Search the Community

§ 2530.203-3 Suspension of pension benefits upon employment. URL: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-29/section-2530.203-3 Citation: 29 CFR 2530.203-3 This section sets forth the circumstances and conditions under which such benefit payments may be suspended. A plan may provide for the suspension of pension benefits which commence prior to the attainment of normal retirement age, or for the suspension of that portion of pension benefits which exceeds the normal retirement benefit, or both, for any reemployment and without regard to the provisions of section 203(a)(3)(B) and this regulation to the extent (but only to the extent) that suspension of such benefits does not affect a retiree's entitlement to normal retirement benefits payable after attainment of normal retirement age, or the actuarial equivalent thereof. Retirement plans seem drafted to encourage distributions occur only under controlled circumstances. Therefore, individuals who resume employment would seem helpful, as these persons have established an alternate source of income. Therefore, allowing distributions to continue, if against the prerogative of these individuals, seems counterintuitive. To present an analogy, individuals who decide to reduce the sodium/salt intake of their diet, receiving as gifts saltshakers, which do contain salt. The individuals do not request and would prefer not to receive these saltshakers, yet the saltshakers still arrive containing salt.

Good afternoon, In a takeover case, the employer would like to do the following in his new document: 1. Annuities are the normal form of benefit in the current 401(k) plan document. The employer maintains that he did not know this, that nobody has ever been offered an annuity nor have they inquired about one, and certainly nobody has ever taken one. He was genuinely shocked to hear that this provision is in is current document. He maintains that they never had a Money Purchase Pension Plan, a Target Benefit Plan or any other plan at all besides the current one, which started life as a profit sharing plan in 1969 and eventually had 401(k) provisions added to it. The incoming account balance report does not have a source where MPP money or related rollovers are being tracked. It would appear that there never was any reason to have annuities as the normal form of benefit. He wants us to take out any reference to annuities and put in lump sum only. 2. Normal retirement age has been plain age 65, and he wants us to change it to the statutory definition of age 65 or the completion of 5 years of service, whichever comes later. Does anybody see either of these changes to the document as a violation of anti-cutback rules? Thank you for your thoughts.

I have a plan that is on a McKay Hochman document. The plan does not allow in-service withdrawals. There is a participant who is 69 and wants to withdraw his money and is still working. The base document looks like it allows for that. I can't see anything referenced in the adoption agreement, but the SPD seems to agree with the base document. My co-workers say no, because there is no in-service provision, he cannot take his money. Thoughts? Thank you in advance!