SB54 amends SDCL §3-13-78 and adds a new section to chapter 3-13 to let participants who meet the bill's age floor elect in‑service distributions from the South Dakota deferred compensation plan in any payment form the plan already permits. The bill expressly says those participants may continue making deferrals even after taking an in‑service distribution.
This change creates a statutory carve‑out to the plan's existing in‑service rules, shifting how administrators, employers, and advisors must treat distributions and ongoing contributions for older workers. It matters for cash‑flow planning, recordkeeping, and participant counseling because it separates the right to receive funds from the requirement to stop deferring pay into the plan.
At a Glance
What It Does
The bill adds a new statutorily authorized in‑service distribution pathway that operates 'notwithstanding' the existing in‑service provisions. It authorizes distributions in any form allowed under the plan's payment rules and keeps the door open for continued salary deferrals after a payout.
Who It Affects
Primary actors include deferred compensation participants who meet the new statutory age threshold, the South Dakota Retirement System (which administers the plan), payroll and benefits teams at participating employers, and financial advisors who manage retiree cash‑flow strategies.
Why It Matters
By decoupling distribution eligibility from separation or emergency conditions, the bill increases participant flexibility and forces administrators to update procedures, tax-withholding guidance, and participant notices. That combination of increased access and ongoing deferrals creates new operational and compliance priorities for plan sponsors and the system.
More articles like this one.
A weekly email with all the latest developments on this topic.
What This Bill Actually Does
SB54 changes the statutory conditions under which deferrals held in the South Dakota deferred compensation plan may be distributed. It modifies SDCL §3-13-78 to add an additional permissive ground for distribution and adds a new standalone provision that carves out an age‑based exception to the plan’s existing in‑service distribution rules.
The new text lets eligible participants elect a distribution in any payment form the plan already allows, and it explicitly permits them to keep making deferrals after they receive a distribution.
Practically, the bill does two things at once. First, it inserts a clear statutory basis for paying out a participant who meets the age criterion without requiring severance, death, unforeseeable emergency, or military call‑up.
Second, by saying the new option operates 'notwithstanding' the prior in‑service rules, it creates a priority exception: administrators must honor an age‑based election even if the older statutory in‑service framework would otherwise limit distributions. The text points to the plan’s existing payment menu, so the change relies on current §3-13-80 mechanics rather than prescribing new payment methods.Administrators and employers will need to update plan documents, enrollment materials, and distribution procedures.
Expect changes to the plan’s election forms, timing rules for processing an age-based request, and the way continuing deferrals are tracked after a payout. The bill does not alter federal tax treatment or explicitly change withholding rules, so sponsors must coordinate with tax advisers to align state authorization with federal requirements and participant counseling.
The Five Things You Need to Know
The bill amends SDCL §3-13-78 by adding a new statutory ground for distribution as clause (6).
It creates a new chapter 3-13 section that operates 'notwithstanding §3-13-83,' establishing an age‑based exception to existing in‑service distribution limits.
The statute permits distributions under this exception in any payment form already authorized by §3-13-80, tying the new right to the plan’s established payment options.
The new provision explicitly allows participants who use this exception to continue making deferrals into the plan after receiving an in‑service distribution.
Because the statute creates a standalone exception, plan administrators must implement procedures to process these elections independently of severance, emergency, or military‑service triggers.
Section-by-Section Breakdown
Every bill we cover gets an analysis of its key sections.
Adds an in‑service distribution ground to the list of distributable events
This amendment inserts an additional numbered ground in the statute that lists events permitting distribution of deferrals. The practical effect is that the list of distributable events now includes the new clause (6) so plan administrators have an explicit statutory reference when processing distributions under the bill’s new authority. The edit leaves existing grounds (severance, death, unforeseeable emergency, military service) intact.
Creates an age‑based exception to existing in‑service distribution rules
The new section overrides the limitations in §3-13-83 for participants who meet the statute’s age requirement, allowing them to elect an in‑service distribution in any form the plan permits under §3-13-80. It also states that taking a distribution under this provision does not stop the participant from continuing to defer compensation. Administratively, this requires the South Dakota Retirement System and participating employers to reconcile the new exception with existing election windows, payout processing, account tracking, and communications to participants about tax and retirement consequences.
This bill is one of many.
Codify tracks hundreds of bills on Employment across all five countries.
Explore Employment in Codify Search →Who Benefits and Who Bears the Cost
Every bill creates winners and losers. Here's who stands to gain and who bears the cost.
Who Benefits
- Older plan participants who want flexible access to savings: The change gives them a statutorily authorized route to withdraw funds while still working and still contributing to the plan, useful for phased retirement or cash‑flow planning.
- Financial advisors and retirement planners: They gain a predictable, state‑law tool to design partial‑retirement cash flows and coordinate distributions with other income sources.
- Employers seeking to retain near‑retiree talent: The provision can be positioned as a recruitment and retention feature for employers that participate in the state plan.
Who Bears the Cost
- South Dakota Retirement System and plan administrators: They must update plan documents, create new election forms and procedures, train staff, and manage additional processing and recordkeeping workload.
- Participating employers’ payroll/benefits teams: Employers will face configuration work in payroll systems and may need to assist employees with election logistics and timing.
- Participants who withdraw prematurely or mismanage distributions: While the statute permits access, recipients bear the economic cost if distributions reduce retirement accumulation or trigger unexpected tax consequences.
Key Issues
The Core Tension
The central tension is between increasing participant flexibility for workers near retirement and protecting long‑term retirement savings. The bill favors liquidity and planning freedom, but that same access risks weakening retirement accumulation and creates administrative complexity; striking the right balance will fall to the plan administrator when it writes implementing procedures.
Several practical implementation questions the bill leaves open will drive how significant the change turns out to be. The statute ties the new option to the plan’s existing payment menu but does not specify minimum distribution amounts, election windows, or documentation standards for making the election.
That means the South Dakota Retirement System must decide whether to impose operational limits (minimums, processing lead times, certification of age eligibility) when it updates plan rules.
The bill also does not address federal tax treatment, mandatory withholding, or how distributions interact with federal retirement rules that govern timing and required minimum distributions. Because the state law creates access that federal rules might tax or penalize differently, sponsors must coordinate with tax counsel to produce participant materials that prevent costly misunderstandings.
Finally, permitting distributions while allowing continued deferrals could create churn—participants withdrawing and redepositing balances or using distributions to fund lifestyle changes—raising behavioral and fiduciary questions about whether the plan should build guardrails to preserve retirement adequacy.
Try it yourself.
Ask a question in plain English, or pick a topic below. Results in seconds.