|
|
[Home]
[Databases]
[WorldLII]
[Search]
[Feedback]
South African Law Commission |
[Database Search] [Name Search] [Previous] [Next] [Download] [Help]
2.1 During its first investigation the South African Law Commission made a comparative study of the treatment of pensions on marriage breakdown. The study covered the Netherlands, West Germany, Switzerland, Austria, England, the United States of America, New Zealand, Australia. Canada and Scotland. The Commission’s findings are summarized in Chapter 4 of the 1986 report. In the time that has elapsed since the said comparative study was done the position has changed dramatically in some of the states referred to. In its working paper of April 1998 on the Sharing of Pension Benefits The Commission deals more fully with the position in Canada. The Commission’s reform proposals contained in the said working paper are in fact based on Canadian models.
2.2 In the December 1998 issue of the International Pension Lawyer[12] the subject of The Treatment Of Pensions On Marriage Breakdown is extensively covered in respect of the following countries : Australia, Canada, Denmark, Ireland, The Netherlands, New Zealand, South Africa, the United Kingdom, and the United States of America. The position in each country is set out by a pension lawyer of that country. What follows is a summary of the main features of the position in the said countries.
2.3.1 Superannuation is regulated by government as a retirement income policy. Benefits are in most instances not available to members until their permanent retirement at a prescribed age. As superannuation benefits are held within discretionary trusts, they do not constitute property of a marriage which may be subject to an order of a family court upon the breakdown of a marriage. The courts have held that an interest in a superannuation fund is normally a contingent interest only. Until the member receives it into his or her hands he or she has no control over it and is unable to dispose of it. The interest does not form part of the member’s estate.
2.3.2 The Superannuation Industry(Supervision)Act furthermore does not allow the transfer of a superannuation interest between spouses. Generally such an interest is treated as a future financial resource or future asset of the member. As such it may merely be taken into consideration when the court makes an order regarding property or maintenance. The difficulty with this option is that either party may die before the benefit is received or other changes may occur which may affect the financial position of either party. This method of dealing with superannuation on marriage breakdown has therefore been described as vague and unsatisfactory. The courts’ powers to deal with superannuation are very restricted. A member’s benefit cannot be split at the time of separation or when a dispute is heard by the court. The most that a court can do is -
(a) to adjourn the proceedings until the benefit becomes payable (this is highly unsatisfactory, particularly when the time of the vesting of the benefit is years in the future),
(b) to restrain a party from dealing with future assets arising from superannuation benefits (this option suffers from the same problem and also requires some form of secondary court order),
(c) to adjust the settlement of other matrimonial property to account for the fact that either or both parties may become entitled to a superannuation benefit at some time in the future (the difficulty with this option is to know precisely what the benefit will be when it becomes due, and it is also not always possible to offset the value of the benefit because there may not be sufficient other assets), or
(d) to order that the superannuation benefit be split at such future time as it becomes due.
2.3.3 All the abovementioned options are generally regarded as unsatisfactory. In May 1998 the Federal Attorney General released a paper outlining proposals for legislative reform to make it possible for superannuation benefits to be divided between spouses on marriage breakdown. The main features of the proposed legislation are the following:
2.3.4 The principles on which superannuation splitting will be based are the following:
2.4.1 Pensions are considered to be property, and part of the marital assets which are to be shared on marriage breakdown. This has been the position for approximately the past 10 years. Previously pensions were considered to be a stream of income once payment thereof began.
2.4.2 The basic premise behind the division of assets on marriage breakdown is that all assets acquired during the marriage should be divided equally between the spouses. Subject to a few exceptions, family law requires that the assets of each spouse must be valued at the time of marriage breakdown and reduced by the value of the assets at the time of the marriage to arrive at a net value of assets for each spouse. The total net values are added together and divided by two. The spouse with the excess value is required to compensate the other spouse.
2.4.3 Pensions are of the most difficult assets to value, particularly defined benefit pensions that have not yet commenced payment. The case law gives little guidance. Some judges prefer valuing the benefit as though the member had terminated employment. Some prefer projecting the benefit to the member’s normal retirement date. Some prefer a valuation method somewhere between the two extremes. The various methods can produce values that differ considerably. To avoid litigation, many couples hire actuaries and agree to abide by their valuations.
