By CHRISTIE MARTIN and MAXWELL D. SOLET

After two sets of proposed regulations, Treasury and IRS have now released final regulations on the definition of “issue price” for purposes of arbitrage investment restrictions that apply to tax-advantaged bonds (the “Final Regulations”) and it appears that the third time’s the charm. Practitioners are particularly praising the addition of a special rule for determining issue price for competitive sales and clarification on determining issue price for private placements.  The Final Regulations were published in the Federal Register on December 9, 2016 and can be found here.

Several years ago, tax regulators became concerned that the longstanding practice of allowing an issue price to be calculated based on reasonable expectations could lead to abuse in that “reasonably expected” issue prices for bonds sometimes differed from the prices at which bonds were actually being sold to retail investors. A determination by the IRS that the “issue price” has been erroneously calculated can have ramifications for the calculation of arbitrage yield that could ultimately cause loss of tax-advantaged status.  A clear and predictable definition of issue price is therefore essential for the tax-advantaged bond community.

After the first set of proposed regulations, published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2013, caused an uproar in the bond counsel community as being largely unworkable, they were withdrawn and re-proposed on June 24, 2015 (the “2015 Proposed Regulations”). The 2015 Proposed Regulations were subject to a comment period followed by a public hearing.  These Final Regulations build on the 2015 Proposed Regulations with certain changes in response to the public comments.

The Final Regulations look to actual facts as the general rule for determining issue price. Generally, the issue price of bonds is the first price at which a substantial amount (at least 10%) of the bonds is sold to the public.  For bonds issued in a private placement to a single buyer, the Final Regulations clarify that the issue price of the bonds is the price paid by that buyer.

In recognition of the need in the tax-advantaged bond community for certainty as of the sale date (particularly in the case of advance refundings), the Final Regulations offer a special rule in the event a substantial amount of bonds has not been sold to the public as of the sale date. The special rule allows reliance on the initial offering price to the public if certain conditions are satisfied including evidence that the bonds were actually offered at the initial offering price and the written agreement of each underwriter that it will not offer or sell the bonds to any person at a price higher than the initial offering price during the period starting on the sale date and ending on the earlier of (i) the close of the 5th business day after the sale date, or (ii) the date on which the underwriters have sold at least 10% of the bonds to the public at a price that is no higher than the initial offering price.

Procedures for satisfying the conditions for use of this special rule will have to be developed but it is reasonable to expect that changes will need to be made to bond purchase agreements and underwriter selling agreements to comply with these requirements.

The special rule for competitive sales provides that in a competitive sale meeting certain requirements, an issuer may treat the reasonably expected initial offering price to the public as of the sale date as the issue price if the winning bidder certifies that its winning bid was based on this reasonably expected initial offering price as of the sale date. This special issue price rule for competitive sales has been repeatedly requested by practitioners and is a welcome improvement over the prior proposed regulations which treated both negotiated sales and competitive sales in the same manner.

The Final Regulations will be effective for obligations that are sold on or after June 7, 2017 and there is no option to rely upon the Final Regulations with respect to obligations that are sold prior to that date. This delayed effective date should allow bond counsel and underwriters time to develop effective and hopefully uniform procedures and documentation to implement the new regulations.

By LEONARD WEISER-VARON

The IRS’s recently-published proposed regulations for Section 529A qualified ABLE programs have taken some wind out of the sails of state program administrators and potential program managers who had hoped for regulations that hewed closer to the requirements in effect for qualified tuition programs under Section 529, on which Section 529A was based.  Some state officials and would-be program managers are evaluating whether cost-effective ABLE programs can be launched given what, at first blush, appear to be substantially greater administrative burdens imposed on state programs by the proposed ABLE regulations.

The hesitation provoked by the proposed regulations is understandable when one compares the IRS’s proposed administrative requirements to those applicable to Section 529 programs. Section 529 programs are not required to check whether an account owner is eligible to open an account, are not required to check on an annual basis whether the account owner’s status has changed, and are not required to inquire into or track the use of account withdrawals.  (As originally enacted, Section 529 did make programs responsible for determining whether distributions were qualified or unqualified, a requirement so unworkable that Congress amended Section 529 to eliminate it and make the recipient responsible for documenting the use of the distribution upon inquiry by the IRS.)

