Jump to content
403bagent

403 (b) Regs Postponed

Recommended Posts

Proposed regulations regarding IRC Sec. 403(b) will not take effect until 1-1-07, according to Treasury Acting Benefits Tax Council Tom Reeder. The Regs had been scheduled to be effective 1-1-06. Final regs should be

issued in first half of 2006, to be effective 0n 1-1-07.

 

I beleive the final regs will be very very similar to the proposed regs except maybe in the area of 90-24 and I also believe language will be added to trump state law in those states, Texas, California, Florida and others that have passed legislation to make available a list of providers that must be available to participants. This will make it much easier to change to a single provider type plan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

403bAgent,

 

If this is true it is good news, however, I have not seen anything officially released from the IRS stating what you posted. Can you give us some background on the statement and where it is, if anywhere in the official record.

 

ScottyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This page shows an agenda for a meeting, no specifics. Are you saying that your quote was directly from Reeder from his remarks at this meeting last weekend?

 

ScottyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Sierra
Yes, now, how do you want me to prove it to you.

403bagent: You need to have that chip knocked off your shoulder!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ouch,

 

It was just a question. I don't like relying on gossip, if you confirm that you heard it directly from Reeder's lips its something, not official, but something.

 

I will assume you heard it from Reeders lips.

 

ScottyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK 403bagent,

You made the orignal announcement so the ball is in your court. The silence about this news, not just from you, but others too, speaks volumes. You heard Reeder say this, so was he wrong?

I would like to know because I am writing a piece about this for my union's newspaper.

(I am trying to be more professional in my comments here) :-)) How am I doing?

Steve

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From the NTSAA

 

 

Congress has returned to Washington from summer recess. We would like to acknowledge and thank members who contacted Senators and Representatives while they were in their respective “home” districts. If you had success contacting your own representative or senator (or a member of staff) during recess, please be sure to report that information to the NTSAA as it is important to keep a record of interested members of Congress for possible future actions.

 

New: Treasury & IRS Remarks:

We wanted to report comments made by Tom Reeder of Treasury and Robert Architect of the IRS at a Washington D. C. conference held last week as reported in the September 9, 2005 edition of Tax Notes Today:

Tom Reeder of Treasury and Bob Architect of the IRS “devoted most of their time to discussion of proposed regulations on section 403(b) plans” and noted that the “regs will not be effective before January 1, 2007”. He also expressed optimism that the regs will be finalized in the first or second quarter of 2006. Architect also said, "that it is likely the effective dates of some entities, such as church plans will be pushed back even further.”

 

In terms of the controversial written plan requirement, Reeder said, “No where in the code does it say a 403(b) plan does not have to be written. In fact, the fact that the statute refers to the word 'plan' implies that there ought to be a written plan.” To further explain that requirement, he said, “We’re not talking about a plan document in a 401(a) sense. We’re talking about a plan document that someone can use to reference what the terms of the plan are.”

 

In referring to the repeal of Revenue Ruling 90- 24, Architect said, "that the Service wants to get beyond Rev. Rul. 90-24 because it has complicated efforts at compliance by employers and has made enforcement more difficult for IRS agents.” However, Tom Reeder did say that “the final regs might permit some transfers that would not be allowed under the proposed regs”.

 

What Do We Think?

 

We believe that your efforts should continue, but focus almost entirely on contacts with members of Congress. Sample letters and other information to assist with these efforts can be found at www.ntsaa.org, under the “Advocacy" link.

 

It is important to note that Tom Reeder’s reference to the fact that the statute refers to the word “plan” is evidently based on IRC 403(b)(12) (which covers nondiscrimination rules added in the Tax Reform Act of 1986) where in (A) it says “a plan meets the nondiscrimination requirements of this paragraph if”, and in © there is the title “State and Local Governmental Plans”, and Plan is also used in the body of that section.

 

The key question for members of Congress is whether the intent was to apply the rules of plans to 403(b) arrangements, when in fact, all previous legislative history took the opposite approach. Despite many opportunities to do so, Congress has never mandated a written plan requirement for 403 (b). Even so, discussions with Treasury indicate that both Treasury and the Service hold the belief that Congress intends this result (when, in fact, Congress may well not be aware of the ramifications of the proposed changes).

 

Finally, as we review the Examination Guidelines, it is made clear in the detailed explanations of 403(b), that “403(b) plans take a wide variety of forms. Even where a 403(b) plan takes the form of an arrangement rather than a plan, it is nevertheless subject to all of the requirements of 403(b)”. Note that unlike qualified plans, the requirements in the 403(b) statutes do not include a written plan. In the plan document section of the Guidelines, the statement is made, “Unlike qualified plans, 403(b) plans are not subject to the requirements of a definite written program (although Title I requires a written plan document for certain 403(b) plans).”

 

We will continue to keep you informed, and ask that you continue your efforts to get employers, unions, and participants to contact Members of Congress.

 

NTSAA http://www.ntsaa.org/advocacy1.php

 

Ellie Lowder

Technical Advisor

email: info@ntsaa.org

 

 

 

 

 

ScottyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have seen several letters that new clients have shown me asking them to contact their regulators. Usually the letters are not accurate and biased.

 

ScottyD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...