EPF Withdrawal Rules: Then and Now (2021–2025 Reforms)

I. Executive Summary: The Provident Fund Paradigm Shift (2021–2025)

The Employees’ Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has executed a major regulatory overhaul, culminating in rules approved around October 2025, which fundamentally redefine the balance between providing immediate financial liquidity and enforcing long-term retirement savings integrity.¹ This policy shift reflects an institutional effort to harmonize two previously conflicting objectives: granting enhanced access to funds for essential, mid-life financial exigencies, and simultaneously curbing the growing trend of premature, full withdrawals that depleted retirement corpuses.

The strategic changes implemented represent a significant duality in regulatory posture. On one hand, the “Now” is characterized by a sweeping liberalization of partial advance withdrawals, making access easier, quicker, and more frequent for qualifying events.^{2 On the other hand, the new regime imposes a sharp tightening of the criteria for final settlement, significantly extending the required waiting periods for the unemployed.³ The regulatory mechanism is designed to make the liquidity windows wider (via simplified advances and fast settlement) while ensuring the exit door for premature final retirement is narrower, thereby insulating the core corpus for its intended purpose.}

Concurrently, a separate but equally impactful set of tax amendments, effective since the Fiscal Year 2021–22, eroded the traditional “Exempt-Exempt-Exempt” (EEE) status for high-income subscribers.^{5 These tax caps on both employee and employer contributions further underscored the government’s commitment to preserving the social security nature of the scheme and restricting its use as a tax-advantaged wealth accumulation vehicle for the highly salaried. The strategic objective behind these combined actions is clear: to ensure the EPF remains a true retirement instrument for the majority of formal sector workers.⁴}

Table I below summarizes the critical metrics that define this paradigm shift.

Table I: Key Metrics of Change (2025 Overhaul)

Metric	Pre-2025 Status (The ‘Then’)	Post-2025 Status (The ‘Now’)	Policy Direction
Full EPF Withdrawal (Unemployed)	2 Months Waiting Period	12 Months Waiting Period	Restriction/Preservation
Partial Advance Categories	Approximately 13 Complex Purposes	3 Simplified Categories	Liberalization/Simplification
Tax-Exempt Contribution Cap	No Limit (EEE Status)	₹2.5 Lakh (Employee Interest Taxable)	Restriction/Revenue Generation
EPF Claim Processing Time (Advances)	Weeks/Months (Manual)	72 Hours (Auto-Settlement)	Efficiency/Digitalization

II. Historical Context: EPF and EPS Rules (Pre-2025 Framework)

2.1. The Traditional Role of EPF: Short-Term Savings vs. Long-Term Retirement

Historically, the Employees’ Provident Fund (EPF) served dual and often conflicting roles. It was mandated as a retirement security mechanism, providing a lump sum upon superannuation.^{7 However, for a vast segment of the mobile workforce, it functioned more practically as an easily accessible savings account or an immediate financial cushion during job transitions.⁸ This latter function was primarily enabled by the liberal, short-term unemployment withdrawal rule, which inadvertently compromised the fund’s long-term integrity.}

Prior to the 2025 amendments, the ability of employees to access their entire Provident Fund corpus was codified under what was widely known as the “two-month rule.^{7 In instances of resignation or job loss, an EPF member could withdraw up to 75% of their PF balance immediately after one month of unemployment, and the remaining 25% (constituting the final, 100% settlement) could be claimed after the second month of continuous unemployment.³}

This historical ease of exit, while providing crucial immediate financial relief, had a profoundly negative structural consequence for the retirement architecture of the country. Analysis indicated that a significant proportion of members were utilizing this rule to prematurely liquidate their savings, frequently dissolving their retirement corpus upon every job change.^{4 Data showed that 50% of EPF members had balances of less than ₹20,000 at the time of final settlement, and 75% had balances below ₹50,000.^{10 This data demonstrated that for many, the EPF scheme was failing its primary mandate of ensuring long-term retirement security, instead being utilized as a short-term savings bank by workers with high mobility or low monthly income.^{1 The ease of exit meant that highly mobile workers treated the EPF as disposable income, prompting the subsequent regulatory intervention to convert the fund back into a true pension instrument by increasing the hurdle for full liquidation.⁴}}}

