IRS Issues Proposed Rules for RMDs

The IRS on Feb. 23 issued a proposed rule addressing the required minimum distribution (RMD) requirements for plans qualified under Code Section 401(a) that will update applicable regulations to reflect provisions of the SECURE Act. 

 

The proposed rule will affect RMDs from qualified plans, 403(b) annuity contracts, custodial accounts, retirement income accounts, IRAs, annuities and eligible 457 deferred compensation plans. It also will affect administrators of, and participants in, those plans; owners of IRAs and annuities; employees for whom amounts are contributed to section 403(b) annuity contracts, custodial accounts, or retirement income accounts; and beneficiaries of those plans, contracts, accounts, and annuities.

 

These proposed regulations would update several existing regulations under Code Sections 401(a)(9), 402(c), 403(b), 457 and 4974 to reflect statutory amendments that have been made since those regulations were last issued. These proposed regulations also clarify certain issues that have been raised in public comments and private letter ruling requests. These proposed regulations also replace the question-and-answer format of the existing regulations under sections 401(a)(9), 402(c), 408, and 4974 with a standard format. 

 

These proposed regulations provide that if an employee in a plan who dies before the Section 401(a)(9)(H) effective date for that plan has more than one designated beneficiary, whether the amendments made by Section 401 of the SECURE Act apply depends on when the oldest of those beneficiaries dies. Thus, for example, if an employee who died before Jan.1, 2020, named a see-through trust as the sole beneficiary of the employee’s interest in the plan, and the trust has three beneficiaries who are all individuals, then the amendments made by Section 401 of the SECURE Act will apply with respect to distributions to the trust upon the death of the oldest trust beneficiary, but only if that beneficiary dies on or after the Section 401(a)(9)(H) effective date for that plan. However, if the oldest of the trust beneficiaries died before that effective date, then the amendments made by Section 401 of the SECURE Act do not apply with respect to distributions to the trust.

 

For purposes of applying the statutory effective date, these proposed regulations provide that if, under Code Section 401(a)(9)(B)(iv), a surviving spouse is waiting to begin distributions until the year for which the employee would have been first required to take distributions, then the spouse is treated as the employee. Thus, in that case, if the spouse died before Jan. 1, 2020, but the spouse’s designated beneficiary dies after the Section 401(a)(9)(H) effective date for the plan, Section 401(a)(9)(H) applies to any beneficiary of the spouse’s designated beneficiary upon the death of that designated beneficiary.

 

These proposed regulations reflect the statutory delay of the effective date for governmental plans and collectively bargained plans. For this purpose, the determination of whether a plan is a collectively bargained plan is made in accordance with Treas. Reg. §1.436-1(a)(5)(ii)(B). The proposed regulations also reflect the exception for existing annuity contracts for which an irrevocable election as to the method and the amount of the annuity payments was made before Dec. 20, 2019, the date the SECURE Act was enacted.

 

 

Proposed Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-5 retains the general method in the existing regulations by which an RMD from a DC plan is calculated in any calendar year when an employee dies on or after the required beginning date or when an employee’s eligible designated beneficiary is taking life expectancy payments after an employee dies before the required beginning date. Specifically, the RMD for a calendar year is determined by dividing the employee’s account balance as of the end of the prior year by an applicable divisor. The existing regulations refer to the divisor as the applicable distribution period. However, in light of the amendments made by Section 401 of the SECURE Act that may result in different distribution periods, these proposed regulations refer to the divisor as the applicable denominator. In addition to the requirement to take annual required minimum distributions, the proposed regulations implement those amendments by requiring that a full distribution of the remaining interest be taken in certain circumstances.

 

These proposed regulations also update the list of amounts of distributions and deemed distributions that are not taken into account in determining whether the required minimum distribution has been made for a calendar year. Under the proposed regulations, that list is implemented by a cross-reference to a list of amounts in Treas. Reg. §1.402(c)-2(c)(3) (relating to amounts that are not treated as eligible rollover distributions). The effect of the new cross-reference is to add the following items to the list of amounts that are disregarded for purposes of determining the RMD from a defined contribution plan: 

These proposed regulations provide that, in determining the required minimum distribution for a distribution calendar year beginning while the employee is alive, the employee divides the account balance as of Dec. 31 of the preceding calendar year by the employee’s applicable denominator.

