Anyone ever heard of the IA 81 Male or IA 81 Female tables? If you could point me to the qx's that would be great (assuming they exist).

I suggest you go back to the source if possible. The SOA published the IA 71 and projection tables, so you might have a projection of the 1971 Individual Annuity Table to 1981. Can you also get the Annuity Purchase Rates used?

I've been around since before 1981, and have never heard of such a table. Possible that it could be based in another country (such as Canada or UK), but I did not see anything listed in the SOA Table manager here.

I agree with SoCal, that the most likely answer is a projection from another table

There was a CSO IA 71 Individual Annuity Mortality Table in use around 1981 with 2 sex distinct tables. I was not around then but have seen it referenced in valuation issues. I do not remember a IA 81.

What are qxs?

qx is a mathematical notation that is used to represent the probability that a life aged x will not survive to age x+1.

Then a Google search on "IA 71 "Individual Mortality Table" should give either the actual Tables or cases of valuation law wherein the tables are used. If not IA 71, of course substitute whatever it should be.

I would think that 1 of the Estate Planning or Settlement related websites should have the qxs. Or the NAIC since they adopted the tables.

For non-actuaries, the Society of Actuaries maintains tables showing a range of mortality rates. Some of the tables are based on large volumes of actual experience validated by statisticians, others are constructed by reference to those actual results, and still others are extrapolated on trends previously observed.
If you look for the tables thru the SOA, you are most likely to find if a table is an industry standard one or an individually derived table that must be defended by its user.

For some background to my request, it's a takeover case with this table in the pre-GUST document. In actuality, the distributions were prepared using 83 IAM for males and 83 IAF for females. I guess they never heard that you can't do that. Also, for fun, they decided not to consider 417(e) on lump sum payouts. The plan has been in existence 25 years with the same TPA, who is an attorney too. They also never bothered to restate the document for GUST. Oops!

So in the end, it very well may just be a typo in the document. Thanks for the help.

It may be a typo, but that still does not tell you if it should have been IA71 or IA83. Perhaps an older document might clarify?

I wish there was an older document in existence. It appears to have vanished.