Similarly, the accumulated funds under the Employees’ Pension Scheme (EPS), available only to those with less than 10 years of eligible service, were also accessible for full withdrawal after just two months of unemployment.^{2 This parallel ease of EPS withdrawal further compounded the issue, allowing workers to liquidate both their PF savings and their nascent pension accumulation quickly.}

2.3. Complexity of Prior Partial Withdrawal Norms (Pre-Para 68 Simplification)

Before the recent reforms, accessing funds through partial advance withdrawals (Form 31) was cumbersome due to a proliferation of categories and disparate eligibility criteria.⁷

Different purposes for which advances were sought were governed by varying minimum service requirements, complicating the application process:

Housing (such as purchase, construction, or loan repayment) generally required a minimum service period of five years.²
Needs like marriage or education often required a minimum of seven years of service.²
Additionally, the permissible frequency of withdrawals was highly restrictive. The combined limit for major events like marriage and education was limited to a total of just three withdrawals across the entire service period.² This severe restriction often necessitated that members facing essential needs, especially those requiring recurring educational expenses, opt for a premature final settlement, thereby sacrificing their entire retirement continuity, rather than dealing with the restrictive partial advance system.²

Furthermore, earlier rules often restricted the portion of the employer’s contribution that could be accessed for partial advances, limiting the overall utility of the funds for urgent needs.⁷

2.4. The COVID-19 Advance: A Precedent for Zero-Barrier Liquidity

The COVID-19 pandemic catalyzed a procedural and policy shift that served as a crucial precedent for the 2025 reforms. Under the Pradhan Mantri Garib Kalyan Yojana (PMGKY), EPFO introduced a non-refundable special advance facility.^{13 This facility allowed members to withdraw the lesser of three months of Basic Wages plus Dearness Allowance or up to 75% of the total credit balance in the account.¹³}

This advance was notable because it required neither a lock-in period nor any minimum service requirement, setting a unique precedent for rapid, zero-barrier access to liquidity during a crisis.^{14 The facility proved vital, particularly for lower-wage members, with EPFO settling over 76.31 lakh claims and disbursing significant relief.^{13 While this special advance facility was subsequently discontinued, the high demand for fast, non-refundable access informed the decision to overhaul and simplify the general partial withdrawal rules in 2025.¹⁴}}

III. Comprehensive Regulatory Overhaul: The 2025 Withdrawal Reforms (The “Now”)

The decisions approved by the Central Board of Trustees (CBT) in 2025 aimed to rationalize the framework, ensuring that the EPF scheme functions effectively as a long-term social security instrument while retaining flexibility for genuine exigencies.

3.1. Full Withdrawal During Unemployment: The Extended Waiting Periods

The most contentious aspect of the new regime is the substantial extension of the waiting periods for final settlement following unemployment, a deliberate tightening designed to preserve the retirement corpus.⁸

3.1.1. EPF Final Settlement: From 2 Months to 12 Months

The period required for a full 100% final settlement of the Provident Fund balance after job cessation has been extended from the historical two months to 12 months of continuous unemployment.²

Immediate Access: Members retain the ability to withdraw up to 75% of their PF balance (which includes both employee and employer contributions plus interest) immediately after job loss to meet immediate financial needs.¹
The 25% Lock-in: The remaining 25% of the corpus is now locked and can only be accessed after the member provides proof of 12 months of continuous unemployment.^{3 The strategic effect of this 12-month lock-in is to compel the member to leave the account active, allowing the balance to continue earning the high statutory interest rate (e.g., 8.25% for 2024-25) and thereby benefit from continuous compounding.^{2 This measure aims to discourage members who take short breaks from work from liquidating their entire retirement fund before rejoining the workforce.}}

3.1.2. EPS Final Withdrawal: From 2 Months to 36 Months

The period for the final withdrawal of the accumulated pension amount under the EPS for members with less than 10 years of eligible service has been drastically increased from two months to 36 months (three years) of continuous unemployment.²

This substantial extension serves a specific, critical purpose: encouraging members to remain in the scheme long enough to achieve the required 10 years of aggregate service necessary to qualify for a lifetime pension benefit starting at age 58.^{4 By eliminating the immediate access option, the EPFO is actively steering members toward preserving their tenure and ultimately qualifying for a formal pension, rather than accepting a small, early lump sum that often provides insufficient long-term security.¹}

