Search the Community
Showing results for tags 'cola'.
Found 3 results
-
I am working with a single employer pension plan that is looking to terminate their plan. The plan is PBGC covered and will be terminating as part of a standard termination. The plan provides for an annual post-retirement COLA based on CPI and capped at 4.0%. I know that typically a COLA such as this is considered part of the accrued benefit and cannot be amended out. The catch is that the definition of the COLA in the plan document states that the COLA will cease on plan termination. As best I can tell this language has always been in the document and they have received FDLs. I will be pointing them to their attorney for a final opinion, but has anyone come across this? Any thoughts or opinions on whether it is permissible to stop the COLA at plan termination? -
The CPI-U for September 2023 was published with a value of 307.789. Based on Tom Poje's spreadsheet, the dollar limits for 2024 are projected to be: Almost all increased (NOT Official yet, of course): Deferral limit: $23,000 (up from $22,500) Catchup: $7,500 (unchanged) Compensation Limit: $345,000 (up from $330,000) Annual Addition Limit: $69,000 (up from $66,000) DB Limit: $275,000 (up from $265,000) HCE: $155,000 (up from $150,000) Key Employee: $220,000 (up from $215,000) Just for reference, the unrounded figures are: Catchup: $7,793.00 Deferral limit: $23,379 Compensation Limit: $345,220 Annual Addition Limit: $69,044 DB Limit: $276,176 HCE: $155,984 Key Employee: $224,393
- 5 replies
-
- 6
-
-
-
- cost of living adjustment
- dollar limits
- (and 1 more)
-
1.415(b)-1(c)(5) states that an automatic benefit increase can essentially be disregarded when applying the 415 dollar limit to a benefit if 1) the benefit is paid in a form to which section 417(e)(3) does not apply, 2) the plan satisfies other requirements. I have a plan that provides for an accelerated form of payment (a Social Security Level Income Option), but otherwise satisfies all of the requirements of the above section. The catch is that this is a governmental plan that is exempt from the requirements of 417(e). Does a form of payment that would otherwise be subject to 417(e)(3) no longer fail the above exception by virtue of being paid from a governmental plan?
