SSR 68-1: SECTIONS 202(b)(1) 202(q). -- WIFE'S INSURANCE BENEFITS -- REENTITLEMENT OF DIVORCED WIFE -- AMOUNT OF BENEFIT REDUCTION BEFORE AND AFTER AGE 65
SSR 68-1
- A woman, who would attain age 65 in April 1966, was entitled at age 62 to wife's insurance benefits until January 1965 when her entitlement was terminated by reason of her divorce from the worker. Effective with September 1965, her entitlement to benefits was reinstated under section 202(b)(1) of the Act as amended in 1965 since, at the time of the divorce, she had attained age 62 and had been married to the worker for a period of 20 years immediately before the date her divorce became final. Held, the amount of the wife's insurance benefit for months before the month in which the woman attained age 65 must be reduced under section 202(q)(1) of the Act by 25/36 of 1 percent multiplied by the number of months between ages 62 and 65, including the months of January through August 1965 for which she was not entitled to benefits; however, her benefit amount for months beginning with the month in which she attained age 65 will be reduced by 25/36 of 1 percent multiplied by the number of months between ages 62 and 65 but excluding the nonentitlement months, thus increasing her benefit amount at age 65.
W, the wife of A, became entitled to wife's insurance benefits on A's earnings record beginning with April 1963, the month in which she attained age 62. Since W had elected to receive reduced benefits for 36 months before the month in which she would attain age 65, the monthly benefit amount which would have been paid her had her entitlement begun at age 65 was reduced under the provisions of section 202(q)(1) of the Social Security Act by 25 percent (36 months times 25/36 of 1 percent). In January 1965, A and W were divorced, an event which terminated W's entitlement to wife's insurance benefits under the provisions of section 202(b)(1) of the Act as then in effect.
However, the Social Security Amendments of 1965 (P.L. 89-97, enacted July 30, 1965) liberalized section 202(b)(1) of the Act to permit payment of wife's insurance benefits to a divorcee who has attained age 62 and had been married to the worker for a period of 20 years immediately before the date her divorce became final. This provision is applicable with respect to monthly insurance benefits beginning no earlier than September 1965. (For a full discussion of the applicability of section 202(b)(1) to cases where divorce occurred prior to enactment of the Social Security Amendments of 1965, see SSR 67-1 (January 1967.))
Since W had attained age 62 and had been married to A for more than 20 years at the time she and A were divorced, her entitlement to wife's insurance benefits on A's earnings record was reinstated on the basis of a new application, effective with September 1965.
While the Social Security Amendments of 1965 amended section 202(b)(1) of the Act as indicated above so as to permit reinstatement of entitlement to wife's insurance benefits which had previously been terminated by divorce, there was no parallel amendment to section 202(q) of the Act to specify whether, or to what extent, nonentitlement months may be omitted in calculating the reduced benefit amount in such reinstatement cases.
Section 202(q) of the Act, relating to reduction of wife's and other insurance benefits, provides in pertinent part as follows:
- (q)(1) If the first month for which an individual is entitled to * * * [a] wife's * * * insurance benefit is a month before the month in which such individual attains retirement age [age 65, as here pertinent] the amount of such benefit for each month shall * * * be reduced by --
- (A) * * * 25/36 of 1 percent of such amount if such benefit is a wife's * * * insurance benefit, multiplied by
- (B)(i) the number of months in the reduction period for such benefit (determined under paragraph (6)), if such benefit is for a month before the month in which such individual attains retirement age, or
-
(ii) the number of months in the adjusted reduction period for such
benefit (determined under paragraph (7)), if such benefit is for the month
in which such individual attains retirement age or for any month
thereafter.
* * * * * * *
- (6) For purposes of this subsection, the "reduction period" for an individual's * * * wife's * * * insurance benefit is the period --
-
(A) beginning --
* * * * * * *
- (ii) * * * with the first day of the first month for which * * * [she elects to receive reduced wife's benefits] * * *, and
- (B) ending with the last day of the month before the month in which such individual attains retirement age.