3.2. Mandatory Minimum Balance Rule (25% Corpus Retention)

A fundamental structural change is the new mandate requiring members to maintain at least 25% of their total contribution balance in the account at all times.^{1 This rule applies to all non-final withdrawal scenarios.}

This regulation reinforces the concept of corpus preservation. By ensuring a buffer remains locked in, the EPFO guarantees that the member continues to earn the high interest rate and benefit from compounding, steadily growing the retirement fund over the long term, even when periodic advances are taken for lifecycle needs.^{2 Exceptions to this minimum balance rule apply only in cases of formal retirement (age 58+), permanent disability, or final settlement after the mandatory 12 months of unemployment.³}

3.3. Liberalization of Partial Advances (Para 68 Simplification)

In parallel with the tightening of final settlement rules, the EPFO aggressively liberalized and simplified the partial withdrawal process, recognizing the need for accessible liquidity for mid-life events.

3.3.1. Consolidation of Categories

The previous proliferation of withdrawal provisions (approximately 13 complex purposes) has been streamlined and consolidated into three primary, standardized categories: Essential Needs (covering illness, education, and marriage), Housing Needs, and Special Circumstances (such as declared emergencies or natural calamities).¹ This simplification aims to reduce bureaucratic hurdles and minimize claim rejection rates.

3.3.2. Relaxation of Limits and Frequency

The frequency and accessibility limits for common and recurring needs have been dramatically enhanced ²:

Education-related withdrawals are now permitted up to 10 times during the service period.
Marriage-related withdrawals are permitted up to five times.
Previously, the combined limit for both education and marriage was restricted to a maximum of only three withdrawals.^{2 The increase in frequency provides members with crucial, repeatable access to funds throughout their career for significant family events or prolonged educational phases.}

3.3.3. Reduction of Minimum Service Requirement

The minimum service period required for eligibility for any partial withdrawal has been uniformly reduced to just 12 months.^{2 This represents a significant easing of requirements from the previous norms, which demanded five or seven years of service depending on the specific purpose.^{2 This change ensures that workers in the early stages of their careers gain access to funds for emergencies much sooner, preventing them from prematurely liquidating their entire PF account when faced with immediate financial demands.}}

3.3.4. New Access: Withdrawal from Both Employee and Employer Contributions

Under the revised framework, members seeking partial advances are now allowed to withdraw amounts covering both the employee and the employer contributions.^{1 This marks a major liberalization, as prior rules often restricted access to the employer’s share, thereby substantially enhancing the amount of liquidity available for emergencies and life events.}

3.4. Detailed Comparison of Final Settlement and Partial Advance Rules

The following table synthesizes the fundamental shifts in regulatory parameters across the “Then and Now” epochs.

Table II: Comparison of Final Settlement and Partial Advance Rules

Criteria	Historical Rules (Pre-2025)	Current Rules (Post-Oct 2025)	Key Change
Full EPF Withdrawal (Unemployed)	100% after 2 months.	75% immediate; Remaining 25% after 12 months.	10-month extension for full access, protecting 25%.³
EPS Withdrawal (Service < 10 Yrs)	Full amount after 2 months.	Full amount after 36 months (3 years).	Strict measure to enforce pension continuity.⁴
Partial Withdrawal Categories	$\approx 13$ distinct rules (e.g., Para 68K, 68B).	Consolidated into 3 types (Essential, Housing, Special).¹	Simplification and ease of administration.
Education Advance Frequency	Combined 3 times (with Marriage).	Up to 10 times.²	Significant liberalization of access.
Min. Service for Partial Advance	5-7 years (Housing/Marriage/Education).	Uniformly reduced to 12 months (1 year).²	Dramatically increased early-career accessibility.
Mandatory Minimum Balance	None specified for maintaining status.	25% of balance must remain in the account.¹	Financial buffer and compounding safeguard.

IV. The Great Debate: Policy Rationale vs. Economic Impact

The simultaneous implementation of relaxed partial access and highly restricted final exit represents a complex policy maneuver that has generated both regulatory praise and vigorous public criticism.

