Government Money Purchase subject to J&S?

[austin3515]

Is a money purchase plan sponsored by a governemnt/government agency subject to the same spousal waiver rules applicable to private money purchase plans?  i.e., must the spouse consent to non-annuity payment of benefits?

[Carol V. Calhoun]

No.  The requirement that a qualified joint and survivor annuity be provided, unless the spouse consents to a different form, comes from section 401(a)(11), which incorporates by reference section 417.  However, section 401(a)(11) is made inapplicable to governmental plans by the last sentence of section 401(a) (following 401(a)(37)). 

I've got a checklist of which requirements do and do not apply to governmental plans at this link, if that's helpful.

[QDROphile]

State law that governs may well require spouse consent because of influence of federal rules or similar independent policy considerations.

[david rigby]

The plan itself can include such provision(s).  Removing them by amendment might be possible, or not.

[PainPA]

What is everyone's thought on if a governmental entity adopted (10+years ago) a MPP document that was not structured for governmental plans whereby the J&S is mandatory.   

Is this a protected benefit that cannot be removed?

[Carol V. Calhoun]

1 hour ago, PainPA said:

What is everyone's thought on if a governmental entity adopted (10+years ago) a MPP document that was not structured for governmental plans whereby the J&S is mandatory.   

Is this a protected benefit that cannot be removed?

That would be a question of state law. Governmental plans are not subject to Internal Revenue Code prohibitions on cutbacks of benefits. However, many state courts have held that state constitutional prohibions on the impairment of contracts preclude cutbacks. The existence of such prohibitions, the extent to which they apply (e.g., only to existing accruals or to all future accruals for existing employees), and the extent to which they protect the form of benefits as opposed to just their actuarial value varies from state to state. 

[david rigby]

I have seen govt. plans that include language similar to "anti-cutback" language of 411(d)(6).  Thus, even if the provision can be removed, even if permitted by law, such action might not affect benefits already accrued.