Example 1.(i) Facts. A participant is receiving a benefit of $1,500 per month immediately prior to the effective date of the suspension. The participant has 30 years of credited service under the plan.
(ii) Calculation of accrual rate. The participant's accrual rate is $50, calculated by dividing the participant's monthly benefit payment ($1,500) by the participant's years of credited service (30).
(iii) Calculation of monthly PBGC-guaranteed benefit. The first $11 of the accrual rate is fully guaranteed, and the next $33 of the accrual rate is 75% guaranteed ($33 × .75 = $24.75). The participant's monthly guaranteed benefit per year of credited service is $35.75 ($11 + $24.75 = $35.75). The PBGC guarantee formula is then applied to produce the amount of guarantee payable by PBGC, which is $1,072.50 ($35.75 × 30 years = $1,072.50).
(iv) Calculation of guarantee-based limitation. A suspension of benefits may not reduce the participant's benefits, determined on and after the effective date of the suspension, below the guarantee-based limitation, which is equal to 110% of the amount of guarantee payable by PBGC. That monthly amount is $1,179.75 ($1,072.50 × 1.1 = $1,179.75).
Example 2.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that the participant is deceased and, immediately prior to the effective date of the suspension, the participant's beneficiary is receiving a monthly benefit of $750 under a 50% joint and survivor annuity.
(ii) Calculation of accrual rate. The beneficiary's accrual rate is $25, calculated by dividing the beneficiary's monthly benefit payment ($750) by the participant's years of credited service (30).
(iii) Calculation of monthly PBGC-guaranteed benefit. The first $11 of the accrual rate is fully guaranteed, and the next $14 ($25−$11 = $14) of the accrual rate is 75% guaranteed ($14 × .75 = $10.50). The beneficiary's monthly guaranteed benefit is $21.50 per year of credited service ($11 + $10.50 = $21.50). The PBGC guarantee formula is then applied to produce the amount of guarantee payable by PBGC, which is $645 ($21.50 × 30 years = $645).
(iv) Calculation of guarantee-based limitation. A suspension of benefits may not reduce the beneficiary's benefits, determined on and after the effective date of the suspension, below the guarantee-based limitation, which is equal to 110% of the monthly amount of guarantee payable by PBGC. That monthly guarantee-based limitation amount is $709.50 ($645 × 1.1 = $709.50).
Example 3.(i) Facts. A participant would be eligible for a monthly benefit of $1,000 payable as a single life annuity at normal retirement age, based on the participant's 25 years of credited service. The plan also permits a participant to receive a benefit on an unreduced basis as a single life annuity at a particular early retirement age and permits participants to receive an early retirement benefit beginning at that age in the form of a social security level income option. The participant has elected the social security level income option under which the participant receives a monthly benefit of $1,600 prior to normal retirement age (which is the plan's assumed social security retirement age) and $900 after normal retirement age.
(ii) Calculation of accrual rate. For purposes of calculating the accrual rate, the monthly benefit that is used to calculate the PBGC guarantee does not exceed the monthly benefit of $1,000 that would be payable at normal retirement age. In calculating the accrual rate, the amount of guarantee payable by PBGC would be based on a monthly benefit of $1,000 prior to normal retirement age and $900 after normal retirement age. Before normal retirement age, the participant's accrual rate is $40, determined by dividing the participant's monthly benefit payment ($1,000) by years of credited service (25). After normal retirement age, the participant's accrual rate is $36, calculated by dividing the participant's monthly benefit payment ($900) by the participant's years of credited service (25).
(iii) Calculation of monthly PBGC-guaranteed benefit. Before normal retirement age, the first $11 of the accrual rate is fully guaranteed, and the next $29 of the accrual rate is 75% guaranteed ($29 × .75 = $21.75). The participant's monthly guaranteed benefit per year of credited service is $32.75 ($11 + $21.75 = $32.75). The PBGC guarantee formula is then applied to produce the amount of guarantee payable by PBGC, which is $818.75 ($32.75 × 25 years = $818.75). After normal retirement age, the first $11 of the accrual rate is fully guaranteed, and the next $25 of the accrual rate is 75% guaranteed ($25 × .75 = $18.75). The participant's monthly guaranteed benefit per year of credited service is $29.75 ($11 + $18.75 = $29.75). The PBGC guarantee formula is then applied to produce the amount of guarantee payable by PBGC, which is $743.75 after normal retirement age ($29.75 × 25 years = $743.75).
