FREE NEWSLETTER
Go to main Forum page »
On 12/02/2025 the IRS issued Notice 2025-68 which is a notice of intent to issue regulations with respect to section 530A Trump accounts that will become active no sooner than July 4, 2026, one year after the signing of the legislation commonly referred to as OBBBA. Thus the IRS is in the very early stages of the writing of the tax rules as this 44 page notice is not proposed regulations or final regulations but largely a question and answer format of IRS preliminary thinking and intent to propose regulations providing guidance. Section IV of this IRS notice contains a request for our comments regarding Trump accounts.
I expect there will be many comments. There is a lot complexity in this new law and Notice 2025-68 addresses a lot of my initial questions about how Treasury/IRS is thinking about a limited portion of this new law.
From page 22 of the notice (I have made the print bold for the part that bothers me) –
D. ELIGIBLE INVESTMENTS
Section 530A(b)(1)(C)(iii) provides that, during the growth period, no part of the
Trump account funds may be invested in any asset other than an eligible investment.
Section 530A(b)(3)(A) provides that an “eligible investment” means any mutual
fund or ETF which (i) tracks the returns of a qualified index, (ii) does not use leverage, (iii) does not have annual fees and expenses of more than 0.1 percent of the balance of the investment in the fund, and (iv) meets such other criteria as the Secretary determines appropriate.
Section 530A(b)(3)(B) provides that a “qualified index” means the Standard and
Poor’s 500 stock market index, or any other index which is comprised of equity
investments in primarily U.S. companies and for which regulated futures contracts (as defined in section 1256(g)(1)) are traded on a qualified board or exchange (as defined in section 1256(g)(7)). Section 530A(b)(3)(B) also provides that the term qualified index does not include any industry or sector-specific index but may include an index based on market capitalization.
Why in the world would a savings provision to give children a head start with simple investments of a low cost index funds include a provision that for an investment to be an eligible investment that a regulated futures contract for the index also has to exist?
My comment – Please amend the law and delete any regulated futures requirement to be an eligible investment for IRC Section 530A.
Great idea if used properly. Any savings from birth will come in very handy for College. The kinks will be worked out by July 2026, and I suspect any Index fund worth having will be eligible. The issue is will the parents have the strength to let the savings grow, that will be the difficult part. If they never touch the cash, it will grow handsomely.
Let’s see if VT (Vanguard Total World Stock ETF) is eligible.
My guess is that the existence of the regulated futures contract confers legitimacy upon the index fund.
Explanation=lobbyist wrote the law.
Why do we need yet another savings vehicle for retirement, why all the complexity, why don’t we simply eliminate all and have one vehicle each pre or post tax, employer based or not? In this case the answer is in the name😎
Actually I say one after-tax saving vehicle with all earnings tax-free upon withdrawal for retirement after age 50. Simple, understandable, minimal rules and regulations.
And furthermore, why does every account type have a different contribution limit? A SEP may be up to $70K, 401(k) is $23.5K and a SIMPLE is $16K. If I don’t have access to any of those through an employer or self-employment, I can make a maximum contribution of only $7K!? Creating one account type for all would be an obvious solution.