 

These proposed regulations provide for the same calculation of the annual required minimum distribution that was adopted in the existing regulations but with an additional requirement that a full distribution of the employee’s entire interest in the plan be made upon the occurrence of certain designated events

In order to satisfy the 5-year rule of Section 401(a)(9)(B)(ii) (or, if applicable, the exception to that rule in Section 401(a)(9)(B)(iii), taking into account Section 401(a)(9)(H), and (E)(iii)), these proposed regulations provide that—if an employee’s interest is in a defined contribution plan to which section 401(a)(9)(H) applies—then the employee’s entire interest in the plan must be distributed by the earliest of the following dates: 

 

These proposed regulations include a modified version of the general rule adopted in the existing regulations that applies if an employee has more than one designated beneficiary. Specifically, instead of determining the applicable denominator using the beneficiary with the shortest life expectancy, these proposed regulations provide that the applicable denominator is determined using the life expectancy of the oldest designated beneficiary. The proposed regulations provide that whether a full distribution is required also generally is determined using the oldest of the designated beneficiaries.

 

 

Proposed Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-6 provides rules for RMDs from DB plans and from annuity contracts that are annuitized to pay benefits under DC plans. These rules are based on the existing regulations and are updated to reflect the amendments to Section 401(a)(9) made by Section 114 of the SECURE Act regarding the required beginning date and actuarial increases.

 

The proposed regulations reflect that the required actuarial increase under Section 401(a)(9)(C)(iii) does not apply to a 5-percent owner. This is because the actuarial increase is limited to employees to whom Code Section 401(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) applies (and Section 401(a)(9)(C)(ii)(I) provides that Section 401(a)(9)(C)(i)(II) generally does not apply in the case of an employee who is a 5-percent owner). Thus, the required actuarial increase applies to an employee other than a 5-percent owner who retires in a calendar year after the calendar year in which the employee attains age 70½.

 

These proposed regulations clarify that the determination of whether an employee is a church employee is made without regard to whether the employee would be considered an employee of a church under Code Section 414(e)(3)(B). Therefore, a plan for the employees of a tax-exempt organization that is not a church or a qualified church-controlled organization must provide an actuarial increase for an employee who retires in a calendar year after the calendar year in which the employee reaches age 70½.

 

Like the existing regulations, these proposed regulations provide that, for either a DB plan or a DC plan, the RMD rules may be satisfied through the purchase, with the employee’s entire interest in the plan, of an annuity contract that provides periodic annuity payments for the employee's life (or the joint lives of the employee and beneficiary) or over a period certain. These proposed regulations add a rule that, for this purpose, the annuity contract must be issued by an insurance company licensed in the jurisdiction where the annuity is sold. However, pursuant to Treas. Reg. §1.403(b)-6(e)(5), this rule does not apply to an annuity paid under a retirement income account that is described in Code Section 403(b)(9).

 

Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-6, A-17(a)(4) provides that a QLAC may not make available any commutation benefit, cash surrender value or other similar feature. These proposed regulations would change this rule so that this prohibition applies only after the required beginning date. This change is proposed so that if a plan’s investment options include a series of target date funds (TDFs) to which the relief under Notice 2014-66, 2014-46 I.R.B. 820 applies, those TDFs would be permitted to include QLACs among their assets.

 

Like the existing regulations, these proposed regulations generally provide that all payments under a DB plan or annuity contract must be nonincreasing, subject to a number of exceptions. These proposed regulations retain the exceptions in the existing final regulations and add to the list of circumstances under which annuity payments under a DB plan may increase. Under the proposed regulations, annuity payments may increase as a result of the resumption of benefits that were suspended under Code Section 411(a)(3)(B). In addition, annuity payments may increase as a result of the resumption of benefits that were suspended pursuant to Code Section 418E (for an insolvent plan) or Code Section 432(e)(9) (for a participant or beneficiary of a plan in critical and declining status whose benefits have been suspended under Section 432(e)(9), if the suspension of benefits consists of a temporary reduction of benefits or if suspended benefits resume because of a failure to meet the conditions of Section 432(e)(9)(C)).

 

These proposed regulations modify the determination of the total value being annuitized by providing that the total value is calculated as of the date on which the contract is annuitized. This modification will apply only in situations in which the contract is annuitized on a date earlier than the date on which payments begin.