In marked contrast, the proposed ABLE regulations would require that ABLE programs do all of the above.

The resulting cost issue for ABLE programs and their potential customers is obvious. Due to statutory restrictions under Section 529A, annual contributions to ABLE accounts cannot exceed an inflation-indexed $14,000; Section 529 accounts have no such limit. Moreover, each state’s 529A program is limited to that state’s residents, unless another state elects to have its residents use the other state’s program instead of establishing its own program.  Section 529 programs, on the other hand, can gather assets from the entire nation.  If one adds to the substantially smaller projected amount of a particular ABLE program’s assets under management the expenses associated with the increased staff and systems programming necessitated by the additional verification and recordkeeping requirements imposed by the proposed regulations, the math is simple: greater expenses divided into fewer assets equals substantially higher program expenses to be recovered from program participants, and therefore reduced investment returns for the future expenses of disabled individuals.

A fair reading of the ABLE Act is that Congress intended the IRS, not the state programs, to be the watchdog that would ensure that ABLE programs are used by the disabled and for qualified disability expenses, and intended the Social Security Administration to determine whether ABLE account distributions are used for housing or unqualified expenses (in which case they are factored into the disabled individual’s eligibility for SSI benefits, whereas ABLE account distributions for non-housing qualified disability expenses are disregarded.)  But in an era where federal agency resources, particularly the IRS’s, are stretched, the proposed regulations have been drafted to effectively shift that responsibility, and the attendant costs, to the state programs.

The question the state programs and their potential contractors are struggling with is what exactly these unexpected and unwelcome responsibilities entail, and how much expense has been shifted from the federal government to the disabled community.  If the well-intentioned and long-sought ABLE Act is to achieve its objective, it will be in the interest of Congress, the IRS and the disability community, not just the state programs, to ensure that the administrative burden is reduced to the minimum necessary to make these programs function as intended.

The proposed regulations are not technically binding before they are finalized, and it is possible that, following the current 90 day comment period, the IRS will issue final regulations that lighten some of the proposed burden on ABLE program administrators.  But whether and when any more program-friendly final regulations will be issued is unknown, and the disability community deserves to have access to ABLE programs sooner than the indefinite future.  Unless and until the IRS, by advance notice or other clarification, provides better answers, individual states that wish to go forward with ABLE programs in advance of final regulations will need to reach a comfort level that they can comply with the IRS’s unexpected views on what a state must do to maintain its ABLE program’s beneficial tax status without making the pass-through costs of operating an ABLE program so expensive as to potentially outweigh the tax benefit.

A consensus on what practices are sufficient to comply with the proposed regulations without saddling ABLE programs with impracticable and expensive procedures will take some time to evolve.  Here is an initial perspective:

1)       Account–opening:

The proposed regulations state that “[a] qualified ABLE program must specify the documentation that an individual must provide, both at the time an ABLE account is established for that individual and thereafter, in order to ensure that the designated beneficiary of the ABLE account is, and continues to be, an eligible individual.”

For those account owners who are ABLE-eligible because they are eligible for SSI or SSDI disability benefits, the preamble to the proposed regulations suggests that “[f] or example, a qualified ABLE program could require the individual to provide a copy of a benefit verification letter from the Social Security Administration and allow the individual to certify, under penalties of perjury, that the blindness or disability occurred before the date on which the individual attained age 26.”  This suggestion may be workable if the Social Security Administration will provide such benefit verification letters with respect to the then-current tax year in short order upon request by an individual wishing to open an ABLE account.  Otherwise, if an individual can only provide a prior year benefit verification letter to the state program, states will need to decide whether, in connection with an account opening, they can rely upon the account owner’s certification, under penalties of perjury, that such eligibility status has not changed since the year in which the benefit verification letter submitted to the program was issued by the Social Security Administration.

