More than a dozen nonprofit trade associations have asked federal regulators to limit employers' obligation to extend qualified retirement benefits to same-sex spouses following the U.S. Supreme Court's partial overturn of the Defense of Marriage Act.

In a letter published on Monday, the trade groups urged the Internal Revenue Service not to require employers to retroactively apply the high court's decision in United States v. Windsor — which effectively expanded the definition of “spouse” under federal law to include legally married gay and lesbian couples — to their qualified retirement plans, citing “numerous and complex administrative problems.”

“Retroactive application of the Windsor decision, for the purposes of (retirement) plan qualification, would place substantial financial and administrative burdens on plan administrators,” the groups said in their letter.

Co-signers to the letter included the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society for Human Resource Management, the Plan Sponsor Council of America and the ERISA Industry Committee, as well as nine other nonprofit trade associations.

Prior to the Supreme Court's ruling in June, married same-sex spouses were not legally entitled to retirement benefits governed by the federal Employee Retirement Income Security Act, such as qualified joint and survivor annuities, qualified preretirement survivor annuities and qualified optional survivor annuities.

The IRS confirmed in August that same-sex spouses are prospectively eligible for the same rights and benefits afforded to opposite-sex married couples under ERISA-qualified pension and 401(k) retirement plans, including annuity payments and other survivor benefits.

%%BREAK%%

However, the IRS declined to issue a ruling at the time as to whether same-sex spouses' eligibility for ERISA-governed retirement benefits would apply retroactively, saying only that further guidance would be forthcoming.

In their letter, the trade associations argue that applying the change prospectively and retroactively would make it prohibitively difficult for employers to determine whether and under what circumstances they would be required to pay retirement benefits to the same-sex spouses of plan participants who have long since passed away.

The groups also argue that employers would likely struggle in adjusting the retirement payments of plan participants who have retired and have begun receiving benefits, as well as diverting or recouping retirement benefit payments, such as required minimum distributions, that may have been paid to nonspouse beneficiaries without the consent of a now-eligible same-sex spouse.

“To now require plan administrators to retroactively administer retirement plans, in order to maintain their tax-qualified status, as if DOMA never existed, would place significant, complex and costly burdens on those plans,” the letter said. “We therefore strongly urge the IRS to issue guidance providing that the Windsor decision is required to be applies to retirement plans on a prospective-only basis.”