The proposed regulations also provide three additional exceptions to the nonincreasing payments requirement for annuities issued by insurance companies that apply without regard to a comparison of the total future expected payments and the total value being annuitized. Two of these exceptions have been added because commentors have identified that certain policy features are popular with policyholders and these features do not have a material impact on the amount of expected payments. 

These proposed regulations amend the existing rules governing when, under Section 401(a)(9)(F), payment of an employee’s accrued benefit to a child may be treated as if the payments were made to a surviving spouse. These proposed regulations specify that an individual reaches the age of majority for purposes of Sections 401(a)(9)(E)(ii)(II) and (F) on that individual’s 21st birthday.

 

 

Proposed Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-7 retains the rollover and transfer rules that are in the existing regulations.

 

 

The proposed rule provides that if an employee is a participant in more than one plan, the plans in which the employee participates may not be aggregated for purposes of testing whether the distribution requirements of Section 401(a)(9) are met.

 

 

The proposed regulations provide amendments to §54.4974-2 (which is renumbered as §54.4974-1) to conform the rules to the changes made to Code Section 401(a)(9) under the SECURE Act. For example, the rules for determining RMD when the 5-year rule applies are expanded to include rules for determining the RMD when the 10-year rule applies.

 

 

The proposed rule retains the 5-year rule, which continues to apply to a defined benefit plan. It also applies to a defined contribution plan if Code Section 401(a)(9)(H) does not apply to the employee.

 

These proposed regulations retain the rule that permits an employee’s interest to be distributed over the designated beneficiary’s life or life expectancy in accordance with the life expectancy payments rule under Section 401(a)(9)(B)(iii). However, under Section 401(a)(9)(H)(ii), in the case of a defined contribution plan, that rule is available only if the designated beneficiary is an eligible designated beneficiary under Section 401(a)(9)(E)(ii). Thus, in the case of a defined contribution plan, if the employee dies before the required beginning date and the employee’s designated beneficiary is not an eligible designated beneficiary, the 10-year rule applies.

 

These proposed regulations also provide that in the case of a DC plan, if the employee has a designated beneficiary who is eligible, the plan may provide either that the 10-year rule applies or that the life expectancy payments rule applies. Alternatively, the plan may provide the employee or the eligible designated beneficiary an election between the 10-year rule or the life expectancy payments rule. However, if a DC plan does not include either of those optional provisions and the employee has an eligible designated beneficiary, the plan must provide for the life expectancy payments rule.

 

 

These proposed regulations largely retain the rules of the existing regulations related to determining who is a beneficiary for purposes of Section 401(a)(9), so that a person is a beneficiary if that person is a beneficiary designated under the plan as of the date of the employee’s death and remains a beneficiary as of Sept. 30 of the calendar year following the calendar year in which the employee died. For this purpose, a beneficiary need not be specified by name in order to be designated under the plan, provided the beneficiary is identifiable pursuant to the designation.

 

These proposed regulations incorporate the new definition of eligible designated beneficiary in Section 401(a)(9)(E)(ii). Specifically, an eligible designated beneficiary is a designated beneficiary who, as of the date of the 24 employee’s death, is: 

 

 

Age 21. For purposes of Code Section 401(a)(9)(E)(ii)(II) and (F), these proposed regulations provide that a child of the employee reaches the age of majority on that child’s 21st birthday (which accommodates the age of majority definition in all of the states). However, the proposed regulations permit DB plans that have used the prior definition of age of majority to retain that plan provision.

 

Disability. These proposed regulations provide rules for the determination of whether an individual is disabled for purposes of Code Section 401(a)(9). They also provide a safe harbor for the determination of whether a beneficiary is disabled. Specifically, if, as of the date of the employee’s death, the Commissioner of Social Security has determined that the individual is disabled within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. 1382c(a)(3), then that individual will be deemed to be disabled for purposes of Section 401(a)(9).

 

These proposed regulations provide that, regarding a beneficiary who is disabled or chronically ill as of the date of the employee’s death, documentation of the disability or chronic illness must be provided to the plan administrator no later than Oct. 31 of the calendar year following that of the employee’s death.

