Under the Code, it appears that a TAMRA revocation (found at 415(B)(10)©(ii)) made on December 31, 1999 will subject a governmental plan sponsor to liability for any benefits paid to retirees in excess of the Code Section 415(B) annual benefit limitation for years after December 31, 1994. Why would the IRS permit a revocation but then subject the entity making the revocation to possible plan disqualification (for not meeting the 415 requirements)? Is the answer to my question that the governmental plan sponsor should have adopted a 415(m) "excess benefit" plan in 1995 to prevent the 415 limits from applying in later years? How can such an assumption be made (that the sponsor will immediately adopt a 415(m) plan) when an entity has up to 3 years to consider a revocation? I'd appreciate any thoughts. Thanks!

I think that the idea was that an employer can still adopt an excess plan, which could include accruals for past years in which the 415 limits would otherwise have been exceeded. Since governmental plans are not subject to the section 411 rules on cutbacks of accrued benefits, and since most state anticutback rules permit the elimination of a benefit in one plan so long as it is replaced with an equal benefit in another plan, this should work.
----------------------------------------
Employee benefits legal resource site