A plan provides a life annuity for retirees and upon death 50% of gross benefit(benefit is reduced at age 65) to surviving spouse. Much like a 50% j&s. However, if the person does not have a spouse he gets a life annuity. It would appear that a person w/out a spouse (or one choosing a life annuity) should get an annuity that is increased in order to be the actuarial equivalent of the normal form w/ a spouse. I am most concerned with opinions related to the case where an individual does have a spouse, but wants a straight life annuity. i.e. should it be increased?

Any thoughts?

I'm not aware of any requirement that the various optional forms of payment should be actuarially equivalent to each other.

I have seen a plan which defined the "Normal Form" as a life annuity for unmarrried, and as 100% J&S for married, with no change in the $ amount.

In my experience, a "J&S normal form" tends to be a misnomer.

To provide the same $$ benefit to married participants (in J&S form) and singles (in life annuity form), you can (1) establish a life annuity normal form and then (2) provide a fully subsidized QJSA. Optional forms are then defined as actuarially equivalent to the normal form.

Your responses seem reasonable, but my understanding is that all different options s/b actuarially equivalent. For eg. if normal form is 10 c&c, then a life annuity would be a larger benefit.

I don't think that is correct. My understanding is that the requirement is that the plan specify how to convert from the normal form to any available option. There is no reason that option A cannot have a conversion factor of 100% and option B have a conversion factor of 95%, or whatever.