(iv) Calculation of guarantee-based limitation. A suspension of benefits may not reduce the participant's benefits, determined on and after the effective date of the suspension, below the guarantee-based limitation, which is equal to 110% of the monthly amount of guarantee payable by PBGC. That monthly guarantee-based limitation amount is $900.63 ($818.75 × 1.1 = $900.63) before normal retirement age and $818.13 ($743.75 × 1.1 = $818.13) after normal retirement age.
Example 4.(i) Facts. A participant would be eligible for a monthly benefit of $1,000 payable as a single life annuity at normal retirement age, based on the participant's 20 years of credited service. The plan provides an actuarial increase for delaying benefits until after normal retirement age. The participant delays commencement of benefits until after normal retirement age and the monthly benefit the participant is receiving immediately before the effective date of the suspension is $1,200 instead of $1,000.
(ii) Calculation of accrual rate. For purposes of calculating the accrual rate, the monthly benefit that is used to calculate the PBGC guarantee does not exceed the monthly benefit of $1,000 that would be payable at normal retirement age. Thus, in determining the accrual rate, the PBGC guarantee would be based on a monthly benefit of $1,000, whether benefits are paid at or after normal retirement age. The participant's accrual rate is $50, calculated by dividing the participant's monthly benefit payment ($1,000) by the participant's years of credited service (20).
(iii) Calculation of monthly PBGC-guaranteed benefit. The first $11 of the accrual rate is fully guaranteed, and the next $33 of the accrual rate is 75% guaranteed ($33 × .75 = $24.75). The participant's monthly guaranteed benefit per year of credited service is $35.75 ($11 + $24.75 = $35.75). The PBGC guarantee formula is then applied to produce the amount of guarantee payable by PBGC, which is $715 ($35.75 × 20 years = $715).
(iv) Calculation of guarantee-based limitation. A suspension of benefits may not reduce the participant's benefits, determined on and after the effective date of the suspension, below the guarantee-based limitation, which is equal to 110% of the monthly amount of guarantee payable by PBGC. That monthly guarantee-based limitation amount is $786.50 ($715 × 1.1 = $786.50).
Example 5.(i) Facts. A plan provides that a participant who has completed at least five years of service will have a nonforfeitable right to 100% of an accrued benefit (and will not have a nonforfeitable right to any portion of the accrued benefit prior to completing five years of service). The plan implements a suspension of benefits on January 1, 2017. As of that date, a participant has three years of vesting service, and none of the participant's benefits are nonforfeitable under the terms of the plan.
(ii) Calculation of nonforfeitable benefits. For purposes of applying the guarantee-based limitation, the participant is considered to have a nonforfeitable right to 100% of the accrued benefit under the plan as of January 1, 2017.
Example 1.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor of a plan in critical and declining status is implementing a suspension of benefits, effective December 1, 2017, that generally would reduce all benefit payments under the plan by 30%. On that date, a retiree is receiving a monthly benefit of $1,500 (which is not a benefit based on disability) and has 28 years of credited service under the plan. If none of the limitations in section 432(e)(9)(D)(i), (ii), and (iii) were to apply, a 30% suspension would reduce the retiree's monthly benefit by $450, to $1,050. Under the guarantee-based limitation in section 432(e)(9)(D)(i), the retiree's monthly benefit could not be reduced by more than $398.90, to $1,101.10 (1.1 × (28 × ($11 + (.75 × $33)))). The retiree is 77 years old on the effective date of the suspension, turns 78 on December 10, 2017, and turns 80 on December 10, 2019.
(ii) Maximum suspendable benefit. Because the retiree is not receiving a benefit based on disability under section 432(e)(9)(D)(iii), the retiree's maximum suspendable benefit is $398.90 (which is equal to the lesser of the amount of reduction that would apply pursuant to the 30% suspension ($450) or the amount of reduction that would be permitted under the guarantee-based limitation ($398.90)).
(iii) Applicable percentage. Because the retiree is between ages 75 and 80 on the effective date of the suspension, the reduction is not permitted to exceed the applicable percentage of the retiree's maximum suspendable benefit. The number of months during the period beginning with January 2018 (the month after the month that includes the effective date of the suspension) and ending with December 2019 (the month in which the retiree turns 80) is 24. The applicable percentage is equal to 40% (24 months divided by 60).
