Handling non '97 amendments with a Volume Submitter document

[mwyatt]

We use a well-known software package to generate Volume Submitter documents. Now that approval has finally been received by our provider and language released, starting to generate volume submitter documents for our clients to comply with GUST II.

Given that IRS has now allowed sponsors utilizing volume submitter doucments to rely on the VS opinion letter (and not file for an individual DL), would like some input on dealing with the following:

Say your plan made an amendment effective 1999 to change a provision also available in the body of the VS document, but does not coincide with the GUST restatement year of 1997. What we have done in the past is to generate document using the pre-amendment provision, and then add "special language" to the document stating "Effective 1/1/99, . However, this is now a change to the VS document and I'm assuming that we would now need to file for a DL letter (although all language taken from VS source). What we were proposing to do instead is the following:

1) Generate first document with GUST effective date.

2) Generate second document incorporating change with amendment effective date.

Killing more trees this way, but now we have two documents that totally rely on VS language. Any ideas on whether this is a good idea?

[Bob R]

I don't see any problem with your approach. I've heard some people argue that you aren't really modifying the VS just be inserting special effective dates. The theory is that you are still using VS language and you should be able to do in one plan what you can do in two plans. But, it would be nice if the IRS were to address the issue. And, until they do, you're approach is the safe way to go.

You might want to also make sure the VS you are using requires a retroactive restatent date. While the GUST provisions must be retroactive, the IRS doesn't mandate that the entire restatement be retroactively effective (see the FAQs at www.irs.gov/ep).