RMD as installments/annuity when not permitted in document

The plan document for the ERISA 403b plan says that distributions are only allowed in lump sum payments.  However, the RK is allowing participants to take RMDs in installments or annuities (and in excess of the RMD amount, which is a separate issue).  Is there an overriding provision somewhere that allows this regardless of what may be in the plan document?  Or am I going to have to amend my document to line up with the RK (which is probably the easier solution, but I am interested in the actual answer, too!).  Thanks.

A common problem in 403(b) plans. Technically, the RK/Custodian should only allow distributions as permitted in the document, but this rule is flung down and trampled upon routinely. Many of them operate on the , "Damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead" principle.

When we did the last round of restatements, we bowed to the inevitable, and used lump sum for a default (unless the plan sponsor wanted otherwise) but utilized the provision that any distribution method allowed ender the investment arrangement documentation was acceptable. We had no employers balk at this.

You should also check your document very carefully, as such a provision may be buried somewhere in the boilerplate, or appendices, etc.

A few observations (none of which is advice) you might consider:

If there is a doubt about which provisions the plan’s sponsor intends, that doubt might call for a conversation with the plan’s sponsor.

To discern what the plan’s governing documents now might provide, a fiduciary (or its adviser) would, as Belgarath suggests, read carefully all writings that comprise the plan.

That might include annuity contracts, custodial-account agreements, and other writings the labeled plan documents refer to.

Despite a statement in an IRS-approved document that “the plan” controls over inconsistent provisions of an annuity contract or custodial-account agreement, consider that such a statement might have no effect on an annuity contract or custodial-account agreement. Likewise, such a statement in a plan document might not bind an insurer or custodian.

For some annuity contracts, it might be unlawful for an insurer to accept provisions beyond those stated by the approved form of contract.

Don’t assume a custodian, insurer, recordkeeper, or other investment or service provider has an obligation to follow the plan’s governing documents (even those that unquestionably state the plan’s provisions). Many agreements provide no such obligation. Some agreements expressly state that a payer or processor may rely, without inquiry, on the plan administrator’s instruction.

Documents.  Read the plan document and any relevant annuity contract(s). Although Gulia's ideas aren't advice, they are good ideas.  What I say isn't advice, either.  But . . . you may have a violation of the law here.  Worry about that.  Not saying you do, but you (or whoever) should be concerned. I second Belgarath, too.  Note that trampling is bad.  It should not be done.  No trampling.  (No help to your here, and I hate to say it, but this is an example of a reason to avoid annuity providers in plans.  They may have pros, but I always found them to opaque and difficult to deal with from the compliance and administration side.)