(iv) Age-based limitation. The retiree's maximum suspendable benefit is $398.90 and the applicable percentage is 40%. Thus, under the age-based limitation, the retiree's benefit may not be reduced by more than $159.56 ($398.90 × .40 = $159.56). Because the retiree was receiving a monthly benefit of $1,500, the suspension of benefits may not reduce the retiree's monthly benefit below $1,340.44 ($1,500−$159.56 = $1,340.44).
Example 2.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 1, except that the retiree is 79 years old on December 1, 2017, and turns 80 on December 20, 2017.
(ii) Age-based limitation. The suspension is not permitted to apply to the retiree because the retiree will turn 80 by the end of the month (December 2017) in which the suspension is effective.
Example 3.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 1, but on the effective date of the suspension, the retiree is receiving a benefit in the form of a 50% joint and survivor annuity for himself and a contingent beneficiary who is age 71. The retiree dies in October 2018.
(ii) Application of age-based limitation to contingent beneficiary. Because the retiree had attained age 78 in the month that included the effective date of the suspension, the age-based limitation on the suspension of benefits for a 78-year-old individual applies to the retiree. The age-based limitation also applies to the contingent beneficiary, even though the contingent beneficiary had not commenced benefits under the plan as of the effective date of the suspension and had not attained age 75 by the end of the month containing the effective date of the suspension.
(iii) Maximum suspendable benefit. The contingent beneficiary's amount of guarantee payable by PBGC is based on the benefit the beneficiary would have received from the plan before the suspension ($750). The beneficiary's accrual rate is $26.7857 (calculated by dividing the monthly benefit payment ($750) by years of credited service (28)) and the beneficiary's amount of guarantee payable by PBGC is $639.50 (28 × ($11 + (.75 × $15.7857))). The beneficiary's maximum suspendable benefit is $46.55 (which is equal to the lesser of the amount of reduction that would apply pursuant to the 30% suspension ($225) or the amount of reduction that would be permitted under the guarantee-based limitation ($46.55, which is equal to ($750−1.1 × $639.50)).
(iv) Applicable percentage. The applicable percentage for the beneficiary is based on the retiree's age of 78 as of the end of the month that includes the effective date of the suspension. Accordingly, the applicable percentage for the beneficiary is 40%.
(v) Age-based limitation. The beneficiary's maximum suspendable benefit is $46.55 and the applicable percentage is 40%. Thus, under the age-based limitation, the beneficiary's benefit may not be reduced by more than $18.62 ($46.55 × .40 = $18.62). Therefore, as a result of the retiree's age-based limitation, the suspension of benefits may not reduce the beneficiary's monthly benefit below $731.38 ($750−$18.62 = $731.38).
Example 4.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 3, except that on the effective date of the suspension the retiree is age 71 and the retiree's contingent beneficiary is age 77.
(ii) Application of age-based limitation to contingent beneficiary. Because the retiree had not reached age 75 as of the end of the month that includes the effective date of the suspension, the age-based limitation on the suspension of benefits does not apply to the retiree. The age-based limitation also does not apply to the retiree's contingent beneficiary, even though the contingent beneficiary had attained age 77 as of the end of the month that includes the effective date of the suspension, because the contingent beneficiary had not yet commenced benefits on that date. The beneficiary's post-suspension benefit may not be less than the minimum benefit payable pursuant to the guarantee-based limitation, which is $703.45 ($639.50 × 1.1 = $703.45).
Example 5.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 4, except that the retiree died in October 2017, prior to the December 1, 2017 effective date of the suspension of benefits. The retiree's beneficiary commenced benefits on November 1, 2017.
(ii) Application of age-based limitation to contingent beneficiary. Because the retiree's beneficiary had commenced benefits before the effective date of the suspension and had reached age 75 as of the end of the month that includes the effective date of the suspension, the age-based limitation applies to the beneficiary based on the beneficiary's age as of the end of the month that includes the effective date of the suspension.
