The Constitution or delayed RMDs?
Incredibly, Donald Trump has signed up to make that choice, starting January 20th.
How can that be? It relates to SECURE 2.0. SECURE 2.0 made dozens of additions to the already complicated retirement account rules. Many like its delaying retirement account required minimum distributions (“RMDs”) for many Americans from age 72 to age 73 (and eventually to age 75).
But there is a big time issue few have commented on.
It has to do with the Omnibus Bill’s purported passage in December 2022. If the Omnibus, which contained SECURE 2.0, was not passed in a Constitutionally qualified manner, any Administration enforcing it would be acting counter to the Constitution and contrary to the rule of law.
The Constitutional Problem with SECURE 2.0
A federal judge, in a very well written and reasoned opinion, determined that the 2022 Omnibus Bill, was passed by the House of Representatives at a time the House did not have a required quorum to enact legislation. In Texas v. Garland (accessible here and here), Judge James W. Hendrix ruled for the State of Texas that the House of Representatives impermissibly used proxies to establish a quorum. The House did not have a majority of members physically present, and thus did not have a sufficient quorum to enact legislation at the time of Omnibus’s purported passage.
The quorum rule isn’t contained in the back of a House of Representatives parliamentary procedure manual. Rather, it is contained in the Quorum Clause of the United States Constitution, making it the highest level of legal authority.
This ruling has broad implications for SECURE 2.0. If the Omnibus was not enacted in a Constitutionally qualified manner, SECURE 2.0 is not the law of the land. Any Administration enforcing it would be enforcing a law that is simply not the law of the land.
I encourage the reader to read the Texas v. Garland opinion. I find it convincing, but you get to be the judge and jury in your own mind.
Assuming the new Administration agrees with Judge Hendrix’s reasoning, they should announce they will not enforce SECURE 2.0 in order to avoid acting contrary to the law.
Proposed Action
I recommend that shortly after President Trump’s inauguration the IRS and Treasury issue a Notice announcing the following:
- In order to uphold the Constitution and the rule of law, the IRS and Treasury will not enforce SECURE 2.0.
- Considering the equities involved, the uniqueness of taxpayers having acted under an announced law that was not, in fact, the law, and the limited enforcement resources available, the IRS will not challenge any acts made, plan/account qualification, and tax return positions taken based on SECURE 2.0 prior to the issuance of the Notice. Plans and financial institutions will be allowed a reasonable amount of time to adequately account for the Notice.
- In order to eliminate harm from detrimental reliance on SECURE 2.0, appropriate equitable remedies will be applied to prior acts taken under SECURE 2.0 with relevance going forward. For example, any Roth SEP IRAs and Roth SIMPLE IRAs properly created and funded under SECURE 2.0 will be deemed to be Roth IRAs with respect to which valid contributions were previously made.
- The IRS and Treasury will exercise their authority under Sections 402(c)(3)(B) and 408(d)(3)(I) and waive the 60-day requirement with respect to rollovers for any SECURE 2.0 qualified distributions followed by three year repayments so long as the distribution occurred prior to the issuance of the Notice and repayment is made back to the retirement account no later than December 31, 2025.
- The IRS will not require RMDs and not enforce the failure to withdraw penalty for those who turned age 73 in 2023 and for those who turned age 73 in 2024.
- The IRS will require RMDs and enforce the failure to withdraw penalty for those who turn age 73 starting in 2025.
- Relevant 2025 limits will be applied not factoring in provisions from SECURE 2.0. Thus, guidance such as Notice 2024-80 is modified accordingly. For example, the 2025 qualified charitable distribution limit is $100,000 and for those age 60-63 the catch-up contribution limit is $7,500.
I recommend the new Administration issue that notice shortly after Inauguration Day to uphold the Constitution regardless of whether the new Congress chooses to take additional action with respect to SECURE 2.0.
The question then becomes what to do in Congress, if anything, with respect to SECURE 2.0. Since it is likely Congress will enact significant tax legislation, there will be one or more opportunities to address the issue.
I propose that as part of the 2025 tax changes Congress passes, Congress include a provision repealing SECURE 2.0 for the avoidance of doubt. That will end any possible litigation around SECURE 2.0, since the IRS will have waived any challenges resulting from acts occurring prior to the Trump Administration, and Congress will have repealed it (in case it is the law, counter to my opinion) going forward.
SECURE 2.0 had more to do with 401(k) plan administrators and lawyers securing full employment than securing retirement for working Americans. SECURE 2.0 being pushed to the side would be no tragedy. Perhaps Congress should salvage a few good provisions, but most of it should be left on the scrap heap while Congress focuses on more important tax reforms and extending Tax Cuts and Jobs Act individual tax cuts.
I am more ambivalent about the delays in RMDs. Congress could simply enact SECURE 2.0’s RMD delays as part of its 2025 tax reforms. That said, I believe that tax cuts such as eliminating the taxes on tips and overtime are much better tax policy and should be prioritized.
Further, the tax benefit of eliminating the tax on Social Security potentially dwarfs the tax benefit of a one or three year delay in RMDs. There’s a very valid argument that eliminating taxes on Social Security and having RMDs start at age 72 is appropriate and will leave many seniors in a vastly improved tax position when compared to where they stood prior to 2025.
Conclusion
I would pick the Constitution over delayed RMDs any day of the week. The Constitution is far more important than any retirement account tax rule. While it is not good to say dozens of rules that Americans have planned around are invalid, it is far worse to disregard the Constitution.
My hope is that the new Administration’s tax policy staff, including the new Assistant Secretary for Tax Policy, work to uphold the Constitution.
The new Administration, consistent with Judge Hendrix’s ruling, should acknowledge the Constitutional problem with SECURE 2.0 and addresses it head on. Doing so will demonstrate President Trump’s commitment to honor the Constitution and the rule of law.
Follow me on X at @SeanMoneyandTax
This post is for educational purposes only. It does not constitute accounting, financial, legal, investment, or tax advice. Please consult with your advisor(s) regarding your personal accounting, financial, legal, investment, and tax matters. Please also refer to the Disclaimer & Warning section found here.
Note that a version of this proposal has been posted to the crowd sourced policy website PoliciesforPeople.com. The views reflected in this post are only those of the author, Sean Mullaney, and are not the views of anyone else.