Jump to content

Governmental plans


Recommended Posts

I must say I'm a bit confused on this. I have seen various opinions on the subject of restatement, but without citations.

Is there anything official that says governmental plans don't need to be restated?

Assuming the answer is no, then there appear to be two possibilities. First, they are using a VS document, and have until April 30, 2012. Second, they are an IDP, and would have already gone long past the Cycle C deadline (or Cycle E if they so elected) to restate and submit for a determination letter.

What am I missing?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Governmental plans are in cycle C (DB and DC alike). Except the Treasury allowed governmental employers to file in cycle E at the end of the first 5-year cycle only in order to give extra time to their bedfellows to figure out a few things before submitting the plan.

So, if the employer wanted to have the document reviewed by the IRS so the plan could have a determination letter, I think the filing deadline was January 31, 2011 (13 months ago).

If the employer is not interested in having a determination letter for their plan, they do not need to restate the document.

You have another cycle C window opening February 1, 2013 and closing January 31, 2014 to apply for a D letter again - so you could restate using the cumulative list that will be released at the end of this year and then try for a D letter during this next cycle.

In 2014, when the next DC restatement window opens, I think the IRS will allow pre-approved governmental DC plan documents, which may get some of these governmental DC plans out of the 5-year cycle and into the 6-year cycle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi John. Thank you. You don't, by chance, have a citation for the position that a restatement isn't required, do you? That's the missing piece of the puzzle I haven't been able to locate, and it has been driving me crazy! I've seen several opinions agreeing on this point, but I'd sure love some back-up.

Of course, I'm sure the potential client in question didn't even have required amendments, much less restate, so there will be other problems to deal with...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think the only proof we can provide is to show when a plan is required to be restated, not the other way around. Proving the negative can be problematic since the regulations do not need to say "a plan is not required to be restated" nor do the regulations have to say "a plan is not required to be printed in black ink".

Revenue Procedure 2012-6, Section 7.05

.05 Individually designed plans must be restated
when they are submitted for determination letter applications
. For this purpose, submission of a working copy of the plan in a restated format will suffice. Where a working copy is submitted with executed amendments integrated into the working copy, all such amendments must also be separately submitted. The Service considers a working copy as a document that incorporates all previously executed amendments into one restated document. The intended purpose of a working copy in a restated format is only for ease of review and plan administration and it is not a document that is intended to be adopted. The Service reserves the right to make a determination as to whether the working copy is in a restated format that will facilitate the review of the plan.

Does this help?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Create New...