As to those account owners who are ABLE-eligible under Section 529A because they file an eligibility certification and a physician diagnosis with the Secretary of Treasury, the preamble to the proposed regulations states that “[w]hile evidence of an individual’s eligibility based on entitlement to Social Security benefits should be objectively verifiable, the sufficiency of a disability certification that an individual is an eligible individual for purposes of section 529A might not be as easy to establish.”  The proposed regulations state that “a disability certification will be deemed to be filed with the Secretary [of Treasury] once the qualified ABLE program has received the disability certification”, which “deemed” filing, according to the preamble, is designed  “to facilitate an eligible individual’s ability to establish an ABLE account without undue delay.”

Taking the IRS at its word that the shifting of the certification filing from the Treasury, as specified in the statute, to the states, as specified in  the proposed regulations, is designed to “facilitate” account-opening “without delay,” it seems sensible to interpret the regulations as requiring a state to confirm no more than that a certification facially stating what the proposed regulations require has been signed or e-signed by the account owner (or his or her agent, parent or guardian), and is accompanied by a physician’s signed or e-signed letter facially providing the diagnosis on which the account owner’s certification relies.

Based on the proposed regulations, it appears that the certification filed with the ABLE program by or on behalf of the account owner must be signed or e-signed under pains and penalties of perjury and should state something along the following lines:

“(i)(A) I have the following medically determinable physical or mental impairment: _____________________________.  This impairment results in marked and severe functional limitations (as defined below), and—

(1) Can be expected to result in death; or

(2) Has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months; or

(B) I am blind (within the meaning of section 1614(a)(2) of the Social Security Act);

(ii) Such blindness or disability occurred before the date of my 26th birthday.

For purposes of this certification, “marked and severe functional limitations” means  the standard of disability in the Social Security Act for children claiming Supplemental Security Income for the Aged, Blind, and Disabled (SSI) benefits based on disability (see 20 CFR 416.906). Specifically, this is a level of severity that meets, medically equals, or functionally equals the severity of any listing in appendix 1 of subpart P of 20 CFR part 404, but without regard to age. (See 20 CFR 416.906, 416.924 and 416.926a.) Such phrase also includes any impairment or standard of disability identified in future guidance published in the Internal Revenue Bulletin. Consistent with the regulations of the Social Security Administration, the level of severity is determined by taking into account the effect of the individual’s prescribed treatment. (See 20 CFR 416.930.)  Conditions listed in the “List of Compassionate Allowances Conditions” maintained by the Social Security Administration (at www.socialsecurity.gov/compassionateallowances/conditions.htm) are deemed to meet the requirements of clause (i) of this certification.”

Based on the proposed regulations, it appears that the physician’s diagnosis accompanying the account owner’s certification must be signed or e-signed by the physician and should state:

“I hereby certify that I am a physician meeting the criteria of section 1861(r)(1) of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x(r)).  I further certify that I have examined ____________ and that, based on my examination, I have determined that s/he has the following physical or mental impairment: ________________________.”

The ABLE program administrator would need to determine that the account owner’s certification has been signed or e-signed in the name of the account owner or by someone who has certified that he or she is the account owner’s agent, parent or guardian, and that the diagnosis inserted in the blank of such certification matches the diagnosis in the blank of the physician’s diagnosis, and that the physician’s diagnosis is signed or e-signed.

It should be noted that draft tax instructions for Form 5498-QA released by the IRS require a program to report to the IRS annually, for each account and by code number, “the type of disability for which the designated beneficiary is receiving ABLE qualifying benefits.” The code menu on the draft IRS instructions is:

Code 1-  Developmental Disorders: Autistic Spectrum Disorder, Asperger’s Disorder, Developmental Delays and Learning Disabilities

Code 2 – Intellectual Disability: “may be reported as mild, moderate or severe intellectual disability”

Code 3 – Psychiatric Disorders: Schizophrenia, Major depressive disorder, Post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), Anorexia nervosa, Attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (AD/HD), Bipolar disorder

Code 4 – Nervous Disorders: Blindness; Deafness; Cerebral Palsy, Muscular Dystrophy, Spina Bifida, Juvenile-onset Huntington’s disease, Multiple sclerosis, Severe sensoneural hearing loss, Congenital cataracts

Code 5 – Congenital anomalies: Chromosomal abnormalities, including Down Syndrome, Osteogenesis imperfecta, Xeroderma pigmentosum, Spinal muscular atrophy, Fragile X syndrome, Edwards syndrome

Code 6 – Respiratory disorders: Cystic Fibrosis

Code 7 – Other: includes Tetralogy of Fallot, Hypoplastic left heart syndrome, End-stage liver disease, Juvenile-onset rheumatoid arthritis, Sickle cell disease, Hemophilia, and any other disability not listed under Codes 1-6.