 

These proposed regulations provide that, if an employee has more than one designated beneficiary and one of them is not an eligible designated beneficiary, then for purposes of Section 401(a)(9), the employee generally is treated as not having an eligible designated beneficiary. In addition, these proposed regulations provide that if the surviving spouse is waiting to begin distributions until the year in which the employee would have attained age 72 and the surviving spouse dies before the beginning of that year, then the determination of whether the surviving spouse’s designated beneficiary is an eligible designated beneficiary is made by substituting the surviving spouse for the employee (including for purposes of establishing the date as of which that determination is made). 

 

See-through Trusts. These proposed regulations retain the see-through trust concept in the existing regulations under which certain beneficiaries of a trust are treated as beneficiaries of the employee if the trust meets the requirements to be a seethrough trust. Specifically, to be a see-through trust, the trust must meet the following requirements: 

 

 

Generally, the proposed regulations provide that a beneficiary of a see-through trust is treated as a beneficiary of the employee if the beneficiary could receive amounts in the trust representing the employee’s interest in the plan that are neither contingent upon nor delayed until the death of another trust beneficiary who does not predecease (and is not treated as having predeceased) the employee.

 

These proposed regulations also provide for certain beneficiaries of a see-through trust to be disregarded as beneficiaries of the employee for purposes of Section 401(a)(9) because they have only minimal or remote interests. Specifically, a see-through trust beneficiary is not treated as a beneficiary of the employee if that beneficiary could receive payments from the trust that represent the employee’s interest in the plan only after the death of another trust beneficiary whose sole interest is a residual interest in the trust and who did not predecease (and is not treated as having predeceased) the employee.

 

These proposed regulations retain the requirement from the existing regulations that the employee’s beneficiaries (including beneficiaries of a see-through trust) be identifiable, but modify the definition of identifiability in light of the enactment of Section 401(a)(9)(H).

 

These proposed regulations also provide guidance on a particular type of see-through trust defined in Section 401(a)(9)(H)(v) as an applicable multi-beneficiary trust. Specifically, these proposed regulations define two types of applicable multi-beneficiary trusts.

 

Identifiability. These proposed regulations provide another exception to the general identifiability rule under which a trust will not fail to satisfy the identifiability requirements merely because an individual has a power of appointment regarding a portion of the employee’s interest in the plan. Specifically, these proposed regulations provide that if, by Sept. 30 of the calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death, the power is exercised in favor of one or more beneficiaries that are identifiable or is restricted so that any appointment made at a later time may only be made in favor of one or more identifiable beneficiaries, then all of those identifiable beneficiaries are taken into account as beneficiaries of the employee. If the power is not exercised by that Sept. 30 in favor of one or more beneficiaries that are identifiable (and is not so restricted) then each taker in default (that is, each person who would be entitled to the portion subject to the power if that power is not exercised) is treated as a beneficiary of the employee.

 

Adding Beneficiaries. These proposed regulations include a rule that applies when a beneficiary is added who was not initially taken into account in determining the employee’s  beneficiaries. Under this rule, if a beneficiary is added after Sept. 30 of the calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death (for example, if an individual exercises a power of appointment after that Sept. 30), then the determination of whether there is no designated beneficiary because one of the employee’s beneficiaries is not an individual, and the rules relating to multiple designated beneficiaries must be applied taking into account the new beneficiary along with all of the beneficiaries that were taken into account before the addition of the new beneficiary.

 

These proposed regulations also provide that a see-through trust will not fail to satisfy the identifiability requirements merely because the trust is subject to state law that permits the trust terms to be modified after the death of the employee, thus permitting a change in the beneficiaries of the trust. If a beneficiary of a see-through trust is removed through a modification of the trust terms by Sept. 30 of the calendar year following the calendar year of the employee’s death, the proposed regulations provide that the beneficiary that was removed is disregarded as a beneficiary of the employee for purposes of Section 401(a)(9) and these regulations.

 

Similarly, if a beneficiary is added under a modification, that beneficiary is taken into account as a beneficiary of the employee for purposes of Section 401(a)(9) and these regulations. However, if a beneficiary is added pursuant to such a modification after that Sept. 30, then the rules that apply to a beneficiary that is added pursuant to a power of appointment will apply also to a beneficiary that is added pursuant to the modification.

 

Exceptions. These proposed regulations include two exceptions to this general rule that allow an eligible designated beneficiary to use the life expectancy rule even if there is another designated beneficiary who is not an eligible designated beneficiary. 

