Jump to content

Benefit already in pay status


Recommended Posts

Boy, here's a strange one (at least to me) that I hope some of you DB'ers might have encountered, or may have an opinion.

Participant retired, 5 years ago. Was not married, and elected to receive benefits in the form of a 100% J&S, with his girlfriend as plan beneficiary and the measuring life for calculating the J&S payment.

Fast forward to now. His girlfriend decided she prefers a girlfriend as well, so he ditched her, and is now married to another woman. He, reasonably enough, wants to name his new wife as beneficiary. The plan document doesn't provide any real guidance on what happens now.

1. It seems logical to me that the plan benefit would not change, and is locked for both amount and duration based upon the life expectancy determined at the time of benefit commencement based upon the jt life expectancy of he and his ex-girlfriend. But what happens at death if he changes the beneficiary, who is a different age than the ex?

2. If I'm wrong on that, how should it be handled? Or if that's really unanswerable, how would you handle it if faced with this? Do you have to do something really involved, like taking the original accrued benefit, recalculating a J&S with the current spouse, then actuarially adjusting the whole thing to take into account benefits already paid and come up with the actuarially equivalent amount commencing now? For you actuaries, if such a result or something similar is required, is this relatively easy for you, or is it a very time-consuming calculation?

AAARGGGHH! Thanks in advance for any input!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least now you know where the name "pecker" came from because he is in a peck of trouble. IMHO, the election is fixed once the annuity start date has reached. Unless the Plan provides for a second annuity start date (or pop-up), the Plan must continue to pay benefits in accordance with its provisions.

If what peck-of-trouble boy is seeking is doable under the Plan, then it would seem you would take the present value of the benefit under the original option at the current date using the participant and former paramour's age. Then, determine a new amount by converting this present value using the new wife's age. The calculation is simple.

My personal advice to peck-of-trouble boy is to keep his new wife away from his old girl friend as I've yet to see plans that would allow for two new annuity start dates.

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATA - thank you. So just to clarify, you appear to be agreeing with my #1, right? But what happens if he dies? How does one determine the payout period to the spouse (or any new beneficiary, for that matter?) That's what truly has me flummoxed. Is it just for the remainder of the years in the jopint life expectancy as calculated initially when determining the benefit level?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ATA - thank you. So just to clarify, you appear to be agreeing with my #1, right? But what happens if he dies? How does one determine the payout period to the spouse (or any new beneficiary, for that matter?) That's what truly has me flummoxed. Is it just for the remainder of the years in the jopint life expectancy as calculated initially when determining the benefit level?

i am a little confused by your post, so here's my understanding of your original request.

He had a 100% J&S benefit to him with his chosen beneficiary. Now, he changes the beneficiary under acceptable terms of the plan document, and determines the actuarial equivalent of the 100% J&S to the retiree and his beneficiary (old one).

Now he requests a new 100% J&S benefit with a new beneficiary. It will create a new monthly benefit amount that is the actuarial equivalent, and will be illustrated in a relative value disclosure. He continues to receive the new benefit once elected. Upon his death, the new beneficiary will continue to receive the benefit until her death. That's all. You asked what is the payout period to the spouse. It is her remaining lifetime after his death. Do you have a good method to predict that time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest On Hiatus
ATA - thank you. So just to clarify, you appear to be agreeing with my #1, right? But what happens if he dies? How does one determine the payout period to the spouse (or any new beneficiary, for that matter?) That's what truly has me flummoxed. Is it just for the remainder of the years in the jopint life expectancy as calculated initially when determining the benefit level?

The benefit form and payments are determined at the annuity strting date in accordance with the participant's election, unless the plan document provides that a change in beneficiary election is available in such a case. If it is, follow the plan's terms in figuring how to calculate the remaining annuity after the election change. (Which raises the additional question -- what are the plan's terms?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've never seen a plan that allows an annuitant to choose a beneficiary under these circumstances. But I suppose since it is not a wife it might not be prohibited.

Is this all hypothetical, or have the responders actually seen such a thing or think it exists?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not surprised that you are confused by my post, since I'm confused even asking it. My apologies.

It seems like there are (at least) two alternative here.

One is that the payment form and amount cannot change. If that is the case, then how does one calculate the duration of death benefit payments to a beneficiary who is different (and a different age) than orginally used when determining the payment amount?

The other is that a new payment amount is actuarially determined on a current basis, taking into account the appropriate present value, and post-death payments to the surviving spouse are based upon that new number. Per Socal's post "He had a 100% J&S benefit to him with his chosen beneficiary. Now, he changes the beneficiary under acceptable terms of the plan document, and determines the actuarial equivalent of the 100% J&S to the retiree and his beneficiary (old one).

