Guidance on the Anti-Cutback Rules of Section 411(d)(6)
August 12, 2005, final and proposed regulations regarding the anti-cutback rules of section 411(d)(6) were published. The anti-cutback rules protect a participant’s accrued benefits, early retirement benefits, retirement type subsidies, and other forms of optional benefit offered under qualified retirement plans. Section 411(d)(6) generally provides that the accrued benefit of a participant may not be decreased by an amendment to the plan. Section 411(d)(6)(B) provides that a plan amendment that has the effect of eliminating or reducing an early retirement benefit or a retirement type subsidy, or eliminating an optional form of benefit is treated as impermissibly reducing accrued benefits.
Section 645(b) of the Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001,
The proposed regulations add a utilization test as a method for eliminating optional forms of benefit, early retirement benefits, and retirement-type subsidies that are rarely used. Under this rule, a benefit may be eliminated if it was available to at least 100 participants during a relevant time period and no participant elected that optional benefit form during the period. The proposed regulations also address the interaction between the anti-cutback rules of section 411(d)(6) and the vesting rules of section 411(a) in light of the Supreme Court decision in Central Laborers’ Pension Fund v. Heinz. (See our example on the Heinz case.) Under the proposed regulations, plan amendments that add restrictions or conditions on the receipt of accrued benefits violate section 411(d)(6). Such amendments are, however, permissible to the extent the amendments apply with respect to benefits accruing after the amendment. A public hearing on the proposed regulations has been scheduled for December 6, 2005, at 10:00 am. Comments on the proposed regulations are requested by November 11, 2005 - see the preamble of the proposed regulations for addresses to use.
The Heinz decision was also addressed in Rev. Proc 2005-23 which was issued earlier this year. Rev. Proc. 2005-23 limited the retroactive application of the Heinz decision and provides relief to plans in certain situations.