Search the Community

The Academy had written to the PBGC because the PBGC, in a couple post-termination audits, had indicated that there were issues in those plans. Those plans had specified a pre-retirement mortality assumption in the definition of actuarial equivalent. The Academy, pointing out that there are three components of an actuarial increase for deferral beyond NRA. Simplified, they are (a) accrual of interest on the value of the benefit as of NRA, (b) the fact that annuity factors at NRA are higher than those at the deferred retirement date, and © the results of forfeitures due to mortality between NRA and the deferred retirement date. The Academy letter asserted that even if there is an assumed pre-retirement mortality assumption, it would not be appropriate to require plans to factor the mortality component in if there is no possibility of forfeiture. The PBGC response says that they do not actually require that unless the plan provisions actually call for it. No details were provided in the PBGC response as to what plan provisions came into play for those plans. Consider a plan (with a pre-retirement mortality equivalence assumption) whose pre-retirement death benefit is fully subsidized. The plan may even contain language making that assertion. If so, should the "cost" of the post-NRA pre-retirement death benefit, if no forfeiture is possible, be passed along to the participant through diminished actuarial adjustment factors? Suppose a plan's pre-retirement death benefit is a distribution equal to the full value of the accrued benefit for married participants and $0 for unmarried participants. Would it be correct to apply higher actuarial increase factors to the unmarried participants than to the married participants if the plan asserts that the pre-retirement benefit is fully subsidized?