2.4.4 Most jurisdictions in Canada limit the payment of pensions to a non-member spouse to one-half of the pension earned during the marriage. If marriage breakdown occurs after the member has retired and is receiving a pension, the non-member spouse may only receive a pension equal to a portion of the member’s pension. Some jurisdictions will, however, permit the payment of a lump sum to the non-member spouse even after the pension has commenced.
2.4.5 In the case of defined benefit pensions that have not yet commenced payment, three methods are used for payment of the non-member spouse’s share. Some jurisdictions allow several methods and permit the non-member spouse to elect one from among them. The three methods are:
(a) deferral,
(b) separate pension, and
(c) immediate payment.
Division of the pension is not done until some future date, which could be many years after the marriage breakdown. Usually the division of the pension will be calculated at the member’s earliest retirement date or normal retirement date or date of termination of service or death, as provided in the pension plan if the member continues to work. The intention is to permit the non-member spouse to receive the advantage of benefit increases granted to the member. Under this method payment will usually be made to the non-member spouse at the time of the division. If the non-member spouse is permitted to transfer the pension entitlement out of the pension plan, the transfer will be made on a locked-in basis. The funds must eventually be used to purchase some form of pension for the non-member spouse.
This method permits an actual split of the benefit within the pension plan before the member’s termination of employment. The non-member spouse receives a share of the commuted value of the member’s pension, calculated at the time of the marriage breakdown. This separate benefit is then transferred to a separate account in the name of the non-member spouse and is administered as if the non-member spouse was a deferred vested member of the plan. Payment is made at the member’s early retirement date, or earlier if employment is terminated before that date. The non-member spouse’s rights are protected under the plan at the member’s termination of employment or death, or a pension is paid from the plan to the non-member spouse, based on his or her life instead of the member’s life.
Since issues surrounding the equalization of marital assets takes place at the time of divorce, it seems logical that the division of a pension (which is a marital asset) should also be settled at the same time. However, only a few Canadian jurisdictions permit the payment of a pension benefit at the time of marriage breakdown. Using this method, the pension is valued and an amount is transferred to the non-member spouse at the time of marriage breakdown, usually on a locked-in basis. The member’s benefits under the plan are adjusted accordingly. This method is used in the province of Quebec, which has the most detailed legislation regarding pension credit splitting.
2.4.6 Despite the progress made in Canada over the past 10 years in the area of pension credit splitting on marriage breakdown, a great deal of confusion remains. To simplify administration for plan sponsors, immediate division of the pension asset is preferable, avoiding the necessity of retaining records for many years, since the division will not be made until the member actually terminates employment. Finally, greater understanding of the pension as property is required for plan members, so they will understand the true value of this unique asset.
2.5.1 Different trade unions have their own pension schemes. Typical of these schemes is the fact that benefits are paid as long as the beneficiary lives. The member is paid a retirement or disability pension as long as he or she lives, and when the member dies the surviving spouse is paid a spouse pension for the rest of his or her life. Characteristic of this kind of pension scheme is that if the member dies on the day of his or her retirement and leaves no surviving spouse, he or she receives no value for money with regard to contributions made. With other types of pension schemes a one-time lump sum is paid when the member dies or becomes disabled or reaches retirement age. These two types of pension schemes are treated differently on divorce.
2.5.2 In the case of the first kind of pension scheme mentioned, the spouse will only be paid a pension on divorce if he or she is eligible for maintenance payments, and then only for the period that maintenance is due. Since most married couples have employment and earn income, they are not eligible for maintenance, which usually means that pension will not be divided on divorce.
2.5.3 In the case of the second type of pension scheme the pension is shared equally on divorce. The pension capital saved is either divided into two equal pensions or the owner of the pension scheme pays the other spouse half of the pension.
2.5.4 The first-mentioned type of pension scheme is the traditional, original type of scheme. It was created during the period when men dominated the labor market. Women have now become more prevalent in several working areas where this pension scheme is used. Men often have jobs where the second type of scheme is used. This is irrelevant as long as the marriage exists or if the husband has the first type of pension scheme. This is, however, no longer always the case, and hence the sudden focus on the injustice of the system.
2.5.5 Through the years the fairness of this asymmetrical sharing system has only been tested in the lower courts. It was only recently that the sense of the system was questioned in the Supreme Court and this court expressed the view that a solution to the problem must be brought about by legislative change. As a result hereof a committee has been set up which will make recommendations in this regard.