Example 1.(i) Facts. A participant with a vested accrued benefit of $1,000 per month, payable at age 65, becomes disabled at age 55. The plan applies a reduction to the monthly benefit for early commencement if the participant commences benefits before age 65. For a participant who commences receiving benefits at age 55, the actuarially adjusted early retirement benefit is 60% of the accrued benefit. However, the plan also provides that if a participant becomes entitled to an early retirement benefit on account of disability, as defined in the plan, the benefit is not reduced. On account of a disability, the participant commences an unreduced early retirement benefit of $1,000 per month at age 55 (instead of the $600 monthly benefit the participant would receive if the participant were not disabled). The participant continues to receive $1,000 per month after reaching age 65.
(ii) Conclusion. The participant's disability benefit payment of $1,000 per month commencing at age 55 is a benefit based on disability, even though the participant would have received a portion of these benefits at retirement regardless of the disability. Thus, both before and after attaining age 65, the participant's entire monthly payment amount ($1,000) is a benefit based on disability. A suspension of benefits is not permitted to apply to any portion of the participant's benefit at any time.
Example 2.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 1, except that the terms of the plan provide that when a disabled participant reaches age 65, the disability pension is discontinued by reason of reaching age 65, and the retirement benefits commence. In this case, the amount of the participant's retirement benefits is the same as the amount that the participant was receiving immediately before commencing retirement benefits, or $1,000.
(ii) Conclusion. Before age 65, the participant's disability benefit payment of $1,000 per month commencing at age 55 is a benefit based on disability. After age 65, the periodic retirement benefit of $1,000 per month is a benefit based on disability because it does not exceed the benefit based on disability that the participant was receiving immediately before commencing retirement benefits. Thus, both before and after attaining age 65, the participant's entire monthly payment amount ($1,000) is a benefit based on disability. A suspension of benefits is not permitted to apply to any portion of the participant's benefit at any time.
Example 3.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 2, except that upon reaching age 65, the participant elects to commence payment of retirement benefits not in the form of a single life annuity payable in the amount of $1,000 per month but instead in the form of an actuarially equivalent joint and survivor annuity payable in the amount of $850 per month.
(ii) Conclusion. Before age 65, the participant's benefit based on disability is $1,000 per month. After age 65, the participant's entire retirement benefit of $850 per month is a benefit based on disability because it does not exceed the benefit based on disability that the participant was receiving immediately before commencing retirement benefits. Thus, a suspension of benefits is not permitted to apply to any portion of those benefits at any time.
Example 4.(i) Facts. A participant's disability pension is a specified amount unrelated to the participant's accrued benefit. The participant's disability benefit commencing at age 55 is $750 per month. Upon reaching age 65, the participant's disability pension is discontinued by reason of reaching age 65 and the participant elects to receive an accrued benefit payable in the amount of $1,000 per month.
(ii) Conclusion. Before age 65, the participant's benefit based on disability is $750 per month. After age 65, the participant's benefit based on disability continues to be $750 per month (even though the participant's payment is $1,000 per month), because the benefit based on disability is the lesser of the periodic disability pension the participant was receiving immediately before retirement benefits commenced ($750) and the periodic payment of retirement benefits to the participant under the plan determined without regard to the suspension ($1,000). Thus, a suspension of benefits is not permitted to reduce the participant's benefit based on disability ($750 per month) at any time.
Example 5.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 2, except that when the participant attains age 65, the participant's monthly benefit payment increases from $1,000 to $1,300 as a result of the plan providing additional accruals during the period of disability, as if the participant were not disabled.
(ii) Conclusion. As in Example 2, before age 65, the participant's benefit payment of $1,000 per month commencing at age 55 is a benefit based on disability. After age 65, the participant's benefit payment of $1,300 per month is a benefit based on disability because the $1,300 is payable based on additional accruals earned pursuant to the participant becoming disabled. Thus, both before and after attaining age 65, the participant's entire monthly payment amount is a benefit based on disability. A suspension of benefits is not permitted to apply to any portion of the participant's benefit at any time.
Example 6.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 3 of paragraph (d)(2)(v) of this section, except that the social security level income option is only available to a participant who incurs a disability as defined in the plan.
(ii) Conclusion. Before normal retirement age, the participant's benefit payment of $1,600 per month is a benefit based on disability. After normal retirement age, the participant's benefit based on disability is $900, which is the lesser of the $1,600 periodic payment that the participant was receiving immediately before the participant's normal retirement benefit commenced and the participant's $900 periodic payment of retirement benefits determined without regard to the suspension. Thus, a suspension of benefits is not permitted to apply to any portion of those benefits ($1,600 per month before and $900 per month after normal retirement age) at any time.
