alexa Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 We have a retiree above 415 limit by $200 on a Single Life Annuity(SLA) basis He wants 50% J&S option and that is under the 415 limit but do we need to apply the J&S factor to capped SLA The 50% J&S benefit comes with a pop-up feature but this is the actuarail equivalent of SLA so I assume no further adjustment to 415 limit Our plan right now doesn't increase the benefit to retirees when the 415 limit increases. Can we amend our plan now does anyone have info on 415(m) excess plans? are they subject to FICA? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My 2 cents Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 My understanding of 415 vis a vis governmental defined benefit plans: 1. It is not necessary to cap accruals or single life annuity benefits before converting to other payment forms. You would find the J&S benefit equivalent to the uncapped normal form (life annuity) benefit and then cap that (assuming that the J&S benefit would qualify for QJSA treatment - if not, then the cap to be applied would be adjusted for the non-QJSA joint form, but still the cap would be applied after conversion and not before). The IRS rules appear to exempt the governmental plans from the "cap first" treatment applied to ERISA plans. The difference is that the governmental plans are not subject to Section 411, so permitting recognition of accruals above 415 limits that don't get paid would not be an impermissible forfeiture. Governmental plans are permitted to eliminate benefits already accrued (at least as far as the Internal Revenue Code is concerned). 2. It may be the case that extra adjustments are required for the pop-up feature, since that feature might not be covered as part of a QJSA benefit. A 50% J&S with a pop-up is (obviously) a bit more valuable than a straight 50% J&S, so an adjustment may be necessary. And that assumes that the adjustment only needs to be made with respect to the marginal extra value and not the entire difference between a QJSA and a straight life annuity. Always check with your actuary first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 ... and the plan has to include the proper language. For example, if you want to pay the 50% J&S annuity, make sure the plan provisions include the proper (amended) definition(s) of actuarial equivalent. 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 More sharing options...
alexa Posted December 18, 2015 Author Share Posted December 18, 2015 what do you mean by proper amended definition of actuarial equiv.? we are using 8% '83GAM for actuarial equivalence to convert SLA to J&S with pop-up options Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My 2 cents Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Not sure what amendment is needed here. It is my understanding that PPA's changes to the rules concerning actuarial equivalence don't apply to governmental plans. The plan must contain a specific actuarial equivalence basis, but that has been the case for years. Always check with your actuary first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Perhaps I misunderstand the situation and/or desired result. 1. Suppose the 415 limit = 200K, and the accrued benefit = 201K. Result, can't pay more than 200K as life annuity. 2. Suppose the 50%J&S benefit is $201K reduced by 10% = ~ $181K. Result: the plan can pay the $190K J&S benefit. 3. Amend the plan (maybe?) to change the 50%J&S factor to 95%. Result: $201 x .95 = ~ $191K, still less than the 415 limit, so it can be paid. Is this what the sponsor is trying to accomplish? If so, the plan must be amended first. 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 More sharing options...
Mike Preston Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 " Result: the plan can pay the $190K J&S benefit.".... typo? Did you mean ~$181k? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted December 18, 2015 Share Posted December 18, 2015 Oops, typo, fat fingers. Yes. 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 More sharing options...
alexa Posted December 19, 2015 Author Share Posted December 19, 2015 I thought governmental plans are not subject to QJSA rules? I know we do not require spousal consent if a retiree who is married elects a SLA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
My 2 cents Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I thought governmental plans are not subject to QJSA rules? I know we do not require spousal consent if a retiree who is married elects a SLA It is my understanding that if the payment form elected would meet the definition of a QJSA (between 50% and 100% continuing to contingent annuitant after the prior death of the participant, and the contingent annuitant was the legal spouse as of the date payments commenced), then no adjustment to the IRC 415 limit on account of the payment form being other than a straight life annuity is required, whether the plan is governmental or not, subject to the spousal consent requirements or not. Always check with your actuary first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted December 21, 2015 Share Posted December 21, 2015 I thought governmental plans are not subject to QJSA rules? Not subject to QJSA by ERISA, but might be subject to those (or similar) rules by plan provision(s). 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 More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now