2.6.1 Irish pension plans are employer sponsored. In the private sector plans are funded. The fund is held by trustees. Both defined contribution plans and defined benefit plans are common. The latter usually provide benefits related to length of service and to retiring salary. Most plans provide benefits on retirement as well as on death while still employed. The pension adjustment regime treats retirement benefits and death benefits differently.
2.6.2 When a couple divorce, a court has a broad discretion to divide their assets between them. The division can, at the request of either spouse, extend to the accumulated rights of the member spouse to retirement benefits from the pension plan. The court can make a pension adjustment order under which a percentage of the member spouse’s accumulated rights to retirement benefits will be “earmarked” for eventual payment to the non-member spouse. The court may only take into account pension rights which the member has earned up to the date of the divorce.
2.6.3 At any time a minimum value can be put on a member’s pension rights. It is the value of the pension rights the member would receive if he or she left employment immediately. However the member’s career may develop, benefits of at least that value will always be paid. Consequently, the non-member spouse’s earmarked percentage of the leaving service entitlement represents the least that the non-member spouse will receive.
2.6.4 At any time after a pension adjustment order has been made, the non-member spouse may exchange the earmarked percentage of the member spouse’s benefits for independent benefits which are equivalent to the earmarked percentage of the member spouse’s leaving service entitlement at the time of the exchange. This exchange does not affect the member spouse, who has already lost the earmarked percentage of the retirement benefits. It does also not adversely affect the plan or the employer or other members of the plan because the independent benefits cannot cost more than the earmarked percentage of the retirement benefits would have cost, and may well cost less. This exchange is referred to as “pension splitting”. To effect it, the trustees of the member spouse’s pension plan pay a transfer value actuarially equivalent to the earmarked percentage of the member spouse’s leaving service entitlement to another pension plan on behalf of the non-member spouse. The form and timing of these benefits can be designed to suit the non-member spouse’s circumstances.
2.6.5 From the non-member spouse’s point of view, pension splitting is not necessarily ideal. By accepting a transfer calculated on a leaving service basis, the non-member spouse forgoes the value of any enhancement to the member spouse’s accrued benefits arising from future salary increases. Moreover, when the transfer amount is paid to another pension plan (especially a personal plan set up by the non-member spouse with a pension provider), it may be reduced by administrative costs, commission, etc. The non-member spouse must therefore choose between, on the one hand an earmarked share of benefits which depends on the member spouse’s career, and on the other hand, independent benefits which may be of a lower value and which may have to bear costs and commissions. The problem is less in a defined contribution plan, where salary growth is not relevant, or in the case where the member spouse is close to retirement age at the time of the splitting of the pension. The problem is also smaller if the non-member spouse is a member of another pension plan which is willing to receive the transfer without deducting costs of administration.
2.6.6 Death-in-service benefits are similar to life insurance and for purposes of the pension adjustment regime they are treated accordingly. The appropriate pension adjustment order is an earmarking order, designating of the death-in-service benefits for payment to the non-member spouse if the member spouse dies while in service. These benefits are unfunded, and as long as the member spouse is alive, have a very small value, so the question of pension splitting does not arise.
2.6.7 The pension adjustment regime came into force in early 1997. As yet, there is relatively little experience of its operation in practice. Anecdotal evidence suggests that many spouses who are separating or divorcing do not seek a pension adjustment order. Those who do, often give no attention to the question until very late in the court proceedings, and there is reason to suspect that in many cases they do not fully understand how the order will operate. The regime is a complex one. It may be too complex to meet the needs of divorcing couples, whose financial resources are often already strained and who cannot, therefore, afford the personal advice needed to take full advantage of the regime. Family law practitioners are not well-educated in the complexities of pension law and practice. There is a need for an education and information exercise, to ensure that pensions receive the attention they deserve, and that divorcing couples use the pension adjustment regime to their own best advantage.
2.7.1 Until February 1973, in the Netherlands the ending of a marriage by divorce had no direct consequences at all for the pension rights of either of the spouses. In February 1973, that changed by the introduction of a so called “special partner pension” for the female spouse. All of the partner pension accrued until the date of divorce(and not already reserved for a previous former spouse), was to be reserved for the ex-wife.
2.7.2 For each new wife the building of the partner pension starts at the moment of the previous divorce. After the death of the pension member, not only the widow but also the former spouse(s) receive their part of the partner pension. If a former spouse dies before the pension member does, the special partner pension will be forfeited and does not flow back for the benefit of possible other spouses. In August 1987 an equal right was introduced for male spouses.