The tax instructions state that “the … information will only be used for aggregate reporting purposes as required by law.”

The notion that a state ABLE program established to provide investment accounts should have any role in determining which of the above panoply of medical conditions, if any, an account applicant suffers from sends off all sorts of alarm bells for many of those involved in structuring such programs. This proposed requirement can only be met by the relevant state program, if it can be met at all, by coding into the Form 5498 whatever condition the applicant and the physician have filled in on the forms submitted when the account is established. Even that will require coding additional fields into the ABLE programs’ operating system and may require staff to translate the conditions specified in the application materials into the appropriate code. And in the case of applicants who establish ABLE eligibility via eligibility for SSI or SSDI benefits, the diagnosis may not be apparent from the benefits letter submitted as proof. This is an unwarranted level of complexity and expense for the questionable benefit of then adding up all the painstakingly gathered disability codes into an aggregate report that has nothing to do with the ABLE program’s operations. But unless and until the IRS signals relief from this proposed requirement, ABLE programs that wish to go forward will need to design systems capable of generating such coding, at the expense of ABLE program participants.

2)           Annual recertification:

As noted above, the proposed regulations require that programs specify the documentation that must be provided after an account is opened to establish the account owner’s continued disabled status.  According to the proposed regulations,  “a qualified ABLE program may choose different methods of ensuring a designated beneficiary’s status as an eligible individual and may impose different periodic recertification requirements for different types of impairments.”  The proposed regulations include several impractical suggestions on compliance that presume that the state program has expertise on the likely length of particular disabilities (see the above list) and the likelihood of a cure being found for particular disabilities.  However, the proposed regulations also state: “If the qualified ABLE program imposes an enforceable obligation on the designated beneficiary or other person with signature authority over the ABLE account to promptly report changes in the designated beneficiary’s condition that would result in the designated beneficiary’s failing to satisfy the definition of eligible individual, the program also may provide that a certification is valid until the end of the taxable year in which the change in the designated beneficiary’s condition occurred.”

It seems likely that most states will follow this suggestion and include a requirement of such notice of change in disability status in the participation agreement or similar agreement executed or adopted by an account owner when the account is opened.  There is no reason to think that such a covenant by the account owner is any less “enforceable” than any other contractual agreement by the account owner, but as the proposed regulations are unclear on what the IRS means by “enforceable”, it may be prudent to state that the IRS is a third-party beneficiary of that particular covenant, so that the IRS can enforce it as it sees fit in the event it is breached by the account owner.

3) Tracking distributions:

The most perplexing provision in the proposed regulations states that “[a] qualified ABLE program must establish safeguards to distinguish between distributions used for the payment of qualified disability expenses and other distributions, and to permit the identification of the amounts distributed for housing expenses as that term is defined for purposes of the Supplemental Security Income program of the Social Security Administration.”

The proposed regulations also provide that “[i]f the total amount distributed from an ABLE account to or for the benefit of the designated beneficiary of that ABLE account during his or her taxable year does not exceed the qualified disability expenses of the designated beneficiary for that year, no amount distributed is includible in the gross income of the designated beneficiary for that year.”  Accordingly, for tax purposes, particular distributions are not made for qualified or unqualified purposes, or for housing purposes; instead, distributions may be requested at any point in the year, and then are simply compared in the aggregate to the account owner’s aggregate qualified disability expenses for the applicable tax year.

