- 18 -
use a higher discount rate when calculating the present value of
a participant’s accrued benefit. See Myers-Garrison v.
Johnson & Johnson, 210 F.3d 425, 428 (5th Cir. 2000). Because
the use of a higher discount rate results in a lower present
value for a participant’s accrued benefit, the question that
arises is whether that reduction in present value violates the
anti-cutback rule of section 411(d)(6). That section provides,
in pertinent part, as follows:
(6) Accrued benefit not to be decreased by
amendment.--
(A) In general.–-A plan shall be treated as
not satisfying the requirements of this section if
the accrued benefit of a participant is decreased
by an amendment of the plan, other than an
amendment described in section 412(c)(8), or
section 4281 of the Employee Retirement Income
Security Act of 1974.
(B) Treatment of certain plan amendments.–-
For purposes of subparagraph (A), a plan amendment
which has the effect of–-
(i) eliminating or reducing an early
retirement benefit or a retirement-type
subsidy (as defined in regulations), or
(ii) eliminating an optional form of
benefit,
with respect to benefits attributable to service
before the amendment shall be treated as reducing
accrued benefits. In the case of a retirement-
type subsidy, the preceding sentence shall apply
only with respect to a participant who satisfies
(either before or after the amendment) the
preamendment conditions for the subsidy. The
Secretary shall by regulations provide that this
subparagraph shall not apply to any plan amendment
which reduces or eliminates benefits or subsidies
Page: Previous 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011