Rev. Rul. 2001-62 Mortality Table

[Scott]

I just inherited a new client's plan. The definition of "Actuarial Equivalent" states that the plan uses the applicable mortality table "as defined in Code Section 417(e)." Does this suffice to mean the mortality table prescribed by Rev. Rul. 2001-62, or must the plan specifically reference the table in the Rev. Rul.?

If it must specifically reference the Rev. Rul., is this something that can be fixed under the VCP program since the deadline for amending to comply with Rev. Rul. 2001-62 has passed?

[david rigby]

I would have no problem interpreting that plan language. IMHO, this plan provision is adequate (perhaps even preferable).

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

I agree. Referencing the code section is acceptable.

[AndyH]

Related question: Is it a 411(d)(6) violation to use the applicable interest rate for actuarial equivalency calculations involving monthly benefits, i.e. one month an early retirement benefit could be lower than another month?

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

No, silly shark boy. The change in the benefits is not due to an amendment, so 411(d)(6) is not applicable.

[AndyH]

First, fish breath, I am not a boy. Reference my rugged profile!

Second, while I happen to concur, I have twice run across non-new actuarians who espoused the opposite opinion.

[Blinky the 3-eyed Fish]

I apologize. You are more man than I could ever be and I shudder at the thought of ever coming across the likes of you. Ask them why they think 411(d)(6) applies or if they have another reason. Take your harpoon and demand answers!

[WDIK]

You are more man than I could ever be

Didn't the shark leave Captain Quint a little less than half of a man?

[Scott]

Thanks for the answers, but WOW has this discussion been derailed!

[JanetM]

Scott,

I would liken this situation to the 1993 when 401(a)(17) was cut back to $150K. Just cause the given limits change doesn't mean it is a cutback un 411(d)(6).

[MGB]

JanetM,

I disagree with your analogy.

The IRS keeps an official list of code sections that can be incorporated in a plan document by reference. 401(a)(17) is not on that list (even though many have put it in their plans and have inappropriately got them through IRS reviewers).

Therefore, a change in the 401(a)(17) limit downward must be because of an amendment and cannot decrease the accrued benefits.

(415 is a hybrid, in that it can be incorporated by reference AND the IRS considers any change to be on account of an amendment, even though you don't amend the plan.)