Bri 113 Posted July 29, 2020 Report Share Posted July 29, 2020 I know governmental plans don't have the typical spousal consent requirement. But if there's a plan that had it, is it considered a cutback to eliminate it? Someone's prior TPA used an ERISA document when they shouldn't have. Anyway it's a closed-to-newbies defined benefit plan with a handful of actives left. The plan offers various term certain annuities as well as SLA, which in ERISA-land would require spousal consent. The sponsor is now getting a governmental-entity-specific adoption agreement and I'm wondering if leaving "spousal consent still applies" blank nevertheless requires me to grandfather it as any sort of protected benefit to the spouse. Thanks. -bri Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby 462 Posted July 30, 2020 Report Share Posted July 30, 2020 The definition of "cutback" in a govt. plan will probably be included in the plan itself. If it's vague (not surprising), maybe look to other language related to plan interpretation. 1 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...
Bri 113 Posted July 30, 2020 Author Report Share Posted July 30, 2020 Ah, indeed - the BPD spells out specifically that 411d6's anti-cutback rules don't apply. Thanks for the tip! 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