The Board of Trustees of the Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund - Page 23




                                       - 23 -                                         
               Section 411(d)(6)(B)(i) was added to the Code in 1984, as              
          part of the Retirement Equity Act (REA), Pub. L. 98-397, 98 Stat.           
          1426 (1984).  Before the REA, the anticutback rules did not                 
          explicitly preclude plan amendments that reduced or eliminated              
          early retirement benefits or retirement-type subsidies.  Because            
          many early retirement programs provided a benefit commencing                
          before normal retirement age, such a benefit was found not to               
          fall within the definition of an “accrued benefit”.  Bellas v.              
          CBS, Inc., supra at 523 n.2.  The REA provided that an employee             
          would be protected from a plan amendment reducing his or her                
          early retirement benefit or retirement-type subsidy.9  It did               
          not, however, affect the type of COLAs that are at issue here.              
               Moreover, even if we assume for the sake of argument that              
          the NPF COLAs were “retirement-type subsidies”, they would not be           
          nonforfeitable under section 411(d)(6)(B)(i) as to those who                
          retired before the NPF COLA amendments became effective.  By                
          treating retirement subsidies as if they were accrued benefits,             
          the REA broadens the scope of benefits protected under the                  


               8(...continued)                                                        
          retiring before normal retirement age “still have value in excess           
          of the amount that would be available to a retiring employee                
          under the comparable actuarially-reduced normal retirement                  
          benefit provisions.  We agree * * * that this excess value is a             
          subsidy.”).                                                                 
               9 Congress contemplated that the Treasury Department would             
          promulgate regulations defining the term “retirement-type                   
          subsidy”.  See sec. 411(d)(6)(B)(ii); see also 29 U.S.C. sec.               
          1054(g)(2)(A).  The Treasury Department has yet to do so.                   





Page:  Previous  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  Next

Last modified: May 25, 2011