What is NRD when employee hired after NRD?

[david rigby]

Possibly this has been addressed before, but I could not locate it.

Assume NRA is age 65, and NRD is first of the next month (or something similar), and the plan requires one year of service in order to participate. Example, CY plan year, EE is hired on 12/31/2004 at age 66. He/she then can become a participant at 1/1/2006. What is the NRA? NRD?

Alternative 1: NRA = 12/31/04 and NRD = 01/01/2005, retroactively established when the EE becomes a participant.

Alternative 2: Both = 01/01/2006, on the assumption that you cannot have NRA or NRD if you are not in the Plan.

Alternative 3: Other?

Perhaps you think, who cares? But I see relevance under IRC 411(b)(1)(H)(iii).

[WDIK]

When it comes to questions that I can't answer (like this one), I try to skirt the issue. For example, amend the NRA to require at least one year of plan participation.

If pressed, alternative two is more logical to me, but I can certainly see how a strict reading of plan language might require alternative one.

[david rigby]

... amend the NRA to require at least one year of plan participation.

Certainly a good idea. But that solution will not help the existing situation.

[Belgarath]

An interesting conundrum. The guidance is all concerned with what is the LATEST date that this can be, but is less helpful when it is earlier! I wasn't able to come up with a solid answer based upon the regulations. 1.411(a)-7(b) says that participation is based upon the first day of the plan year in which the employee first becomes a participant in the plan. Does the plan define participation as the entry date, which would be 1-1-2006? If so, then I'd feel comfortable using this as NRD. It has the added advantage of being the common sense answer, as I agree it does seem odd to have an NRA or NRD prior to plan entry.

[AndyH]

I vote #2 for the reason you stated.

[Effen]

FWIW Dito on #2

Doesn't seem reasonable to say the NRA or NRD was prior to DOP.

[Gary]

It seems the 1/1/06 date s/b NRD and NRA n this case.

Where, upon plan participation, the employee has accrued one year of benefit accrual at 1/1/06 and if a suspension of notice is not provided by 1/1/06 (or whatever the exact timing rules say) then retirement after 1/1/06 will require the comparison between act increase and actual accd ben. Of course, since this participant has very little past service, thus no leverage in his AB at NRD, the actual AB should be larger for this participant for the first few years.

[Tom Poje]

suppose you work backward.

assume plan was 65/5 yrs participation.

ee enters 1/1/06 so NRD would be 1/1/11

ok if 65/4 it would be 1/1/10

65/3 1/1/09

65/2 1/1/08

65/1 1/1/07

65/0 would seem to be 1/1/06

[david rigby]

Thanks to all. We will go with 1/1/06.

I like Tom's argument/logic. Also, using 1/1/06 is supported by deciding in favor of the participant, because a 1/1/05 NRD would probably yield a zero NRB.

Gary's comments are reasonble, except for the presence of a minimum benefit at NRD, which then is subject to actuarial increase to a later retirement date.