The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has released Rev. Proc.
2012-50, which will delay the IRS determination letter filing
deadline for governmental plans to January 31, 2016.
As background, governmental plans are required to file for IRS
determination letters in "Cycle C" of the IRS's
five-year-cycle determination letter program. The initial Cycle C
ended on January 31, 2009, but the IRS effectively extended the
filing deadline by allowing governmental plans to submit in
"Cycle E," which ended on January 31, 2011. The extension
did not, however, change the requirement that governmental plans
file in Cycle C. Therefore, even though many governmental plans
filed only last year, absent an accommodation, those plans would be
required to file again at the start of the next Cycle C, beginning
on February 1, 2013.
This issue is compounded by the fact that (1) many of the filers
in the original Cycle C and Cycle E still have not received rulings
on their determination letter applications; and (2) the favorable
determination letters that have been received "expire" on
January 31, 2014 (the end of second Cycle C). This creates a
potentially uncomfortable situation for governmental plan
administrators and counsel who would be required to seek
authorization from the sponsor for a second filing soon after
receipt of the initial determination letter (if one was received at
The new release specifically provides that (1) a governmental
plan sponsor may file in the Cycle E, ending January 31, 2016, in
lieu of Cycle C; and (2) if the plan sponsor elects to file in
Cycle E, the "expiration date" of a determination letter
previously received is extended to January 31, 2016.
This may come as welcome relief for governmental plan sponsors.
The time and expense associated with IRS determination letter
filings is significant. In many cases, that expense has been
incurred without the affirmation of a favorable determination
letter or confirmation from the IRS when such letter would be
forthcoming. Accordingly, this extension appears to be a fair and
appropriate course for the IRS as it seeks to facilitate full
tax-qualification compliance for state and local governmental
If you have any questions about thisAlert, please contact any of
theattorneysin ourEmployment, Labor, Benefits and Immigration Practice
Groupor the attorney in the firm with whom you
are regularly in contact.
This article is for general information and does not include
full legal analysis of the matters presented. It should not be
construed or relied upon as legal advice or legal opinion on any
specific facts or circumstances. The description of the results of
any specific case or transaction contained herein does not mean or
suggest that similar results can or could be obtained in any other
matter. Each legal matter should be considered to be unique and
subject to varying results. The invitation to contact the authors
or attorneys in our firm is not a solicitation to provide
professional services and should not be construed as a statement as
to any availability to perform legal services in any jurisdiction
in which such attorney is not permitted to practice.
Duane Morris LLP, a full-service law firm with more than 700
attorneys in 24 offices in the United States and internationally,
offers innovative solutions to the legal and business challenges
presented by today's evolving global markets. Duane Morris LLP,
a full-service law firm with more than 700 attorneys in 24 offices
in the United States and internationally, offers innovative
solutions to the legal and business challenges presented by
today's evolving global markets. The
Duane Morris Institute provides training workshops for HR
professionals, in-house counsel, benefits administrators and senior
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
A recent decision of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California should remind employers to regularly verify the actions of payroll service providers regardless of the provider's reputation and the longevity of the relationship.
The IRS announced in interim guidance that it would amend Section 20.1.7 of the Internal Revenue Manual to provide a methodology for the calculation of intentional disregard penalties under Section 6721...
3M returns to its argument that Treas. Reg. § 1.482-1(h)(2) is "procedurally invalid" because Treasury and the IRS failed to satisfy the requirements of section 553 of the APA when they promulgated the regulations.
Following a one day bench trial, Cook County Circuit Judge Thomas Mulroy ruled in favor of Treasury Wine Estates in Illinois False Claims Act litigation filed by the law firm of Stephen B. Diamond, PC.
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).