2.7.3 The law regarding special partner pension can, and from the year 2000 must, also be applied to partners who are not married but just living together(keeping a joint household), and accepted by the pension plan as surviving relatives. If they break up their joint household, they also have the right to receive special partner pension rights. At the present time there are still many pension plans which do not attribute the special partner pension to those separating partners who were not legally married.
2.7.4 Since January 1, 1998, there has been a third form of partnership in the Netherlands. In addition to marriage and joining of a household(sealed by a notarized act), two people can get officially registered as partners. Because the rights and duties that are distributed by law upon the registered partners resemble those that come with marriage, it has been characterized as “the gay wedding”. In fact, almost a year after the introduction of the registration of partners, many heterosexual couples have also been registered. By law these registered partners must be treated equal to married partners in pension plans.
2.7.5 Until 1981 old age pension was seen as a strictly personal right. It was not considered to be an asset that must be valued and divided between ex-spouses. However, in 1981 the Supreme Court ruled that old age pension rights were assets in the apportionment of matrimonial property, unless parties by prenuptial agreement had decided that there was no community of property whatsoever. From that moment on, the total value of both the old age pension and the special partner pension had to be divided.
2.7.6 How to exercise that right, was up to the spouses. It was possible to let each spouse keep his or her own old age pension and to settle the pension value with or by other assets. It was also possible to let each spouse keep his or her own partner pension. The pension plan only had to pay the old age pension to the pension member(and not partly to the former spouse), and eventually the special partner pension was paid to the former spouse(unless the former spouse agreed otherwise). In the situation of two people living together while not married, there was no community of property, and therefore, only a division of old age pension in the case of a voluntary agreement the splitting of those rights.
2.7.7 For over three years now the partition of pensions in case of marriage breakdown has been arranged by law. Since January 1. 1998, this has also been applicable in the situation of a registration of breakdown. The law regarding the attribution of a special partner pension in the case of a divorce is still the same, but there is a new rule regarding the division of old age pension. Separate from the attribution of all the partner pension accrued until the date of divorce(and not already reserved for a previous former spouse), the old age pension accrued during the period of the marriage or registration has to be divided. The standard is 50 percent, but the parties may decide to divide according to different percentages. They may also decide to divide the pension accrued during a different period or not to divide at all. This law is not applicable where the joint household is ended.
2.7.8 If the pension member starts to receive his or her pension, the former partner receives his or her part directly from the pension plan. Because of the growing flexibility regarding the date of retirement, the former partner can therefore not be sure when exactly he or she will receive a share of his or her spouse’s old age pension. If the former spouse dies, the divided pension flows back to its original owner.
2.7.9 An alternative is that, if both partners and the pension plan cooperate, the former partner swaps his or her special partner pension and his or her right to a part of an old age pension into an individual right to old age pension. The former partner then starts to receive the pension at his or her own date of retirement, whether or not the original pension member is dead or alive. The former partner now also has the option to elect a transfer of the value. If after a conversion the partner dies, the pension does not flow back to the original owner.
2.8.1 The Matrimonial Property Act, 1976, governs the division of matrimonial property following a marriage breakdown. The key principle is that, unless the parties have agreed otherwise or one spouse’s contribution to the marriage was clearly greater than the other’s, each spouse will share equally in the matrimonial property. The spouses’ respective shares are determined at the date when they cease to live together as husband and wife.
2.8.2 “Matrimonial property” is defined to include:
“Any pension benefit to which either the husband or the wife is entitled or may become entitled under any superannuation scheme if the entitlement is derived, wholly or in part, from contributions made to the scheme after the marriage or from employment or office held since the marriage”.
A husband and wife may agree on the division of their property, including superannuation entitlements. Agreements must be in writing and signed by both parties after receiving independent legal advice. The Act allows the court to order a husband and wife to enter into a deed or arrangement assuring that a non-member spouse receives a certain portion of the member’s superannuation rights. Such order binds the trustees or administrator of the scheme in question.
2.8.3 Unless the rules of a scheme allow in-service withdrawals (which is rare), a court order is the only mechanism permitting a scheme to pay money to a non-member spouse prior to the member leaving service. A court order will, however, override the rules of a scheme and bind the trustee. A frequent problem is that court orders go too far and purport to distribute more than the vested leaving service benefits. Where this happens, the trustee must send the parties back to the court.