Example 7.(i) Facts. A plan applies a reduction to the monthly benefit for early commencement if a participant commences benefits before age 65. The plan also provides that if a participant becomes disabled, as defined in the plan, the benefit that is paid before normal retirement age is not reduced for early retirement. Under the plan, when a disabled participant reaches age 65, the disability pension is discontinued by reason of reaching age 65 and the retirement benefits commence. A participant with a vested accrued benefit of $1,000 per month, payable at age 65, becomes disabled at age 55. On account of the disability, the participant commences benefits at age 55 in the amount of $1,000 per month (instead of the $600 monthly benefit the participant could have received at that age if the participant were not disabled). The participant recovers from the disability at age 60, and the participant's disability benefits cease. At age 60, the participant immediately elects to begin an early retirement benefit of $800.
(ii) Conclusion. The participant's disability benefit payment of $1,000 per month commencing at age 55 is a benefit based on disability, even though the participant would have received a portion of these benefits at retirement regardless of the disability. Because the participant ceased receiving disability benefits on account of the participant no longer being disabled (and not solely on account of commencing retirement benefits), the participant's early retirement benefit of $800 per month that began after the disability benefit ended is not a benefit based on disability.
Example 1.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits on March 15, 2017. Under the plan terms applicable prior to the suspension, one group of participants benefitted only under Benefit Formula A and the remaining participants benefitted only under Benefit Formula B. Each of these benefit formulas is uniform. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, benefits for all participants are reduced so that a uniform post-suspension benefit formula (Benefit Formula C) applies to all participants.
(ii) Conclusion. Because the reduction in benefits under the suspension formula is different for participants who benefitted only under Benefit Formula A than for participants who benefitted only under Benefit Formula B, the suspension of benefits provides for different treatment for different participants and beneficiaries (other than as a result of application of the individual limitations). In addition, the suspension of benefits provides for consistent treatment of participants within the following two categories: (1) Participants who benefitted only under Benefit Formula A; and (2) participants who benefitted only under Benefit Formula B. Therefore, pursuant to paragraph (d)(6)(iv)(A) of this section, these two categories of participants are each treated as a single group for purposes of evaluating whether the proposed suspension is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary population. In order to demonstrate that the distribution of the suspension satisfies the equitable distribution requirement, the plan sponsor must reasonably select and apply factors that are the basis for the different treatment of these two groups of participants.
Example 2.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 1, except that the plan terms applicable prior to the suspension did not provide for different benefit formulas for different groups of participants at any given time. Instead, the plan terms provided that different uniform benefit formulas applied for service prior to January 1, 2000, and for service on or after January 1, 2000.
(ii) Conclusion. The reduction in benefits under the suspension formula is different for participants who had service only prior to January 1, 2000, participants who had service only after January 1, 2000, and participants who had service during both of those periods. The suspension of benefits provides for different treatment for different participants and beneficiaries (other than as a result of application of the individual limitations). In addition, the suspension of benefits provides for consistent treatment of participants within the following three categories of participants: (1) Participants whose entire service was prior to January 1, 2000, (2) participants whose entire service was on or after January 1, 2000, and (3) participants who have some service before January 1, 2000 and some service on or after January 1, 2000. Therefore, pursuant to paragraph (d)(6)(iv)(A) of this section, the two categories of participants whose entire service was either before or on or after January 1, 2000 are each treated as a single group for purposes of evaluating whether the proposed suspension is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary population. In addition, pursuant to paragraph (d)(6)(iv)(B) of this section, the category of participants with some service before January 1, 2000 and some service on or after January 1, 2000 is treated as a single group for purposes of this evaluation. In order to demonstrate that the distribution of the suspension satisfies the equitable distribution requirement, the plan sponsor must reasonably select and apply factors that are the basis for the different treatment of these three categories of participants.
Example 3.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, benefits for all participants and beneficiaries are reduced by the same percentage, and the suspension application indicates the rationale for this reduction.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations.
Example 4.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the age-based and disability-based limitations of section 432(e)(9)(D)(ii) and (iii), the portion of each participant's and beneficiary's benefit that exceeds the guarantee-based limitation of section 432(e)(9)(D)(i) is reduced by the same percentage, and the suspension application indicates the rationale for this reduction.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. The result would be the same if, instead, the suspension of benefits applies only to benefits that exceed a multiple (in excess of 100%) of the guarantee-based limitation.
