Regs vs Proposed Regs vs IRC?

[Guest saber]

In a case where the Treasury Regs have not been changed, but the Proposed Regs contain the rule as the way it is currently intended to be, which one trumps which?

What states that rule of priority as per above?

Same with the IRC, IRC has the rule as intended. (No age discrimination IRC 410(a)(2)), but the Regs still allow discrimination in DB and TB plans per 1.410(a)-4(a).

Proposed Regs though reinforce IRC 410(a)(2).

What resolves that conflict?

Thanks

[SoCalActuary]

NEI (not enough information

Generally, Code is enforcable as the will of Congress, subject to Supreme Court

Regulations are the IRS interpretation of Code, and the official position of IRS if asked. This applies also to Temporary Regulations. Presumably, the IRS will fight for this position in court.

Proposed regulations (not designated as temporary regulations) have a future effective date, and cannot be relied upon yet. These are sometimes withdrawn.

Regulators get to decide, lawyers get to argue, and judges get to rule on each level. Different judges will not agree, and their precedents might only apply in their district or until overruled by a higher court.

Tell more about your issue. Age discrimination? Cash balance? Benefit rates?

[mbozek]

Since a statute outranks a regulation, a qualified DB or TB plan cannot exclude any employee on the grounds of being over age 60. Since 1988 IRS has been been requiring that DB and TB plans not exclude employees over age 60 from participation under IRC 410(a)(2) regradless of language in finl regs. See LRM language. ADEA protects employees over age 60 from being excluded from DB or TB plan by permitting lawsuits against employer.