Jump to content

Government Money Purchase subject to J&S?


austin3515

Recommended Posts

No.  The requirement that a qualified joint and survivor annuity be provided, unless the spouse consents to a different form, comes from section 401(a)(11), which incorporates by reference section 417.  However, section 401(a)(11) is made inapplicable to governmental plans by the last sentence of section 401(a) (following 401(a)(37)). 

I've got a checklist of which requirements do and do not apply to governmental plans at this link, if that's helpful.

Employee benefits legal resource site

The opinions of my postings are my own and do not necessarily represent my law firm's position, strategies, or opinions. The contents of my postings are offered for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. A visit to this board or an exchange of information through this board does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult directly with an attorney for individual advice regarding your particular situation. I am not your lawyer under any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • david rigby changed the title to Government Money Purchase subject to J&S?

The plan itself can include such provision(s).  Removing them by amendment might be possible, or not.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, PainPA said:

What is everyone's thought on if a governmental entity adopted (10+years ago) a MPP document that was not structured for governmental plans whereby the J&S is mandatory.   

Is this a protected benefit that cannot be removed?

That would be a question of state law. Governmental plans are not subject to Internal Revenue Code prohibitions on cutbacks of benefits. However, many state courts have held that state constitutional prohibions on the impairment of contracts preclude cutbacks. The existence of such prohibitions, the extent to which they apply (e.g., only to existing accruals or to all future accruals for existing employees), and the extent to which they protect the form of benefits as opposed to just their actuarial value varies from state to state. 

Employee benefits legal resource site

The opinions of my postings are my own and do not necessarily represent my law firm's position, strategies, or opinions. The contents of my postings are offered for informational purposes only and should not be construed as legal advice. A visit to this board or an exchange of information through this board does not create an attorney-client relationship. You should consult directly with an attorney for individual advice regarding your particular situation. I am not your lawyer under any circumstances.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have seen govt. plans that include language similar to "anti-cutback" language of 411(d)(6).  Thus, even if the provision can be removed, even if permitted by law, such action might not affect benefits already accrued.

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...