Search the Community

From § 411(a)(8) For purposes of this section, the term "normal retirement age" means the earlier of- (A) the time a plan participant attains normal retirement age under the plan, or (B) the later of- (i) the time a plan participant attains age 65, or (ii) the 5th anniversary of the time a plan participant commenced participation in the plan. ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The reference to the "5th anniversary" might seem ambiguous as to whether the accumulation or providing of five (5) years of vesting service/service otherwise might affect the situation. Guidance would seem to suggest the anniversary applies unaffected by the providing of a particular metric of years of service, vesting or otherwise. To consult extensive guidance on this situation: URL: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-26/part-1/section-1.411(a)-7#p-1.411(a)-7(b)(1)(ii) Citation: 26 CFR § 1.411(a)-7(b)(1)(ii) For purposes of paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(B) of this section, participation commences on the first day of the first year in which the participant commenced his participation in the plan, except that years which may be disregarded under section 410(a)(5)(D) may be disregarded in determining when participation commenced. https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:26 section:410 edition:prelim) OR (granuleid:USC-prelim-title26-section410)&f=treesort&edition=prelim&num=0&jumpTo=true#substructure-location_a_5_D [T]he number of consecutive 1-year breaks in service within such period equals or exceeds the greater of- (I) 5, or (II) the aggregate number of years of service before such period. (ii) Years of service not taken into account If any years of service are not required to be taken into account by reason of a period of breaks in service to which clause (i) applies, such years of service shall not be taken into account in applying clause (i) to a subsequent period of breaks in service. _______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Revenue Ruling 84-69 Internal Revenue Service 1984-1 C.B. 125 26 CFR 1.411(a)-1: Minimum vesting stand­ards; general rules. Qualification; effect of plan lan­guage on the vested accrued benefit at normal retirement age. A plan that limits an employee's right to nonforfeitable benefits to amounts in which the employee already has a nonforfeitable interest pursuant to the plan's vesting schedule does not satisfy the requirements of section 411 (a) of the Code. Rev. Rul. 84-69 ISSUE Does the retirement plan described below satisfy the minimum vesting provisions of section 411 of the Inter­nal Revenue Code? FACTS An employer maintains a noncon­tributory retirement plan which in­cludes a vesting schedule under which an employee who has at least 10 years of service has a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of his accrued benefit. The vesting schedule satisfies the re­quirements of the section 411 (a)(2)(A) of the Code. In addition, the plan provides that an employee's right to the normal retirement benefit under the plan is nonforfeitable upon attainment of the normal retirement age (which the plan defines as age 65). Other plan language defines the term normal retirement benefit as the por­tion of the employee's accrued bene­fit determined under the plan's vest­ing schedule to be nonforfeitable. As a result, employees hired after age 55 who retire at normal retirement age are not entitled to any retirement benefit. LAW AND ANALYSIS Section 401(a)(7) of the Code pro­vides that a plan shall not be a quali­fied plan under section 401(a) unless it satisfies the requirements of section 411. Section 411(a)(2)(A), (B), and (C) of the Code provide vesting sched­ules, one of which must be satisfied in order to satisfy the requirements of section 411. In addition, the introduc­tory language of section 411(a) re­quires that an employee's right to a normal retirement benefit be nonfor­feitable upon attainment of normal retirement age. Section 411(a)(9) of the Code de­fines the term normal retirement benefit as the greater of the early re­tirement benefit or the benefit under the plan commencing at normal re­tirement age. Section 411(a)(7) of the Code de­fines accrued benefit in general as (1) in the case of a defined benefit plan, the benefit determined under the plan expressed as an annual benefit com­mencing at normal retirement age or (2) in the case of any other plan, the balance of the employee's account. For purposes of section 411 of the Code, the term normal retirement benefit means the individual's ac­crued benefit, determined without re­gard to whether such benefit is vested. Thus, for a plan to satisfy the requirements of section 411, an em­ployee participating in the plan at normal retirement age must have a nonforfeitable right to 100 percent of the employee's accrued benefit ir­respective of whether some portion of such accrued benefit would otherwise be forfeitable under the plan's vesting schedule. See Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Commissioner , 72 T.C. 1088 (1979). HOLDING Because the plan in this case limits an employee's right to nonforfeitable benefits to amounts in which the em­ployee already has a nonforfeitable interest pursuant to the plan's vesting schedule, the plan does not satisfy the requirements of section 411 (a) of the Code. _____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ The Tax Court has reached the same conclusion in interpreting a substantially identical counterpart provision in the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U.S.C. § 411(a) (1976). See Trustees of the Taxicab Industry Pension Fund v. Commissioner, 1981 T.C.M. (CCH) P 651; Board of Trustees of New York Hotel Trades Council & Hotel Association of New York City, Inc. Pension Fund v. Commissioner, 1981 T.C.M. (CCH) P 597; Caterpillar Tractor Co. v. Commissioner, 72 T.C. 1088 (1979) https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/409644/clara-duchow-individually-and-as-administratrix-of-the-estate-of-herman/authorities/ https://www.upi.com/Archives/1983/05/02/The-Supreme-Court-refused-Monday-to-take-up-a/6200420696000/

To present a hypothetical situation, Myra R----- works at Entity W and enters retirement plan 3. She later transitions to work at Entity T, an entity within the controlled group in which Entity W occurs. Entity T has not endorsed plan 3; she attains normal retirement age while at Entity T. To prevent ambiguity, Myra R----- transitioned from Entity W prior to having attained unequivocal vesting, though with a sufficient balance to thwart § 401(a)(31)(B) distributions. Must she receive full vesting while employed at Entity T?

My acappella group sings “When I’m sixty-four” in our charity appearances, especially at a retirement community. I wonder whether Lennon’s and McCartney’s choice of 64 relates to what in the 1960s was a relevant age under England’s law, whether for a State pension or an occupational superannuation scheme. Does anyone have an answer more confident than my hunch?

A non-electing church plan wishes to increase normal retirement age for most participants, effective for already accrued benefits. I know the plan is not subject to 411(d)6, so no cutback issue. Any other issues besides potentially upsetting participants?

We are having a "discussion" about the wording of the Normal Retirement age in a couple of new documents I have been asked to review. Do you think the following choices are the same or different - and why do you think that? Choice #1: Attainment of Age 65 and 5 Years of Participation. Choice #2: The participant's 65th birthday or the 1st day of the plan year containing the participant's 5th anniversary of joining the plan, if later.