4.1. The Official Stance: Justification for Regulatory Tightening

The government’s justification for extending the unemployment waiting periods hinges entirely on preserving the long-term purpose of the EPF as a social security instrument.⁸

The primary motivation is preventing premature withdrawals.⁴ By eliminating the two-month exit option, the EPFO seeks to discourage workers, particularly those with transient employment, from treating their EPF balance as short-term severance pay. Data illustrating that 50% of final settlement withdrawals resulted in balances below ₹20,000 provided compelling evidence that the previous system was failing its retirement objective.¹

The extension of the EPS final withdrawal period to 36 months is a targeted measure aimed at ensuring continuity in the scheme, thereby allowing workers to accumulate the 10 years of service necessary to secure a lifetime pension.^{4 The measure ensures that members are not inadvertently foregoing substantial long-term benefits for the sake of immediate, small liquidations. Furthermore, the mandatory 25% minimum balance rule guarantees that even during periods of unemployment, the remaining funds continue to accrue interest at the high rate offered by the EPFO, thereby optimizing retirement corpus growth through compounding.²}

4.2. Public and Legal Critique: The Hardship Argument

The regulatory tightening has drawn sharp condemnation from salaried workers, trade unions, and legal experts, who argue that the policy places undue financial hardship on the unemployed.⁸

4.2.1. The Challenge of Delayed Liquidity

Critics emphasize that the 12-month lock-in for the final 25% of the EPF balance and the three-year lock-in for the EPS corpus could delay access to crucial savings for millions of employees facing extended layoffs or career disruptions.⁸ For workers in low-to-middle income brackets, this delay creates “significant financial strain,” as many rely on their PF balance to cover non-negotiable living expenses such as rent, loan repayments, and medical needs during periods without income.^{8 The new rules mean that individuals must budget for ten additional months of survival without the final quarter of their personal savings buffer, transforming the financial risk associated with unemployment.}

4.2.2. Legal Arguments: Interference with the Right to Earned Income

Legal analysis suggests that the measure raises serious questions concerning the employee’s right to access their own accumulated earnings.⁸ Arguments have been put forth that the restriction could be challenged as “arbitrary and disproportionate” under Articles 14 (Equality before Law) and 300A (Right to Property) of the Constitution.^{8 Lawyers suggest an employee could argue that the imposition of a 12-month restriction on accessing earned, mandatory savings arbitrarily limits their right to livelihood, especially when the funds are needed most during joblessness.⁸}

4.3. Analysis of Legal Viability of Challenges

Despite the strong legal critique, the likelihood of such policy decisions being struck down by the courts is generally low.^{8 Courts typically exercise restraint when reviewing social security and welfare policies designed to protect the broader public good, such as retirement security. For a challenge to succeed, petitioners would likely need to demonstrate that the 12-month delay serves no rational connection to the stated objective of preserving the retirement corpus or that the negative impact is excessively disproportionate to the benefit gained.^{8 Given the demonstrable history of low corpus balances resulting from the previous two-month rule, the government possesses strong empirical evidence to support its position that tightening the rules is rationally connected to achieving the long-term social security objective.}}

V. Taxation Evolution: A Retreat from EEE Status for High Earners

The tax treatment of EPF, historically celebrated for its EEE status, has undergone fundamental changes in recent fiscal years, specifically targeting high-income contributions.

5.1. The Pre-2021 Landscape: Uncapped EEE Status

Before the amendments introduced in the Union Budget of 2021, the EPF enjoyed an uncapped EEE status: contributions were tax-exempt (under Section 80C), the interest earned was tax-exempt, and the final withdrawal amount (after five years of service) was tax-exempt. This encouraged high-income employees to utilize the Voluntary Provident Fund (VPF) component to accumulate large, tax-free corpuses, essentially leveraging EPF for high-interest tax arbitrage, often exceeding genuine retirement income requirements.

5.2. Taxation of Employee Contributions (Post-April 2021)

Effective from the financial year 2021–22, a cap was introduced on the tax-exempt interest accrual on employee contributions.⁵

5.2.1. The ₹2.5 Lakh/₹5 Lakh Threshold Mechanism

Interest accrued or earned on the portion of the employee’s annual EPF contribution that exceeds ₹2.5 lakh is now taxable income in the hands of the employee.⁵

For government employees contributing solely to the General Provident Fund (GPF), the threshold is set higher, at ₹5 lakh.5This shift effectively discourages employees, particularly those making high VPF contributions, from parking large sums in the EPF for tax-free interest, forcing them to model whether the post-tax return justifies the contribution compared to other investment instruments.