Now he requests a new 100% J&S benefit with a new beneficiary. It will create a new monthly benefit amount that is the actuarial equivalent, and will be illustrated in a relative value disclosure. He continues to receive the new benefit once elected. Upon his death, the new beneficiary will continue to receive the benefit until her death. That's all."

Since the plan is silent on this issue, then it seems that the most reasonable approach is to utilize the second alternative, which the actuary will be able to calculate.

I thank you all greatly for your assistance with this! It has been a big help.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest On Hiatus
Since the plan is silent on this issue, then it seems that the most reasonable approach is to utilize the second alternative, which the actuary will be able to calculate.

Unless the plan document explicitly allows an annuitant receiving a joint and survivor annuity to change the contingent annuitant after the initial annuity starting date, it does NOT allow such a change. If the Plan does allow such a change, then the method for calculation ought to be at last hinted at in the plan document. (Otherwise, the optional form is not definitely determinable -- a big no no in db world.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One is that the payment form and amount cannot change. If that is the case, then how does one calculate the duration of death benefit payments to a beneficiary who is different (and a different age) than orginally used when determining the payment amount?

Most likely this is not an option. The amount of the J&S was determined based on the beneficiary when he made the election. Once it has commenced, 99.9% of the plan documents would not allow him (or her, or her, or her) to change anything.

Now he requests a new 100% J&S benefit with a new beneficiary.

Most likely this is not a option. You generally can't change beneficiaries once it has commenced. I have never seen, nor heard of, a document that would allow a new beneficiary on a J&S to be changed after benefits have commenced.

You might also want to check the document to see if it even permitted a non-spousal J&100. Most plans do not allow for non spousal beneficiaries on the J&S. Maybe the first beneficiary was improper to begin with.

My best advice is stay out of this and let a lawyer decide.

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"You might also want to check the document to see if it even permitted a non-spousal J&100. Most plans do not allow for non spousal beneficiaries on the J&S. Maybe the first beneficiary was improper to begin with."

Believe it or not, the document did allow this. But, there's nothing in the document about changing it.

Thanks all. Sounds like the original thought I had about the payment being locked may have been valid. I was getting hung up on the beneficiary change, and it sounds like he may be out of luck. Kind of a strange result, though, that you can't change a beneficiary to your spouse when you originally named a non-spouse as the beneficiary. Probably not what was ever intended by statute/regs.

Anyway, we'll run it by the actuary. Thanks again for all your comments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with AtA, SoCal, AndyH, and Effen. Just my opinion:

1. Confirm that the plan did permit a J&S with a non-spouse (I'm skeptical; in 30+ years, I've never seen this, and I've seen a lot of plans). Your 2:48pm post indicates you have confirmed this.

2. If the plan is silent on permitted changes, then the answer is "no changes are permitted". That would preclude amending the plan to add the ability to change, since such amendment could not reduce any rights already in existence.

3. If the plan already permits a change (again, very doubtful), does the first contingent annuitant get nothing? I doubt that also.

I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1. Confirm that the plan did permit a J&S with a non-spouse (I'm skeptical; in 30+ years, I've never seen this, and I've seen a lot of plans).

I have actually seen many plans that allow this, including a large one that I have worked on for a long time. In my many years, however, I can count on one hand the number of people who have asked for such calculations (yes, the option is clearly noted on the election forms), and I have never seen anyone choose such an option. Usually it is a child that the annuitant is interested in covering, but the numbers result in too steep a reduction even considering the MDIB rules.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to find something, I guess there's nothing like looking for it. The "plan document" language I was provided with was not, in fact, the actual plan document language. Once I got the actual document, I was able to review and focus upon the issues you have all so kindly outlined, and discovered that a J&S should not have been permitted in the first place. So this is now correction mode, as the plan has an operational error.

Your comments have been extremely helpful, and I thank you for your input.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So this is now correction mode, as the plan has an operational error.

It would be worthwhile (if you haven't done so) to check with legal counsel regarding whether or not correction is appropriate. That is, legally married in the particular state may include a common law spouse. I had a case in Texas where a spouse's benefit was payable to common law spouse.

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agree with ATA. The ex live-in might also be able to argue she has a "contract" with your Don Juan to provide the benefit and she is entitled no matter what the plan provides. Looks like the plan has some issues to resolve as well as your participant. Probably time to for everyone to lawyer up.

