Working Copy Draft for Determination Letter Application

[kgr12]

In the latest issuance of its determination letter Rev Proc (Rev Proc 2013-6, Section 7.05), the Service appears to have eliminated the option that has existed for quite a few years now to submit a working copy of a plan restatement rather than the finalized and executed restatement (see, e.g. Rev Proc 2012-6, Section 7.05).

Rev Proc 2013-6 says that its effective date is February 1, 2013, so apparently the last few Cycle B submissions that will go in before the end of January willl not be affected by the change.

The ability was one of the more user friendly aspects of the determination letter program. For one thing, you could build whatever changes the IRS might request into the restated document before it is adopted and without having to draft and adopt an add on amendment to the newly restated plan.

I just don't see the logic - has anyone seen or heard anything as to the rationale for this change?

Or am I missing something here? - I went around with an IRS specialist on an application last year over whether my "working copy" was a "draft" or a "working copy," which largely struck me as a distinction without a difference.

Any comments or other input would be appreciated!

[jpod]

I think there is a distinction between "working copy" and a "proposed" restatement. A proposed restatement is what I think you are talking about, and you can still do that next year under the new Rev. Proc. A working copy is just a "fake" document that purports to include all amendments to date, but is not intended to be an actual legal document, either final or proposed. You can't submit a working document under the new Rev. Proc. At least this is how I understand the situation.

[kgr12]

Thanks - I was a little sloppy in referring to the "draft" in my original post when the actual term should have been "proposed restatement."

They don't really define "proposed retatement" anywhere that I've found (Rev. Procs. 2012-6 and 2013-6 and their annual predecessors; as well as Rev. Proc 2007-44, Rev. Proc. 2005-66).

I'm a little slow, but I think what you are saying is that an unexecuted document that is labeled a "proposed restatement" is still OK if that's the document you intend to adopt, as is, once the favorable determination letter is issued - but a working copy is different in that it isn't necessarily how the final restatement will read and does nothing more than show where previously adopted and executed amendments fit into the previous version of the document. Is that correct?

[jpod]

I agree with everything you've said.