2.8.4 Because matrimonial property includes both vested and contingent superannuation entitlements, actuarial input is often required to value those entitlements. The principles for valuing prospective superannuation benefits can be summarized as follows:
2.8.5 The valuation methodology is as follows:
In employer-sponsored defined contribution schemes the usual practice is to calculate a value that lies between:
This valuation takes into account the member’s age and the likelihood of his or her remaining in the scheme until all employer contributions are vested.
2.8.6 When the matrimonial property component of a member’s superannuation entitlements has been valued, the court determines what share should be paid to or vested in the non-member spouse. The court might decide that the superannuation component of the matrimonial property will remain entirely with the member spouse, but that the non-member spouse will receive a larger share of the other matrimonial property. Alternatively, the court might decide that at least some of the superannuation component of the parties’ matrimonial property is to be allocated to the non-member spouse. In that circumstance, court orders can be worded in any number of ways. Depending on the wording, issues can arise as to the practical implementation of these orders.
2.8.7 There are broadly two alternative distribution mechanisms. The first, and still the more common, is to adopt the “clean break” principle and pay the non-member spouse a cash settlement. Particularly when a member has to make a payment with respect to contingent entitlements which are as yet unavailable, this often requires the non-member spouse to accept the value of his or her superannuation entitlement in the form of other property. The second alternative is to provide that benefits will be shared only when they ultimately become payable to the member spouse. The effect of such an order is to give the non-member spouse a share of the member’s interest in the scheme. Examples of this approach are:
The non-member spouse does not obtain full membership of the scheme, but is entitled only to receive benefits when the member spouse becomes eligible for benefits.
2.8.8 Proposed amendments to the Matrimonial Property Act would extend the equal sharing regime to cover the death of a spouse. The exclusion of that situation to date is an anomaly which requires costly court proceedings. The proposed amendments will also make it clear that a deceased spouse’s superannuation entitlements are matrimonial property.
2.8.9 There is currently no legislative regime in New Zealand for dividing property when a de facto relationship ends. The De Facto Relationships (Property) Bill would provide a statutory regime where a de facto relationship(which must generally be of more than three years’ duration) ends by separation or with the death of one partner. There would be a presumption of equal sharing of “core” relationship property such as the family home. Other relationship property would be divided on the basis of the partners’ respective contributions to the relationship. The new regime would apply only to relationships in the nature of marriage between a man and a woman. There is ongoing debate as to whether it should also extend to same-sex relationships.
2.9.1 Occupational pensions form an important part of the income of the retired in the UK. Most occupational pension schemes provide benefits not only for their members, but also for a member’s spouse upon the death of the member. The entitlement of the spouse arises from the marital link with the member. Before the Pensions Act 1995 a spouse would usually lose all rights under the pension scheme on divorce, unless he or she was a dependant of the member when the member died. Moreover, pension rights are often unevenly distributed between men and women. This sometimes results in financial hardship, particularly since pension rights are often the most valuable asset. The law has recently been reformed to address this problem. The Pensions Act 1995 now makes it obligatory for the court to have regard to pension rights.
2.9.2 The Pensions Act 1995 gives the court the power to direct the trustees to pay part of the member’s pension to the former spouse from the time when the member retires. The payment would cease on the member’s death. Lump sums on retirement or death can also be awarded. The following criteria apply:
2.9.3 The Family Proceedings Rules permit trustees to ask for further information concerning an application for an order, object to it and be represented at any hearing. This is an important opportunity for trustees to resolve any difficulties or uncertainties in relation to a proposed order. Once an order has been made, the party benefitting from it must serve it on the trustees.
2.9.4 The Divorce Regulations provide that where:
the court order will transfer to the receiving scheme. The transferring trustees must comply with the formal notification procedures. If they do not, the court order will not transfer and they will be left with the obligation to provide an earmarked pension but no money to pay for it. The transferring trustee must supply to the receiving trustee:
2.9.5 Notice must be given by the trustees to the former spouse where an event has occurred which is likely to result in a significant reduction in the benefits payable under the scheme. This enables the former spouse to revert to the court and ask it to make further provision for him or her.