Because the account owner is not required for tax purposes to link a particular withdrawal to a particular expenditure, it is mystifying how the IRS and the Social Security Administration think programs can discharge this tracking and reporting duty.  No guidance whatsoever is provided on this point in the proposed regulations.  Given that some portion of the disabled community is expected to use ABLE accounts as transaction accounts, a requirement that states demand and examine invoices or receipts for each requested distribution, and determine in each case whether the amount is qualified or non-qualified and, if qualified, relates to housing, would substantially delay distributions and impose staffing requirements on programs or their contractors that would dramatically increase the expense ratios of ABLE investments. A distribution verification requirement is exactly what was amended out of Section 529 by Congress, and Congress did not reintroduce it statutorily when it enacted Section 529A.

This distribution tracking requirement, if not eliminated or clarified promptly by the IRS and the Social Security Administration, risks delaying or stopping many potential ABLE programs, particularly if interpreted to require anything more from the state program than a “check the box” section on distribution request forms.  States that are willing to proceed pending further clarification of this troubling element of the proposed regulations will likely provide account owners with distribution forms that ask that each requested distribution be broken down into subtotals relating to housing expenses, other qualified disability expenses, and unqualified expenses, all as determined and certified by the account owner under pains and penalties of perjury.  The state programs will make the required monthly reports to the Social Security Administration on the basis of such certifications.  Even the tracking of these subtotals and the related systems programming requirements will impose requirements on ABLE programs, and resulting expenses for ABLE program investors, that Section 529 programs are not burdened with and that are properly left between the Social Security Administration and those account owners receiving federal disability benefits.

By MAXWELL SOLET and CHRISTIE MARTIN

Treasury and IRS today announced a decision to withdraw the much-criticized portion of the notice of proposed rulemaking published in the Federal Register on September 16, 2013 (the “2013 Proposed Regulations”) related to the definition of issue price for tax-advantaged obligations and to propose a revised definition of issue price in its place. A determination by the IRS that the “issue price” has been erroneously calculated can have ramifications, including for the calculation of arbitrage yield, that could ultimately cause loss of tax-exempt status in the case of tax-exempt bonds and loss of federal subsidy in the case of Build America Bonds (BABs), hence the importance to the tax-exempt bond community of a clear and predictable definition.

The new proposed regulations (the “2015 Proposed Regulations”) are scheduled to be published in the Federal Register on June 24, 2015 and can be found here. A 90-day comment period will be followed by a hearing on October 28, 2015.

The 2015 Proposed Regulations eliminate most of the troublesome features of the 2013 Proposed Regulations, including maintaining a 10% standard rather than the 2013 Proposed Regulations 25% standard for what constitutes a “substantial amount” of obligations sold to the public. However, the 2015 Proposed Regulations do not maintain the long-established “reasonable expectations” standard for establishing issue price. Instead, the 2015 Proposed Regulations look to actual facts as the general rule.

In recognition of the need in the tax-advantaged debt world for certainty as of the sale date (particularly in the case of advance refundings), the 2015 Proposed Regulations helpfully provide an alternative method in the event a substantial amount of bonds have not been sold to the public as of the sale date. The alternative method allows reliance on the initial offering price if certain conditions are satisfied.

Procedures for satisfying the conditions for use of this alternative method will have to be developed, and underwriters may conclude that compliance will be difficult. In particular, a preclusion of sales at prices above the initial offering price unless it can be demonstrated that the differential is based on market changes could be problematic.

The 2015 Proposed Regulations will be effective for obligations that are sold on or after 90 days after final regulations are published in the Federal Register. However, issuers may rely upon the 2015 Proposed Regulations with respect to obligations that are sold on or after June 24, 2015, the date the 2015 Proposed Regulations will be published in the Federal Register.

By LEN WEISER-VARON

The IRS today published, right on deadline, its proposed regulations relating to Section 529A state-sponsored “qualified ABLE programs,” under which  tax-advantaged investment accounts may be established to fund future “qualified disability expenses” of eligible disabled individuals.

The regulations are detailed and this posting will not attempt to summarize them in their entirety. Rather, a few provisions of the proposed regulations are highlighted below, along with some initial reactions.