- (7) For purposes of this subsection, the "adjusted reduction period" for an individual's * * * wife's * * * insurance benefit is the reduction period prescribed by paragraph (6) for such benefit, excluding from such period --
-
(A) any month in which such benefit was subject to deductions under
section 203(b), 203(c)(1), 203(d)(1), or 222(b),
* * * * * * *
- (C) * * * any month for which such individual was not entitled to such benefits because the spouse on whose wages and self-employment income such benefits were based ceased to be under a disability * * *.
The question to be resolved in this case is whether the months for which W was not entitled to benefits (January through August 1965) may be omitted from the "reduction period" as defined in section 202(q)(6), and from the "adjusted reduction period," as defined in section 202(q)(7), in computing the reduced benefit amount payable to W: (1) for the months beginning with September 1965 and before attainment of age 65, i.e., for September 1965 through March 1966, and (2) for the months beginning with the month in which she attained age 65, i.e., for April 1966 and following months. If the nonentitlement months (January through August 1965) may be omitted from the "reduction period" and "adjusted reduction period," then W's benefit amount would be reduced by 19.44 percent (28 months times 25/36 of 1 percent) rather than 25 percent (36 months times 25/36 of 1 percent).
To consider the absence of a specific statutory directive on the point to mean that nonentitlement months must always be included in calculating the amount of the benefit reduction in reinstatement cases of the kind involved here could lead to clearly inequitable results. It is well settled that a statute need not be literally read when it is clear that the Congress intended something it omitted to express, especially where such literal interpretation would lead to a clearly unjust result.
Lacking a specific directive for determining the benefit amount in the type of situation presenter here, reference must be made to the method of calculating the reduction which the Congress expressly provided for use in analogous situations. On that basis, it is concluded that in calculating the reduction of the benefit amount of a claimant whose entitlement to wife's insurance benefits is reinstated under the circumstances of this case, the months of nonentitlement because of a prior divorce must be included in the "reduction period" (as defined in section 202(q)(6)) in computing the claimant's benefit amount for months before the month in which she attained age 65. This conclusion is based on the analogous situation where the Congress, in enacting the provisions of section 202(q) quoted above, clearly did not intend, in computing a claimant's benefit amount for months before age 65, to exclude from the "reduction period" those months in which the claimant received no benefit payments because of deductions under section 203(b) (deductions on account of work), sections 203(c)(1) and 203(d)(1) (deductions because of noncovered work outside the United States), or section 222(b) (deductions for refusal to accept rehabili- clearly did not intend in the foregoing situations that a wife-beneficiary be given a "credit" for months in which she received no benefit payments, at least in the calculation of her benefit amount for months before the month of attaining age 65, there appears to be no reason for concluding that the Congress intended that a wife-beneficiary be given a "credit" for those months in which, by reason of her divorce from the worker, she did not receive wife's insurance benefits.
On the other hand, section 202(q)(7) of the Act does provide that months in which the above-mentioned section 203 and section 222(b) deductions are imposed, as well as months of nonentitlement where the spouse's disability has ceased, will be excluded from the "adjusted reduction period" in computing the amount of the wife's insurance benefit payable beginning with the month in which she attains age 65. Since the Congress did allow a "credit" for those months in computing the benefit amount for the month of attainment of age 65 and thereafter, a similar "credit" in the type of situation under consideration here would seem to be consonant with Congressional policy. Thus, where entitlement to wife's insurance benefits before age 65 was terminated by divorce but was later reinstated under the Act as amended in 1965, nonentitlement months will be omitted from the "adjusted reduction period" in calculating the amount of the reduced wife's insurance benefit for months beginning with the month in which the beneficiary attains age 65.
Accordingly, it is held that in computing the amount of the reduction in W's benefit for the months September 1965 through March 1966 (i.e., for months before she attained age 65), the months for which she was not entitled to benefits (January through August 1965) will be included in the "reduction period," resulting in a reduction of 25 percent in her benefit amount (36 months times 25/36 of 1 percent); but in computing the amount of the reduction in W's benefit for April 1966 (the month in which she attained age 65) and following months, the months for which she was not entitled to benefits will be excluded from the "adjusted reduction period," resulting in a reduction of 19.44 percent in her benefit amount (28 months times 25/36 of 1 percent).