Example 5.(i) Facts. A plan was previously amended to provide an ad hoc 15% increase to the benefits of all participants and beneficiaries (including participants who, at the time, were no longer earning service under the plan, which therefore included retirees and deferred vested participants). The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, benefits for all participants and beneficiaries who were no longer earning service under the plan at the time of the ad hoc amendment are reduced by eliminating the amendment for those individuals. The suspension application indicates why the benefit reduction is based on the statutory factors in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(B)(6) of this section (the extent to which a participant or beneficiary has received post-retirement benefit increases), including application of the reduction to those who, at the time of the previous benefit increase, were either retired participants or deferred vested participants, and in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(B)(7) of this section (the history of benefit increases and reductions), and why it is reasonable to apply the factors in this manner.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. This is because the difference in treatment between the two groups of participants is based on whether a participant has received post-retirement benefit increases (in this case, whether a participant was earning service under the plan at the time of the benefit increase amendment), which under these facts is a relevant factor that may be reasonably selected by the plan sponsor, and the difference in treatment between the two groups of participants (eliminating the amendment only for benefits with respect to participants who were no longer earning service at the time of the amendment) is based on a reasonable application of that factor.
Example 6.(i) Facts. A plan contains a provision that provides a “thirteenth check” in plan years for which the investment return is greater than 7% (which was the assumed rate of return under the plan's actuarial valuation). The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, benefits for all participants and beneficiaries are reduced by eliminating the “thirteenth check” for all of those individuals. The suspension application indicates why the benefit reduction is based on the statutory factors in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(B)(6) of this section (the extent to which a participant or beneficiary has received post-retirement benefit increases) and in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(B)(7) of this section (the history of benefit increases and reductions), and why it is reasonable to apply the factors in this manner.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations.
Example 7.(i) Facts. A plan was previously amended to reduce future accruals from $60 per year of service to $50 per year of service. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, the accrued benefits for all participants and beneficiaries are reduced to $50 per year of service (and the plan's generally applicable adjustments for early retirement and form of benefit apply). The suspension application indicates why the benefit reduction is based on the statutory factor in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(B)(7) of this section (the history of benefit increases and reductions), and why it is reasonable to apply the factors in this manner.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. This is because the difference in treatment among the different groups of participants is based on the history of benefit reductions and a discrepancy between active and retiree benefits, which under these facts are relevant factors that may be reasonably selected by the plan sponsor, and the difference in treatment between the three groups of participants (reducing the $60 benefit multiplier to $50 per year of service for two groups of participants—those who had accrued all of their benefits under the $60 multiplier and those who had accrued some of their benefits under the $60 multiplier—and not reducing benefits for the group of participants who had accrued all of their benefits under the $50 multiplier) is based on a reasonable application of those factors.
Example 8.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 7, except that no plan amendments have previously reduced future accruals or other benefits for active participants. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, benefits for deferred vested participants, retirees, and beneficiaries who have commenced benefits are reduced, but no reduction applies to active participants. The suspension of benefits is not accompanied by any reductions in future accruals or other benefits for active participants.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is not equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. This is because, under these facts, no relevant factor (such as a previous reduction in benefits applicable only to active participants) has been reasonably selected by the plan sponsor to justify the proposed difference in treatment among the categories.
Example 9.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 8, except that the suspension of benefits provides for a reduction that applies to both active and inactive participants. However, the reduction that applies to active participants is smaller than the reduction that applies to inactive participants because the plan sponsor concludes, as explained and supported in the application for suspension, that active participants are reasonably likely to withdraw support for the plan if any larger reduction is applied.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. This is because the difference in treatment between the different groups of participants is based on the extent to which active participants are reasonably likely to withdraw support for the plan, which under these facts is a relevant factor that may reasonably be selected by the plan sponsor, and the difference in treatment between the two groups of participants (applying a greater suspension to inactive than to active participants) is based on a reasonable application of that factor.
