STANDARD MORTALITY TABLE

[Guest draper]

Has the list in the final 401(a)(4) reg ever been expanded or modified. For instance, is the new GAR '94 table under 2001-62 an allowable table for nondiscrimination testing?

[Mike Preston]

Originally stated: "No update. It is not a standard table for testing purposes."

Later responses indicate that there has, indeed, been an update. The 401(a)(4) regulations were updated via Treasury Decision 8954 on 6/29/2001 to specifically include the applicable mortality table defined under 417(e)(3)(A)(ii)(b).

[Guest Scott McHenry]

Isn't GAR 94 now the applicable mortality table under 417(e)? The last sentence of §1.401(a)(4)-12's definition of standard mortality table indicates that the applicable mortality table under 417(e) is also a standard mortality table.

[AndyH]

Interesting point. I had noticed that only last year and was thinking that 83 Blended was now a standard table. But apparently that is no longer true?

Strange.

[Mike Preston]

By golly, it is indeed! So, for 2003 and later GAR94 counts. For 2001 and 2002, 83GAM-U counts.

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

Technically, since 94 GAR kicks in on 12/31/02, would you say it could be used for 2002 testing?

[Mike Preston]

I thought about that for a moment (but not much more) before I posted. Since we are measuring discrimination for the calendar year, maybe using GAR94 for the year in question isn't ok. I don't really know what the IRS position on that would be.

[MGB]

I would say that it is dependent on when the plan adopted the table. The latest date of adoption was 12/31/02, but you could have adopted it as early as 1/1/02 for a calendar year plan.

The testing date would tell you if the plan had adopted it by then or not.

[Mike Preston]

I have always thought there was a giant disconnect between standard mortality tables and what the plan says. The process of normalizing in the development of MVAR's is where that disconnect is reconciled. Hence, I don't think the definition of a standard mortality table should depend on plan action. Then again, as already stated, I don't know what the IRS has in mind as far as an effective date, so you may be spot on.

[MGB]

My response was in conjunction with the regulation language that points to the "applicable mortality table under 417." In last year's mess, the adoption date by the plan became the triggering point for when the GAR94 was the applicable mortality table associated with that plan.

[Mike Preston]

No argument from me. I think it can go either way. Your logic is as good as mine. I wouldn't suppose that this issue is something the IRS has high on their list of things to clarify.

[AndyH]

By golly, it is indeed! So, for 2003 and later GAR94 counts. For 2001 and 2002, 83GAM-U counts.

Is GAR 94 a standard mortality table for purposes of a 2008 or 2009 general test? In other words, does the 417(e) table cease to be standard once it is outdated? (One would think that if UP84 is standard, GAR94 would be).

Has this come up?

[FAPInJax]

I would think that nondiscrimination testing could use the appropriate XXXX Applicable table for testing since the 417(e) table now varies by plan year.

[AndyH]

Thanks. Makes sense to me, but I'd love to see it somewhere in writing, even in a conference Q&A.

[Mike Preston]

Me, too, but I think the language of the regulation, when read with the language of the code section, makes it pretty clear.