5.2.2. Operational Accounting

To facilitate the calculation and taxation of interest, the PF department began maintaining separate accounts for each subscriber starting from FY 2021–22: one dedicated to taxable contributions and one for non-taxable contributions. The interest generated solely within the taxable contribution account is subject to income tax.⁶

5.3. Taxation of Employer Contributions (Post-April 2020)

A separate tax cap, effective from April 1, 2020, addresses combined employer contributions to retirement schemes.¹⁷

5.3.1. The Combined ₹7.5 Lakh Cap

The combined aggregate employer contribution to three key retirement savings vehicles—EPF, National Pension System (NPS), and any Superannuation Funds—is tax-exempt only up to ₹7.5 lakh per annum.^{17 Any amount contributed by the employer exceeding this comprehensive threshold is treated as a taxable perquisite for the employee.¹⁸}

For instance, if the combined employer contribution across these three schemes totals ₹8.5 lakh in a financial year, the excess ₹1 lakh is added to the employee’s taxable salary.¹⁷

5.3.2. Reporting Requirements

The employer is responsible for determining the amount exceeding the ₹7.5 lakh threshold, and this excess amount must be correctly reflected in the employee’s Form 16 as taxable income.⁶

5.4. Current Rules for Premature Withdrawal Taxation

Despite the new rules governing contribution interest, the core taxation rules regarding final withdrawal remain linked to the service period.²

Continuous Service Requirement: If a member withdraws their entire EPF corpus before completing five years of continuous service, the withdrawal amount becomes fully taxable in that financial year.^{19 Crucially, the calculation of the five-year period aggregates service across multiple employers, provided the PF balance was transferred successfully between accounts.¹⁹}
TDS Threshold and Rates:
- If the withdrawal amount is less than ₹50,000, no Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) applies, regardless of the service period.¹⁹
- If the withdrawal amount exceeds ₹50,000 and the service is less than five years, TDS is deducted at a rate of 10% if the Permanent Account Number (PAN) is provided.¹⁹
- If PAN is not provided, the TDS is applied at the maximum marginal rate, currently 20%.¹⁹

VI. Procedural Simplification: The Digital Transformation of EPFO

The feasibility of the restrictive 2025 withdrawal policies is deeply interconnected with the parallel, rapid modernization of the EPFO’s operational mechanisms, which shifted from reliance on manual paperwork to a robust, digital, UAN-based system.

6.1. The UAN Ecosystem: Mandatory KYC and Aadhaar Linkage

The Universal Account Number (UAN) serves as the lynchpin of the digital EPFO ecosystem.⁹ For a member to utilize online withdrawal facilities, it is mandatory for the UAN to be activated and linked with the member’s complete Know Your Customer (KYC) details, including Aadhaar, PAN, bank account information, and IFSC code.⁹

6.2. Elimination of Physical Paperwork and Employer Dependency

6.2.1. Online Claim Filing and Composite Claim Forms

The introduction of the UAN Member e-Sewa portal and the Composite Claim Form (Aadhaar/Non-Aadhaar) streamlined the withdrawal application.^{9 For members who have completed their e-KYC, the online claim process allows for direct submission of Forms 31, 19, and 10C.²² Critically, the Composite Claim Form (Aadhaar) can be submitted directly to the jurisdictional EPFO office without requiring the signature or attestation of the employer, provided the UAN is fully KYC compliant.^{9 This removes a significant bottleneck and source of historical delay in claim processing.²³}}

6.2.2. Streamlining of PF Account Transfers

The process of transferring the existing PF balance when switching jobs has also been simplified through UAN-based automation.^{2 By linking Member IDs and UANs with Aadhaar, the system allows for automated transfers, especially where KYC details are identical.²⁴ This streamlining has been highly effective, with estimates suggesting the elimination of administrative delays previously caused by the employer approval process.^{23 Transferring the corpus is mandatory and essential for maintaining the continuous service record necessary for tax exemption.²}}

6.3. The Auto-Settlement Mechanism: Speed and Scale

The most impactful procedural improvement is the auto-settlement mechanism, which ensures rapid access to funds for eligible partial advances.

