of those sections. The anti-cutback provision also keeps plans from reducing an “optional form of benefit” offered in the pension plan. 29 U.S.C. § 1054(g)(l)(2)(B). The Act doesn’t define the phrase “optional form of benefit,” but the Treasury reg the Plan to violate § 401(a) and lose its tax-qualified status. IRS Notice 2007-8 (providing “a qualified pension plan is generally not permitted to pay benefits before retirement”). Thus, the benefit offered under Amendment 1 is not the type of promise that the Act’s anti-cutback provision protects from revision. 2. The Plan’s Anti-Cutback Clause That doesn’t mean the Plan’s own anti-cutback clause cannot give broader protection than the Act and keep the beneficiaries from having Amendment 1 taken away from them. See Call, 475 F.3d at 821 (<HOLDING>). Broadly written, the contract — Article
holding that the pension plans anticutback language offered more protection than the acts holding that more than notice to a defendant is required holding that erisaqualified pension plans were not intended by congress to be within the statutory exemption holding that to grant a new trial the error must be more than harmless holding that lprs are entitled to the protection of the equal protection clause