Does this vesting schdule wording make sense?

In the plan document we are working with, the vesting schedule reads (in part):
 

Quote

 

1. 0% at less than 1 Year of Vesting Service

2. 0% at more than 1 but less than 2 Years of Vesting Service

3. 30%  at more than 2 but less than 3 Years of Vesting Service

4. 60% at more than 3 but less than 4 Years of Vesting Service

 

If someone has 2 years of vesting service, where do they fall on the schedule?

For (2), they have more than 1 year but not less than 2, so both conditions are not met.

For (3), they do not have more than 2 years but they do have less than 3.  Again, both conditions are not met.

(The previous document was much clearer:

0% at 1 but less than 2 [YOS]

30% at 2 but less than 3

60% at 3 but less than 4)

I say 30%. The Plan Administrator interprets the documents (I realize they will do what you tell them to), but I don't see any reasonable conclusion other than 30%.

Even if other interpretations are possible, it might be simpler for a fiduciary to defend its interpretation that resolves an ambiguity by providing no less vesting or non-forfeiture than the preceding document provided.

BG5150, I take it that this is an individually designed plan? If so, insist that the firm that drafted it tell you what it means with the employer's acknowledgement. Obviously, the person who wrote it didn't realize that less than/more than leaves out the just than. I'm sure they meant 30% at 2 yrs, 60% at three, anyway. They should probably amend it to say that.

This is a large, national firm's Mass-submitter Pre-approved document.

Just for our BenefitsLink community learning:

If the incomplete “more than” expression was in the adoption agreement form (rather than a line for a user’s writing), is the error of a kind the preapproved document’s sponsor may correct without asking the IRS and within the preapproval?

I’ll answer my own question.

I saw nothing in the Revenue Procedure that permits the Provider to correct such an error, even if one treated it as an obvious typographical error (which I wouldn’t).

Further, I saw nothing in the Revenue Procedure that permits an Adopting Employer to correct such an error.

For an employer that seeks to rely on an IRS preapproval, I sometimes write an administrator’s interpretation of an ambiguous, illogical, or incomplete plan provision.

If the employer maintains such a writing attached or adjacent to a governing document, the writing affirmatively states it is not an amendment or modification of any governing document.