All this said, he still probably can't give the new spouse the J&S since they weren't married at the time benefit commenced. If you argue the plan should have never paid the benefit to the live-in, then you need to adjust Don's payments to reflect that it should have been a life only and not a J&S. The new spouse is still SOL since she jump on the poor sap too late.

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To quote Cole Porter, participant may wish to tell new spousette, "It was great fun, but it was just one of those things."

The material provided and the opinions expressed in this post are for general informational purposes only and should not be used or relied upon as the basis for any action or inaction. You should obtain appropriate tax, legal, or other professional advice.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks all. Effen, yes, that is precisely what will be done. (FWIW, since he's still alive, nothing has been paid to the ex, so it's just a matter of proper adjustment for his payment - both past and future. We'll leave that to the actuary.)

"All this said, he still probably can't give the new spouse the J&S since they weren't married at the time benefit commenced. If you argue the plan should have never paid the benefit to the live-in, then you need to adjust Don's payments to reflect that it should have been a life only and not a J&S. The new spouse is still SOL since she jump on the poor sap too late. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the notion that the old girlfriend may have a right to the survivor benefit.

Note that by permitting a change of beneficiary, the plan could suffer an actuarial loss. The old girlfriend could now be in poor health, with the current wife in fine fettle.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I second the notion that the old girlfriend may have a right to the survivor benefit.

Note that by permitting a change of beneficiary, the plan could suffer an actuarial loss. The old girlfriend could now be in poor health, with the current wife in fine fettle.

If the plan allows/permits it, then the participant could presumably have a new election with a new annuity starting date. The benefit would be recalculated under his newly elected benefit form (hopefully just a straight life annuity, given his history). The prior beneficiary doesn't have any special spousal protection that would typically apply in the former-spouse-but benefits-have-commenced already situation. I agree with what others have said though - it's very rare for plans to allow a new election/new annuity starting date. A plan should never allow a swap of beneficiaries due to the actuarial risk that the new beneficiary will live longer than the initial one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Under the Carmona decision, spousal rights to a survivor annuity vest when the participant spouse retires. If there is no spouse at retirement there is no spousal survivor annuity benefit that can be paid if the participant marries at a later date. See 1.401(a)-20 Q/A 25(a).

The reason that plans don't pay a survivor annuity to a non spouse is not just the additional cost but because the participant incurs a taxable gift equal to the value of the survivor annuity when the benefit vests, i.e., when the benefit commences. If the benefit value is more than $13,000 the particpant must file a gift tax return even if no tax is due. There is no taxable gift for transfers of a survivor annuity to a spouse.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would be different if the participant elected a life annuity with 10 years certain and then died?

If the participant elected life w/10 yr certain and named the girlfriend as beneficary he would incur the gift tax if the beneficary designation is irevocable.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would irrevocable be defined here? If a married person had his spouse waive a death benefit in favor of someone else, as I understand it that waiver applies only to the named beneficiary and the specified payment term. So it would be irrevocable without the spouse's additional consent, which must be within a limited time of the annuity starting date, so wouldn't that mean that any waiver by any spouse in favor of another beneficiary creates a gift tax after the waiver period expires? Just surprised I've never heard of this before.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

How would irrevocable be defined here? If a married person had his spouse waive a death benefit in favor of someone else, as I understand it that waiver applies only to the named beneficiary and the specified payment term. So it would be irrevocable without the spouse's additional consent, which must be within a limited time of the annuity starting date, so wouldn't that mean that any waiver by any spouse in favor of another beneficiary creates a gift tax after the waiver period expires? Just surprised I've never heard of this before.

Irrevcable is an election by the participant to transfer a property interest to a non spouse which he cann not revoke unilaterally. In DB retirement plans it usually occurs when benefits commence because the participant cannot change his designation of a beneficary of the survivor's interest in the benefit. In a DC plan there is no transfer as long as the participant can change the designation of a non spouse beneficiary without obtaining consent of another party. A transfer to a non spouse occuring at death is subject to the estate tax.

Under the IRC no income, gift or estate tax is imposed on transfers between spouses which is why the gift tax is ignored by DB plans because spouses are usually the only beneficaries with an irrevocable right to a benefit. Under current tax law gifts to non spouses are not taxable until the total amount of lifetime gifts to all non spouse beneficaries exceeds $5 milion. However a gift tax return must be filed by the participant with the IRS if the total amount of gifts to a non spouse beneficary in a tax year exceeds $13,000 even if no tax is due. Since few taxpayers are aware of this rule it is widely ignored and most of those who are are aware of it just dont file because transfers are not reported to the IRS.

mjb

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...