2.9.6 This would give the court the power to divide the value of pension rights by ordering the trustees to allocate a portion of the member’s rights at the time of divorce to the former spouse, which he or she could transfer or receive as benefits in his or her own right. It is the solution which best achieve the aim of alleviating financial hardship of former spouses who lose rights on divorce. Arguably, it should also pose less of an administrative burden on trustees than earmarking. A Pension Sharing Bill was launched by the government during June 1998 and extensive consultation is taking place. The Bill is expected to become an Act in the year 2000. Under the Bill pension rights will be treated the same as any other asset so that the whole or any portion of their value can be transferred from one spouse to the other as part of the financial negotiations on divorce. Pension sharing will simply be one of many options facing divorcing couples. It will still be possible to off-set pension rights against other matrimonial assets or to use the earmarking orders under the Pensions Act 1995.
2.9.7 Pension sharing is far more consistent with the “clean break” principle. The problem with earmarking is that it is a parasitic right. The ex-spouse’s pension rights depend on when the member begins to draw a pension, and worst of all, the pension dies with the member. A member’s pension rights will become subject to a “debit” and the former spouse will become entitled to a “credit” equal to the amount of the debit. The amount of the debit will be a percentage of the actuarial value of the member’s pension rights accrued up to the date of the order. Provided the pension scheme is funded, the ex-spouse will be permitted to transfer his or her newly acquired rights to another scheme.
2.10.1 Most Americans are covered by employer-sponsored pension plans. For many their interest in a pension plan is often one of their most valuable assets. Whether this interest should be divided on the divorce or separation of the plan member, and how the division should be effected, are often important considerations in divorce proceedings. The division of matrimonial property is governed by domestic state law, whereas the assignment of pension rights is governed by Federal law. Pension rights may be assigned only if a competent court recognizes a former spouse’s interest in a member’s pension rights and makes a “qualified domestic relations order”, generally referred to as a QDRO. A qualified domestic relations order recognizes the existence of an “alternate payee’s” right to receive, or assigns to an alternate payee the right to receive, all or any portion of the benefits payable with respect to a participant under a pension plan.
2.10.2 A QDRO must contain the following information:
2.10.3 There are certain provisions which a QDRO may not contain:
2.10.4 Qualified domestic relation orders are generally used either to provide support payments(temporary or permanent) to the alternate payee(who may be the spouse, former spouse or a child or other dependent of the participant)or to divide marital property in the course of dissolving a marriage. These different goals often result in different choices in drafting a QDRO.
2.10.5 One approach that is used in some orders is to “split” the actual benefit payments made with respect to a participant under the plan to give the alternate payee part of each payment. This approach to dividing retirement benefits is referred to as the “shared payment” approach. Under this approach, the alternate payee will not receive any payments unless the participant receives a payment or is already in pay status. This approach is often used when a support order is being drafted after a participant has already begun to receive a stream of payments from the plan, such as a life annuity. An order for shared payments, like any other QDRO, must specify the amount or percentage of the participant’s benefit payments that is assigned to the alternate payee(or the manner in which such amount or percentage is determined). It must also specify the number of payments or period to which it applies. This is particularly important in the shared payment QDRO, which must specify when the alternate payee’s right to share in the payments begins and ends.
2.10.6 Orders that seek to divide a pension as part of the marital property upon divorce or legal separation often take a different approach to dividing the retirement benefit. These orders usually divide the participant’s retirement benefit (rather than just the payments) into two separate portions with the intent of giving the alternate payee a separate right to receive a portion of the retirement benefit to be paid at a time and in a form different from that chosen by the participant. This approach to dividing retirement benefits is referred to as the “separate interest” approach. An order that provides for a separate interest for the alternate payee must specify the amount or percentage of the participant’s retirement benefit to be assigned to the alternate payee , or the manner in which such amount or percentage is to be determined. The order must also specify the number of payments or period to which it applies, and such orders often satisfy this requirement simply by giving the alternate payee the right that the participant would have had under the plan to elect the form of benefit payment and the time at which the separate interest will be paid.
2.10.7 Federal law does not require the use of either approach for any specific domestic relations purpose, and it is up to the drafters of any order to determine how best to achieve the purpose for which the pension benefits are being divided. The shared payment approach and the separate interest approach can each be used for either defined benefit or defined contribution plans.
[12] Journal of the International Pension and Employee Benefits Lawyers Association (IPEBLA)
SAFLII:
|
|
Terms of Use
|
Feedback
URL: http://www.saflii.org/za/other/zalc/report/1999/2/1999_2-CHAPTER-2.html