Applicability: The regulations are issued as proposed regulations, and therefore technically are not in effect. Comments are due within 90 days of the publication date in the Federal Register, and a public hearing on the regulations will be held on October 14, 2015. The preamble to the regulations indicates taxpayers and state programs can rely on the proposed regulations until final regulations are adopted. Somewhat perplexingly, the preamble also indicates that the final regulations will be applicable to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2014. To the extent this suggests that the final regulations will be applicable retroactively, it appears inconsistent with the promise made in IRS Notice 2015-18 that “[t]he Treasury Department and the IRS intend to provide transition relief with regard to necessary changes to ensure that the state programs and accounts meet the requirements in the [regulatory] guidance, including providing sufficient time after issuance of the guidance in order for changes to be implemented.” One hopes that the IRS will clarify that such a transition period will be provided after final regulations are adopted, versus retroactive application of such final regulations to any taxpayer or program that has not complied with the proposed regulations; otherwise, programs and taxpayers may be forced to comply with the proposed regulations even though they are not legally effective.

Who May Establish an ABLE Account: Section 529A requires that the tax owner of any ABLE account be the eligible disabled beneficiary. The proposed regulations provide that if the beneficiary cannot establish the account on his or her own, it may be established on the disabled beneficiary’s behalf by an agent under power of attorney or, if there is no such agent, by a parent or legal guardian. This narrows the field of potential relatives who can establish an ABLE account for a disabled individual, and eliminates the ability of a non-parent to establish such an account unless he/she has a power of attorney or is a legal guardian. It also appears to preclude, or at least not acknowledge, the use of custodial accounts, such as an UTMA account, which is surprising.

Eligible individual determination: The proposed regulations are disappointing from the perspective of administrative ease and clarity on the key question of what documentation is required to establish and maintain an ABLE account. As an initial matter, the regulations cast the responsibility for verifying eligibility status on the state programs. The regulations indicate that a “qualified ABLE program must specify the documentation that an individual must provide, both at the time an ABLE account is established for that individual and thereafter, in order to ensure that the designated beneficiary of the ABLE account is, and continues to be, an eligible individual.”

There are two statutory methods for an individual to qualify as eligible for an ABLE account. One is the filing of a disability certification with the Secretary of the Treasury that certifies that the individual has a qualifying disability or is blind and that such disability or blindness occurred before the individual’s 26th birthday; the certification must include a physician-signed diagnosis of the relevant disability or blindness. The proposed regulations provide that “a disability certification will be deemed to be filed with the Secretary once the qualified ABLE program has received the disability certification.” The regulations are silent on what level of diligence the state program must engage in, if any, to establish that papers that purport to be a disability certification comply with the substantive requirements (including type of diagnosis) of the regulatory definition of a disability certification. This provision is likely to be perceived as problematic by state programs and to provoke a high level of pushback during the comment period from state administrators who believe that eligibility status should be between the taxpayer and the federal government, not something that a state has any role in verifying.

An alternative statutory basis for ABLE account eligibility is eligibility for Social Security Act benefits based on blindness or disability that occurred before the individual’s 26th birthday. The proposed regulations are silent on a state’s role in verifying this type of eligibility. The preamble to the proposed regulations states that “for example, a qualified ABLE program could require the individual to provide a copy of a benefit verification letter from the Social Security Administration and allow the individual to certify, under penalties of perjury, that the blindness or disability occurred before the individual’s 26th birthday.” While this non-regulatory example appears potentially less onerous in terms of state verification responsibility than the unclear role of a state program under the proposed regulations upon its receipt of a disability certification, it still raises some potentially thorny questions, such as, for example, whether a program is required to make a competency determination before relying upon a declaration signed by a disabled individual.