 

The first exception is that if any of the employee’s designated beneficiaries is a child of the employee who, as of the date of the employee’s death, has not yet reached the age of majority, then the employee is still treated as having an eligible designated beneficiary (which allows payments to continue until 10 years after the child reaches the age of majority even if there are other designated beneficiaries who are not eligible designated beneficiaries). 

 

The second exception is if the see-through trust is a type II applicable multibeneficiary trust, then the beneficiaries who either are disabled or chronically ill are treated as eligible designated beneficiaries without regard to whether any of the other trust beneficiaries are not eligible designated beneficiaries.

 

 

The proposed regulations include minor changes to existing provisions of Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-9 to conform the terminology in that section to the new terminology used in proposed Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-5. For example, references to the “applicable distribution period” have been changed to refer to the “applicable denominator.”

 

 

The proposed regulations provide updates to existing rules of Treas. Reg. §1.402(c)-2 that reflect statutory amendments made to Code Section 402(c) since the regulations were issued in 1995.

 

The proposed regulations provide that, if an employee receives an eligible rollover distribution and rolls it over to any eligible retirement plan within 60 days of the distribution (including any amount withheld under Code Section 3405(c)), then the distribution generally is not includible in gross income. However, if any portion of the eligible rollover distribution is rolled over to a Roth IRA and the distribution is not from a designated Roth account, that portion is includible in the taxpayer’s gross income but generally is not subject to the 10% additional tax under Code Section 72(t).

 

The proposed regulations update the definition of eligible rollover distribution to include the portion of the distribution that constitutes the employee’s investment in the contract and provide that, under Code Section 402(c)(4)(C), an eligible rollover distribution does not include any distribution made on account of hardship. These proposed regulations also provide that a rollover distribution may be a 60-day rollover, a direct rollover described in Code Section 401(a)(31), or the repayment of a distribution that is treated as a rollover pursuant to another statutory provision (such as the repayment of a qualified birth or adoption distribution that is treated as a rollover under Code Section 72(t)(2)(H)(v)(III)).

 

The proposed regulations also update the list of amounts of distributions and deemed distributions that are not eligible rollover distributions.

 

These proposed regulations provide that, under Code Section 402(c)(8)(B), an eligible retirement plan is: 

Under Section 402(c)(10), an eligible deferred compensation plan under Section 457(b) is an eligible retirement plan only if it separately accounts for amounts rolled into the plan. Furthermore, an eligible rollover distribution from a designated Roth account under Section 402A may be rolled over only to another designated Roth account or to a Roth IRA.

 

These proposed regulations provide that, generally, a distributee other than the employee or the employee’s surviving spouse is not permitted to roll over a distribution from a qualified plan.

 

The proposed regulations provide that a designated beneficiary who is not a spouse may elect, under Code Section 402(c)(11), to have any portion of a distribution that fits within the definition of an eligible rollover distribution transferred via a direct trustee-to-trustee transfer to an IRA established for the purpose of receiving that distribution.

 

In determining whether a distribution to a beneficiary is an eligible rollover distribution, the portion of the distribution that constitutes a required minimum distribution under Section 401(a)(9) must be determined. The proposed regulations set forth rules for making this determination that are similar to the rules adopted in Notice 2007-7, Q&A-17 and Q&A-19, but are expanded to apply to both spouse and non-spouse beneficiaries.

 

These proposed regulations provide that, generally, if an employee dies before the required beginning date, then the amount of a distribution to a beneficiary that is treated as a required minimum distribution under section 401(a)(9) (and thus is not an eligible rollover distribution) is determined based on whether the 5-year rule, 10-year rule or life expectancy rule (or, in the case of a DB plan, the annuity payment rule) applies. Regardless of which rule applies, no portion of a distribution made in the year of the employee’s death is treated as a required minimum distribution under Section 401(a)(9).

 

 

These proposed regulations amend Treas. Reg. §1.403(b)-6(e) to conform that paragraph (which sets forth the required minimum distribution rules for a 403(b) contract) to the changes made to Code Section 401(a)(9) under the SECURE Act. For example, under the change in the required beginning date under Section 114 of the SECURE Act, these proposed regulations change the reference to age 70½ in the current regulations to the required beginning date as determined under Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-2(b).

 

These proposed regulations also amend Treas. Reg. §1.403(b)-6(e) to provide that the exception from the applicability of section 401(a)(9)(H) for qualified annuities provided in Code Section 401(b)(4) of the SECURE Act applies in the case of a 403(b)(9) retirement income account even if a commercial annuity (as defined in Code Section 3405(e)(6)) is not used, provided that all of the other requirements for the qualified annuity exception are satisfied.

