RMDs-Subject to Anti-Cutbacks

[Guest Jeff Kropp]

Outside of the cutbacks permitted by SJBPA, in connection with eliminating in-service distributions pursuant to the new definition of required beginning date, can other RMD options be cut back following a plan merger.

For example, does the new plan need to allow employee to calculate the RMD based on the methods permitted under the old plan (e.g., single vs. joint life expectancies,option to recalculate life expectancy annually, etc.).

I cannot find IRS guidance on this subject and am in the process of merging a number of plans. Any thoughts and citations are appreciated.

------------------

[Guest jaseed]

1.411(d)-4; 411(d)(6)

I consider the participant's election as to determining the multiple protected, and carry it forward.

[IRC401]

The logical reading of the statute is that 401(a)(9)is NOT an optional form of benefit; it is a mandatory requirement.

The IRS, as is too often the case, is incapable of reading the law and makes up its own rules. In this case, it has invoked the "Commerce Clause" (aka 411(d)(6))in order to afflict plan sponsors with some nonsenical paperwork.

Are you willing to litigate? If not, you are stuck with whatever you can't eliminate in the determination letter review process.

If you yuse a prototype document, it will have all of the necessary "protections" already in the document (whenever the document is updated).

[Guest JUSTBOBS]

WHEN A COMPANY BUYS ANOTHER COMPANY,WHAT RIGHTS DO THE EMPLOYEES OF THE BOUGHT COMPANY HAVE AS FAR AS THEIR PENSION BENEFITS? I THINK OUR FUND IS BEING RAIDED.