The proposed regulations’ treatment of eligibility determinations for years following the year in which an account is established is even vaguer. The regulations provide that “a qualified ABLE program may choose different methods of ensuring a designated beneficiary’s status as an eligible individual and may impose different periodic recertification requirements for different types of impairments.” The proposed regulations suggest that, with respect to the frequency of annual recertifications, ABLE programs “may take into consideration whether an impairment is incurable and, if so, the likelihood that a cure may be found in the future,” a suggestion that casts state officials entrusted with administering a financing program in the combined role of physicians and Nostradamus. The proposed regulations further suggest that a state program may establish a sliding scale of frequency of recertification based on the type of impairment. Less fantastically, the regulations suggest that “[i]f the qualified ABLE program imposes an enforceable obligation on the designated beneficiary or other person with signature authority over the ABLE account to promptly report changes in the designated beneficiary’s condition that would result in the designated beneficiary’s failing to satisfy the definition of eligible individual, the program also may provide that a certification is valid until the end of the taxable year in which the change in the designated beneficiary’s condition occurred.” This type of presumption that an individual continues to be eligible unless the program receives notice to the contrary is on the right track, but what constitutes an “enforceable obligation” by a disabled individual or his or her agent, parent or guardian to report a change in condition is anybody’s guess.

Residency requirement: Consistent with Section 529A, the proposed regulations require that, at the time an ABLE account is established, the designated beneficiary must be a resident of the state offering the program or a resident of a state without a program that has contracted with such other state for purposes of making its residents eligible to participate in such program. The proposed regulations state that for purposes of such residency requirement residency is determined under the law of the designated beneficiary’s state of residence. There is no guidance on whether any proof of residency is required or whether a state may rely on a certification made by or on behalf of the beneficiary as his or her state of residency. The proposed regulations confirm that a change in the beneficiary’s state of residency after an ABLE account is established does not affect the beneficiary’s right to continue to use the applicable ABLE account.

Cumulative contributions limit: The proposed regulations affirm that for purposes of the statutory cumulative contributions limit, which equals the cumulative limit imposed by the applicable state under its Section 529 qualified tuition program, it is permissible for the program to refuse additional contributions that would cause the limit to be exceeded (versus tracking the lifetime contributions to the account, irrespective of investment gains or losses.) This methodology is used by many Section 529 programs but had not been officially blessed by the IRS in that context.

Qualified disability expenses: The proposed regulations provide a hoped-for generous definition of “qualified disability expenses” which states that such term “includes basic living expenses and [is] not limited to items for which there is a medical necessity or which solely benefit a disabled individual.”

State role regarding qualified disability expenses: Quite unexpectedly, the proposed regulations state that “[a] qualified ABLE program must establish safeguards to distinguish between distributions used for the payment of qualified disability expenses and other distributions, and to permit the identification of amounts distributed for housing expenses as that term is defined for purposes of the Supplemental Security Income program.” This purported duty of state programs to monitor the use of distributions from ABLE accounts has no basis in the Section 529A statutory language, is inconsistent with the manner in which similar language in Section 529 has been construed by the IRS, and is at odds with other provisions of the proposed regulations that provide for qualified distribution expenses to be determined by the taxpayer on an annual basis, not by tracing of particular distributions to particular expenses. This provision is highly problematic from a practical as well as a legal perspective and will likely provoke a high level of pushback during the comment period.

Medicaid lien: The proposed regulations state that an ABLE program “must provide that a portion or all of the balance remaining in an ABLE account of a deceased designated beneficiary must be distributed to a State that files a claim against the designated beneficiary or the ABLE account itself with respect to benefits provided to the designated beneficiary under the State’s Medicaid plan … after … the date on which the ABLE account, or any ABLE account from which amounts were rolled over or transferred to the ABLE account of the same designated beneficiary, was opened….” The proposed regulations provide no guidance on whether the program must keep an ABLE account open for a particular period of time following a designated beneficiary’s death, or whether the beneficiary’s estate can direct closure of the account at any time and distribution to the estate of all amounts remaining in the account.

Reporting: The proposed regulations include detailed reporting requirements for ABLE programs, including references to new forms to be used by state programs in reporting data regarding the establishment of ABLE accounts (Form 5498-QA) and in reporting distribution data (Form 1099-QA). The preamble to the proposed regulations also references a Congressional report “that States should work with the Commissioner of Social Security to identify data elements for the monthly reports [required to be submitted to the Commissioner of Social Security], including the type of qualified disability expenses.” As noted above, the suggestion that States will have a duty to report types of qualified disability expenses is both legally and practically problematic.