 

These proposed regulations further treat a Section 403(b) plan like a qualified plan in that the distributions or deemed distributions not taken into account in determining the required minimum distribution for a calendar year are the distributions or deemed distributions described in the qualified plan rules rather than the IRA rules.

 

 

Section 114(d) of the SECURE Act provides that the amended definition of the required beginning date applies with respect to employees who attain age 70½ on or after Jan. 1, 2020. 

 

This effective date provision could be interpreted to require the employee to survive until age 70½ in order to have the amended definition apply (that is, if the employee died before attaining age 70½, then the amended definition would not apply regarding distributions to that employee’s beneficiary, even if the employee would have attained age 70½ on or after Jan. 1, 2020, had the employee survived). 

 

Instead, for ease of administration, these proposed regulations interpret the effective date language to apply the amendments made by Section 114 of the SECURE Act to an employee who died before attaining age 70½ if the employee would have attained age 70½ on or after Jan. 1, 2020 (that is, the employee’s date of birth is on or after July 1, 1949). 

 

This interpretation also extends to a surviving spouse who is waiting to begin distributions pursuant to Section 401(a)(9)(B)(iv). Thus, for example, if an employee who was born on June 1, 1952, died in 2018, and the employee’s sole beneficiary is the employee’s surviving spouse, then the surviving spouse may wait until 2024 (the calendar year in which the employee would have attained age 72) to begin receiving distributions.

 

 

These proposed regulations amend Treas. Reg. §1.408-8 (which sets forth the RMD rules for IRAs) to implement the changes made to Section 401(a)(9) under the SECURE Act. For example, pursuant to the change in the required beginning date under Section 114 of the SECURE Act, these proposed regulations change the references to age 70½ in the current regulations to the required beginning date as determined under Treas. Reg. §1.401(a)(9)-2(b)(3). This change reflects that the IRA owner’s required beginning date is April 1 of the calendar year after the calendar year in which the individual attains age 72 (or 70½ in the case of an IRA owner born before July 1, 1949). These proposed regulations also provide that the owner of a Roth IRA is not required to begin distributions during the owner’s lifetime.

 

The proposed regulations incorporate the rules in Notice 2007-7, Q&A-17 and 19 relating to the carryover of the method of determining RMDs from a distributing plan to a receiving IRA when a beneficiary is making a transfer described in Code Section 402(c)(11)). In addition, these proposed regulations extend those rules to provide comparable treatment to a surviving spouse in light of the extension of the 5-year period to a 10-year period under Code Section 401(a)(9)(H). 

 

The proposed regulations provide a deadline for the election under which a surviving spouse may elect to treat a decedent’s IRA as the spouse’s own.

 

These proposed regulations also provide that any beneficiary (including a non-individual beneficiary) may aggregate IRAs that are inherited from the same decedent when determining the amount that is a required minimum distribution.

 

 

The amendments to Treas. Reg. §§1.401(a)(9)-1 through 1.401(a)(9)-9, 1.403(b)-6(e), and 1.408-8 are proposed to apply for purposes of determining RMDs for calendar years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2022. Amended Treas. Reg. §1.402(c)-2 is proposed to apply for distributions on or after Jan. 1, 2022. Amended §54.4974-1 is proposed to apply for taxable years beginning on or after Jan. 1, 2022. 

 

For the 2021 distribution calendar year, taxpayers must apply the existing regulations, but taking into account a reasonable, good faith interpretation of the amendments made by Sections 114 and 401 of the SECURE Act. Compliance with these proposed regulations will satisfy that requirement.

 

 

The IRS will accept written or electronic comments on the proposed rule, which must be received by 90 after it is published in the Federal Register, which is scheduled to occur on Feb. 24, 2022. 

 

Comments may be submitted electronically via the Federal eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov (indicate IRS and REG-105954-20) by following the online instructions for submitting comments. Comments may be submitted on paper to: CC:PA:LPD:PR (REG-105954-20), room 5203, Internal Revenue Service, PO Box 7604, Ben Franklin Station, Washington, DC 20044.

 

 

A public hearing is scheduled for June 15, 2022, at 10:00 a.m.