one employer.  This goes for EZs as well.

If there are no common-law employees in either entity and the only employees are spouses or partners, you can file an EZ.  Code 3H in the Characteristics codes identifies this as a Controlled Group or Affiliated Service Group.

If combined assets are under $250K, there is no filing requirement.

[TPApril]

I have a different understanding.

A 5500-EZ eligible filer in a controlled group does not get an out if assets are under $250K and must still file the EZ

On 8/14/2023 at 10:11 AM, Towanda said:

 If combined assets are under $250K, there is no filing requirement.

For clarification, it is combined assets you are looking at.  It is quite possible the individual filer must still file EZ even though that one plan has assets under $250K.

[Below Ground]

Oh on that I definitely agree.  The filing and exemption are on a plan level is how I see it, which makes total sense for a controlled group.  With regard to a MEP, I don't think you could even use the EZ since it is for a "one life plan" that is sponsored by an employer, which I take to mean a single employer which could cover a controlled group of firm.  Conversely, I don't think a MEP of "unrelated firms", even if only covering owners, would fit under that definition since you are not dealing with a single employer, which you would be with a controlled group.