 

 

By LEN WEISER-VARON

On February 14, 2013, SEC Chairman Elisse Walter at long last indicated, in testimony for the Senate Banking Committee, that the SEC’s final regulations regarding “municipal advisors” will “address ,,, the need for an exception” to the definition of “municipal advisor” for appointed board members of municipal securities issuers.  This acknowledgment came more than two years after the firestorm ignited by the SEC’s suggestion in proposed regulations issued December 20, 2010 http://www.mintz.com/newsletter/2011/Advisories/0841-0111-NAT-PF/web.htm that appointed board members of issuers of municipal securities were or might be required to register as “municipal advisors,”  That suggestion provoked a substantial share of the over 1,000 comment letters received by the SEC on the proposed regulations.

The SEC’s final regulations have not yet been issued and the phrasing of the exception remains to be seen.  However, Chairman Walter’s testimony is consistent with the conclusion long since reached by most municipal market participants that the SEC’s interpretation of the Dodd-Frank legislation as requiring or potentially requiring registration as municipal advisors by non-elected board members who provide input relating to issuance of municipal securities in the course of their board duties was an overreach that would not be implemented.  For board members appointed to municipal bond issuers or to issuers of state-sponsored Section 529 program municipal fund securities, Chairman Walter’s pronouncement is as close to a valentine as the SEC dispenses.

 

By JOHN R. REGIER

The Massachusetts Attorney General recently promulgated regulations authorizing remote participation in meetings subject to the Open Meeting Law under certain prescribed circumstances.

The Massachusetts Open Meeting Law has long required public bodies to conduct their business in meetings that are open to the public. They cannot, for example, take action by unanimous written consent, as many private sector boards can. Before 2009, when the legislature enacted substantial revisions to the Open Meeting Law, there was some uncertainty about whether members of public bodies could participate in meetings by telephone. The Attorney General’s office had always said no, but a few district attorneys, who had jurisdiction over meetings of local bodies, had said yes.

When the law was revised in 2009, the answer became clear. Remote participation in meetings was prohibited, effective July 1, 2010, without the permission of the Attorney General’s office. (The power to enforce the Open Meeting Law was also consolidated in the Attorney General’s office.) The Attorney General was given the power to authorize remote participation by members of a public body not present at the meeting location, so long as the absent members and all persons present at the meeting location would be clearly audible to each other and so long as a quorum of the body, including the chair, would be present at the meeting location. By promulgating the new regulations, the Attorney General has decided to allow such remote participation under certain circumstances, although the Attorney General strongly encourages members of public bodies to be physically present at meetings whenever possible.

If a public body wishes to avail itself of this flexibility, it must first take formal action to adopt the practice of remote participation, generally by majority vote of the body. Such a vote will permit remote participation in subsequent meetings of that body and of its committees. In the case of cities and towns, the mayor (or other chief executive officer) in a city and the board of selectmen (or other chief executive officer) in a town are authorized to adopt the practice for all local public bodies in that municipality.

As required by the statute, members of a public body who participate remotely and all persons present at the meeting location must be clearly audible to each other, and a quorum of the body, including the chair or, in the chair’s absence, the person authorized to chair the meeting, must be physically present at the meeting location. Members of the public body who participate remotely are permitted to vote.

There are five permissible reasons for remote participation. The chair (or other person chairing the meeting) must make a determination that one or more of the following factors make the member’s physical attendance unreasonably difficult:

(a)  personal illness;

(b)  personal disability;

(c)  emergency;

(d)  military service; or

(e)  geographic distance.

At the start of the meeting, the chair must announce the name of any member who will be participating remotely and the reason. All votes must be taken by a roll call.

A member participating remotely may participate in an executive session, but must state at the start of the session that no other person is present and/or able to hear the discussion at the remote location, unless the presence of that person is approved by a simple majority vote of the public body.

A public body may use any technology that enables the remote participant and all persons present at the meeting location to be clearly audible to one another, including telephone, Internet, or satellite-enabled audio or video conferencing. If video technology is used, the remote participant must be clearly visible to all persons present in the meeting location.

A municipality or public body may adopt policies that prohibit or further restrict remote participation.