Leaderboard

I remove the hard drive, put it in a vise and drill holes through it, a lot of holes and the process feels like therapy because I feel good that I have moved on to a new computer.

This is from TASC's website, a company who administers Section 125 plans. https://www.tasconline.com/biz-resource-center/plans/section-125-cafeteria-plan/ [Note: one portion below] Exceptions Sole proprietors, partners in a partnerships, and more-than-2% shareholders in an S-Corporation have special considerations concerning participation in a Cafeteria Plan. While sole proprietors cannot directly participate in the plan, they may legitimately employ their spouse and offer the spouse the benefits of the plan. In such instances, the employer must take care to ensure that the plan must be offered on a non-discriminatory basis. The employed spouse may be considered a highly-compensated employee and as such their contributions to the plan may be limited. A partnership operates much like a sole proprietorship. While the partners cannot directly participate, they may employ a spouse who in turn may receive benefits. The highly compensated issues apply as stated above. While all non-related employees may participate in the plan, depending upon the plan's parameters, non-discriminatory rules apply. In S-Corporations, eligible employees who are not shareholders and who are not defined as highly compensated generally may participate to the fullest extent. Eligible employees, who are defined as highly compensated, excluding shareholders, will be subject to the non-discriminatory rules. Special rules apply to a more-than-2% shareholder of the organization. These individuals may not participate in the plan; nor may their employee-spouse, children, parents, and grandparents. In determining the status of an individual that becomes or ceases to be a more-than-2% shareholder during the course of the S Corporation's taxable year, the individual is treated as a more-than-2% shareholder for the entire year.

around here. Anybody heard any good jokes lately? One from last week: Guy says "Lock your wife and your dog in the garage for an hour;" asks "Which one do you think will be glad to see you?" Yeah, yeah, I know. It's slim pickin's, but you've gotta work with what you have.

Thanks to all who have participated in this discussion.

You can amend the return to include the child. In the SS/ITIN box, write Applied For. Then mail it to the ITIN center in Austin TX with the W-7 and supporting docs on top of the return. If the wife gets her visa in time, you can include her, too. I'm doing this off the top of my head, so wait 'til others confirm.

Did you read my first post ? It is a big problem if you do it this way ! Unfortunately, there were several later posts that wandered off into the weeds and confused the issue.

Re-read CB's posts.

Copied from Tax Pro Today: The IRS has started issuing Letter 226J penalty notices for the 2017 tax year, along with other penalty assessments related to ACA enforcement. IRS staff is spending more time reviewing potential ACA violations, and putting the onus on employers to prove they have complied with the law. Here are some signs that the IRS is becoming more assertive in efforts to enforce the ACA: The IRS has started issuing Letter 226J penalty notices for ACA noncompliance under IRC Section 4980H for the 2017 tax year. The tax agency just completed sending its Letter 226J penalty notices in June to employers the agency believed failed to comply with the ACA in the 2016 tax year. This is the quickest we have seen the tax agency transition from issuing penalty notices from one tax year to the next, a sign that IRS ACA enforcement activities are escalating. The IRS has indicated it is now limiting extension requests to one 30-day extension for each IRS notice received in the penalty process, requiring employers to act with even more urgency in responding to a penalty notice. IRS staff is paying greater attention to the methodology and data used in employers’ determination of full-time employees in ACA filings for the 2017 tax year. This is a deeper level of review than undertaken for previous tax years. ACA penalties are often triggered by employers providing inaccurate information on the number of full-time workers they employ. The IRS is asking individual taxpayers to obtain documents from their employers to prove they were entitled to receive premium tax credits (PTCs) to offset health insurance purchased through government exchanges. Employers are being required to provide proof that they filed ACA information with the IRS. Over the past few years, many employers relied on do-it-yourself software and payroll companies to submit ACA information to the IRS on their behalf. In some cases, the software and payroll companies thought they submitted the information electronically to the IRS, not realizing the submissions were never accepted. Now, many employers are realizing the IRS never received their submissions and, as a result, are being issued ACA penalty notices. Expect IRS staff to insist that employers obtain submission acceptance notices to prove they filed with the IRS as part of their defense to have ACA penalty assessments dismissed. With the IRS becoming more aggressive in its enforcement activities and with ACA penalties potentially in the millions of dollars, accountants may want to advise clients they believe to be vulnerable to undertake an ACA Penalty Risk Assessment. This assessment can determine if employers are considered to be an Applicable Large Employer by the IRS, and if they are at risk of receiving IRS penalties under IRC Section 4980H. This assessment involves a review of IRS Forms 1094-C and 1095-C. Some outside experts may offer to undertake this assessment at no cost. It’s also a good time for accountants to check with their clients that have more than 50 full-time employees to determine if they have been filing ACA information with the IRS annually, as required by law. If they have not, they may be at risk of receiving significant ACA penalties under IRC Section 6721/6722. Accountants should work with these employers to file this information as soon as possible to avoid receiving an IRS Letter 5005A penalty notice. Now is the time for accountants to check-in with their business clients to discuss their ACA compliance process to determine if they may be at risk of paying significant financial penalties to the IRS because they have failed to comply with the ACA. I have been preparing and submitting by mail for the last 4 years the required forms for my largest client who is an ALA with more than 50 employess. "Expect IRS staff to insist that employers obtain submission acceptance notices to prove they filed with the IRS as part of their defense to have ACA penalty assessments dismissed." Last year my client ended up paying a $ 9,000 penalty for 2015 for not providing health insurance. Haven't received an assessment for 2016, which could be about $25,000. I have never heard of "submission acceptance notices". I guess I should find out what they are. Although, I don't think I will request one in fear of triggering a letter !