Section of Taxation Publications
  VOL. 54
NO. 2
Contents | TTL Home

 Note: The following is an excerpt from the introduction to the article as published in The Tax Lawyer. Author citations have been omitted for brevity. Tax Section members may read the article in its entirety in Adobe Acrobat format.
 Age Discrimination or Age Justification? The Case of the Shrinking Future Interest Credits under Cash Balance Plans
Alvin D. Lurie*

* President, Alvin D. Lurie, P.C. Chairman, NYS Bar Association Special Committee on Pension Simplification. Formerly Assistant IRS Commissioner (Employee Plans & Exempt Organizations). Cornell U., B.A., LL.B. Co-editor in chief Cornell Law Quarterly.

Eaton v. Onan Corp., a pension case decided last Fall by the federal district court in Indiana, could not fail to please even the most ardent apologist for the cash balance plan design. It is not an exaggeration to state that it saved such plans from an assault under the 1986 federal age discrimination amendments that could have rendered them, in the judge’s own words, “essentially per se illegal.” Did the plans consequently dodge a real bullet, or at worst a spray from a water cannon? The reader can decide after reviewing the argument in this paper.


Published by
Section of Taxation, American Bar Association
With the Assistance of
Georgetown University Law Center


If you are an ABA member, you can receive The Tax Lawyer and the Section NewsQuarterly, both quarterly publications, when you join the Section of Taxation. Anyone can subscribe to The Tax Lawyer by contacting the ABA Service Center.