Retirement planning rarely intersects with the Constitution.
SECURE 2.0, the component of the late December 2022 Omnibus bill with dozens of retirement account rule changes, does.
As discussed by Judge James W. Hendrix in his excellent opinion in Texas v. Garland, the House of Representatives used proxies to establish a quorum to pass the Omnibus, in violation of the Constitution’s Quorum Clause.
The Constitutional issue with SECURE 2.0 is now ripe for the new Trump Administration. On its way out the door, the Biden Administration issued proposed regulations under Section 603 of SECURE 2.0 (mandatory Rothification of certain catch-up contributions) on January 13th.
Typically, the government gets comments on proposed regulations and considers changes around the edges before finalizing the regulations. But SECURE 2.0 presents a unique case.
I wrote a comment letter in response to the proposed regulations asking the government to withdraw the proposed regulations since the underlying statute was not passed in a Constitutionally qualified manner. You can read the comment letter here and here.
Let me know what you think about the Constitutionality of SECURE 2.0 in the comments.
This post and the linked-to comment letter do not constitute accounting, financial, investment, legal, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, investment, legal, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.