Leaderboard

That sentence alone means that it applies to taxable years beginning on or after the publication date of the final reg. Calendar year plans begun before the publication date of the final reg and would be out of luck until 2018. That is why the second sentence is just as important You may relay on the proposed regulations for periods (plural, meaning not just 2017 when the proposed reg was published) preceding the proposed applicability date. You could read that sentence to include 2017 for calendar year plans but since the language is plural, why should it exclude 2016?

Always best to go to the source. The explanation of the proposed regs say (verbatim) in the Proposed Effective/Applicability Date" section: These regulations are proposed to apply to taxable years beginning on or after the date of publication of the Treasury decision adopting these rules as final regulations in the Federal Register. Taxpayers, however, may rely on these proposed regulations for periods preceding the proposed applicability date. If, and to the extent, the final regulations are more restrictive than the rules in these proposed regulations, those provisions of the final regulations will be applied without retroactive effect. First, I read the first part of that to say that WHEN FINAL, the regulations will apply only to taxable years beginning after publication. So, if they are finalized in 2017, that would be 1/1/18. Simple enough. The part after the "however" says we can rely on these "proposed regulations" (without subsequent consequences if the final regs differ from the proposed) for "periods preceding" (emphasis added) the proposed effective date. Now, words have meanings and "legal" interpretation says you use the ordinary meaning of words when interpreting them (unless the context requires otherwise). The proposal talks about "periods" preceding the effective date (i.e. it uses the plural) and it does not restrict those "periods" to only those occurring coincident with (2017) or after publication of the proposed regs. In other words, literally read, it could apply to any periods all the way back to the big bang. I'm not advocating any position here - we are still evaluating how this applies (or how we want it to apply) to our book of business, but an argument certainly can be made that you can rely on the proposed regulations for periods in the past - such as a 2016 contribution that has not yet been funded (to the extent there isn't some other prohibition against the underlying act of funding a contribution to the past period). I consider myself a "recovering" ERISA attorney (I work in-house with a service provider and not as part of the corporate legal department).

If we're voting, I would prefer an inline notice and not an e-mail.

Doubtful. We've had some VCP filings to correct other issues where this was corrected simultaneously. I agree that SIMPLE's are not! So many ways for errors to occur, and they almost never have any professional oversight (of course, they aren't supposed to need it, but they do). How about Convoluted Operations Moronic Prototype Employer eXacerbation plans?

I love it. one simple change to the regs and... some say it can apply in 2016 some say 2017 (FT William says if you are doing things on a payroll basis you can deduct now) others imply 2018 (taxable after approved, or noncalendar years that start after approval date)

Got it - thanks RBG!

Yes, it says taxable years beginning on or after. It's already to late for 2017, as even if the final regs are published this year, the start of 2017 has already past ("beginning" being the operative language). A non-calendar year that "begins" after the final regs are published could come under that provision. But... We've got "retroactive" reliance so the prospective effective date is less relevant - unless the final regs are materially different from the proposed.

I wasn't implying that the FTW document folks were not ERISA attorneys. We have their opinion. I was asking if any of the ERISA attorneys on this site would care to comment. The phrase " for periods preceding the proposed applicability date" can also be interpreted to mean including years back to 2006 when the ridiculous language of "when deposited" became effective. While the controversy didn't start until about 2011, our plan provisions were not following the regulations from 2006 through the PPA restatements. I read the proposed reg as correcting this issue back to 2006. Others obviously have a different opinion.

I believe FT William stance is: something like the regs are eventually going to be approved in 2017. but even though they aren't approved yet, you can rely on them for 2017. those are the prior periods referred to rather than any prior period including those before 1/1/2017. I assume the FT document folks are ERISA Attorneys! .................... I suspect the evil Austin has probably gone out to the IRS website and suggested they scrap the whole thing since we can't agree on an interpretation.

I agree. My point was more along the lines that the employer can't throw their hands up and say "sorry we don't have it". If they don't have the records, they have to get the records from a service provider, they don't have another option.