Example 10.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, the benefits for participants and beneficiaries attributable to service with an employer that failed to pay its full withdrawal liability are reduced by 50%. As indicated in the suspension application, the present value of the benefit reduction with respect to the former employees of one such employer is significantly greater than the unpaid withdrawal liability for that employer. Benefits for participants and beneficiaries attributable to service with all other employers are reduced by 10%.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is not equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. This is because, although the difference in treatment between the different groups of participants is based on a relevant factor that may reasonably be selected by the plan sponsor, the difference in treatment between the groups of participants is not based on a reasonable application of that factor.
Example 11.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, the benefits for all participants and beneficiaries are reduced by the same percentage, except that the fbenefits for employees and former employees of a particular employer that is actively represented on the plan's Board of Trustees are reduced by a specified lesser percentage.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is not equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. This is because, under these facts, no relevant factor has been reasonably selected by the plan sponsor to justify the difference in treatment between the two groups of participants.
Example 12.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 11, except that the particular employer whose employees and former employees are subject to the lesser benefit reduction is the union that also participates in the plan.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is not equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations. This is because, under these facts, no relevant factor has been reasonably selected by the plan sponsor to justify the difference in treatment between the two groups of participants.
Example 13.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, the monthly benefit of all participants and beneficiaries is reduced to 110% of the monthly benefit that is guaranteed by PBGC under section 4022A of ERISA. As indicated in the suspension application, this is because the plan sponsor is applying to PBGC for a partition of the plan, which requires the plan sponsor to have implemented the maximum benefit suspensions under section 432(e)(9).
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations.
Example 14.(i) Facts. The plan sponsor applies for approval of a suspension of benefits. Under the suspension of benefits, subject to the individual limitations on benefit suspensions, benefits for all participants and beneficiaries are reduced by the same percentage, except that the protection for benefits based on disability goes beyond the required disability-based limitations and also includes payments to a beneficiary of a participant who had been receiving benefits based on disability at the time of death. The suspension application indicates the rationale for this protection from reduction.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations because this suspension design is a reasonable application of the statutory factor in paragraph (d)(6)(ii)(B)(4) of this section (type of benefit).
Example 15.(i) Facts. The facts are the same as in Example 3, except that the plan does not provide for benefits based on disability. Under the suspension of benefits, less of a reduction is applied to a participant who has become disabled within the meaning of title II of the Social Security Act than to otherwise similarly situated participants and the suspension application indicates the rationale for this reduction.
(ii) Conclusion. The suspension of benefits is equitably distributed across the participant and beneficiary populations because a participant's disability within the meaning of title II of the Social Security Act is a factor that can reasonably be taken into account in designing a suspension of benefits and applying less of a reduction to an individual in this group is a reasonable application of that factor.
Example 1.(i) Facts. A plan sponsor distributes notice of a proposed suspension of benefits to plan participants, beneficiaries of deceased participants, and alternate payees by mailing the notice to their last known mailing addresses, using the same information that it used to send the most recent annual funding notice. Of 5,000 such notices, 300 were returned as undeliverable. The plan sponsor takes no additional steps to contact the individuals for whom the notice was returned as undeliverable.
(ii) Conclusion. The plan sponsor did not make any effort beyond the initial mailing to locate the 300 individuals for whom the notice was returned as undeliverable. Therefore, the plan sponsor did not satisfy the requirement to provide notice to all participants, beneficiaries of deceased participants, and alternate payees under the plan (regardless of whether their benefits are proposed to be suspended), except those who cannot be contacted by reasonable efforts.
Example 2.—(i) Facts. The facts are the same as Example 1, but the plan sponsor contacts the bargaining parties for the plan and the plan administrators of any other employee benefit plans that the plan sponsor reasonably believes may have information useful for locating the missing individuals, and the plan sponsor requests contact information for the missing individuals. The plan sponsor then uses an Internet search tool, a credit reporting agency, and a commercial locator service to search for individuals for whom it was not able to obtain updated information from bargaining parties. Through these efforts, the plan sponsor locates the updated addresses of 250 of the 300 individuals whom it previously failed to contact. The plan sponsor mails notices to those individuals within one week of locating them.
(ii) Conclusion. By using effective search methods to find the previously missing individuals and promptly mailing the notice of suspension to them, the plan sponsor has satisfied the requirement to provide notice to all participants, beneficiaries of deceased participants, and alternate payees under the plan (regardless of whether their benefits are proposed to be suspended), except those who cannot be contacted by reasonable efforts.