Mr401k Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 One of my plans currently requires 1,000 hours of service in a plan year (calendar) to receive a year of vesting credit. Client is considering changing to elapsed time. The current six-year schedule will remain. Do I have this right, regarding a mid-year change? Credit that was already granted for years prior to 2016 will remain unchanged -- based on counting hours, not elapsed time. Anyone who has any hours of service at the time of the change this year will receive a year of vesting credit if they complete 1,000 hour in 2016 -- regardless of whether they reach that number of hours before or after the change. Anyone who reaches his 2016 anniversary date after the change will receive a year of vesting credit. Potentially, then, a participant could receive two years of vesting credit during 2016: One for completing 1,000 during the year, and another for reaching his anniversary date by the end of the year -- assuming the anniversary date is later in the year than the effective date of the change. Or do I have this all wrong? Thanks for your help!
My 2 cents Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 Your approach would probably be necessary if you were changing the measurement year. If you are only changing the way to determine how much vesting service was earned in a given measurement year, it would probably not be necessary to double count time. Always check with your actuary first!
Mike Preston Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I've never seen a mix and match approach. It is usually a greater of the two approach.
Doghouse Posted June 3, 2016 Posted June 3, 2016 I went through this last year, and can I just say that the EOB has a pretty good summary of what you need to do. I won't paraphrase it here but it's under the heading "Changing the plan's service crediting method" if you have that resource and want to search for it.
david rigby Posted June 6, 2016 Posted June 6, 2016 ERISA Outline Book.Author is Sal Tripodi. I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now