6.3.1. 72-Hour Claim Processing Commitment

The system-driven auto-claim settlement process handles partial withdrawal requests digitally, minimizing manual intervention.²⁵ For claims filed under categories such as illness, education, marriage, and housing, the EPFO is committed to settling these claims within three working days (72 hours).²⁵ This rapid disbursement provides crucial financial immediacy, especially during genuine emergencies.

6.3.2. Enhancement of the Auto-Settlement Limit

To maximize the utility of this fast-track process, the auto-settlement limit for advance claims was increased from ₹1 lakh to ₹5 lakh in 2025.^{26 This limit enhancement, building on previous increases (such as raising the illness claim limit to ₹1 lakh in April 2024), allows members to meet substantial, immediate financial obligations, such as major medical procedures or large down payments for educational fees, without bureaucratic delays.²⁶}

The existence of this highly efficient, rapid liquidity channel is essential for the regulatory framework. The ability to process partial withdrawal claims instantly serves as a necessary operational countermeasure to the rigidity introduced by the 12-month final settlement lock-in. By guaranteeing rapid relief for legitimate financial needs, the EPFO strengthens its position that the primary reason for a full withdrawal (i.e., immediate need for large capital) is substantially mitigated, thereby justifying the policy focus on corpus preservation.

VII. Strategic Implications and Professional Recommendations

7.1. Risk Management in Unemployment: The Need for External Liquidity

The most significant strategic implication of the 2025 reforms is the altered risk profile associated with job loss. Employees can no longer rely on the EPF as an immediate, full liquidity parachute. The 12-month EPF lock-in on the final 25% and the three-year lock-in on EPS accumulations necessitate a profound change in personal financial planning.

Financial professionals must now advise clients to build and maintain an external emergency fund (outside of the EPF) capable of covering essential living expenses for at least six to twelve months. Relying on the 75% immediate withdrawal is inadequate, as the remaining 25% often represents a critical buffer during prolonged unemployment, and the total loss of EPS liquidity for three years eliminates another key financial fallback.⁴

7.2. Optimizing EPF for Lifecycle Needs: Leveraging 10x/5x Advances

The liberalization of partial advances transforms the EPF into a more functional mid-life financing tool. Employees should be guided to strategically utilize the enhanced frequency limits (10x for education, 5x for marriage) for planned expenses, rather than viewing these funds as locked capital. Using a rapid, tax-exempt partial advance (available in 72 hours) is significantly more financially prudent than incurring debt via personal loans or credit, especially given the low 12-month minimum service requirement.² This flexibility removes the historical rationale for premature full withdrawal to fund essential lifecycle events.

7.3. Wealth Management Recommendations for High-Income Clients (Tax Arbitrage Alternatives)

For high-income professionals, the new tax environment requires a critical review of contribution strategies. The taxation of interest on employee contributions exceeding ₹2.5 lakh necessitates modeling the true post-tax return on Voluntary Provident Fund (VPF) contributions.^{5 Since the tax shield is removed above this threshold, clients may find greater financial efficacy in diversifying their retirement savings into instruments such as market-linked securities or tax-deferred options like the National Pension System (NPS), especially since the employer contribution cap for NPS is also combined with the EPF limit.^{17 The EPF remains attractive up to the ₹2.5 lakh threshold due to its tax exemption and high fixed-interest rate, but large voluntary contributions beyond this limit require careful scrutiny.}}

7.4. Strategic Comparison of EPF Liquidity Options

The final analysis of the new rules can be distilled into a clear guide on liquidity access under different circumstances:

Table III: Strategic Comparison of EPF Liquidity Options

Scenario	Liquidity Access Limit	Withdrawal Timeline	Tax Implication
Medical Emergency (Advance)	Up to 6 months salary or employee share + interest (whichever is less).²	72 hours (Auto-settlement).²⁶	Tax-exempt.
Higher Education/Housing (Advance)	Varies by purpose (e.g., 50% employee share for education).⁹	72 hours (Auto-settlement).²⁶	Tax-exempt if service > 5 years.¹⁹
Unemployment (Immediate)	75% of total balance.³	Immediate (72 hours via auto-settlement).	Taxable if continuous service is less than 5 years.¹⁹
Unemployment (Final Settlement)	Remaining 25% of EPF balance.	12 months (Continuous unemployment).⁴	Taxable if continuous service is less than 5 years.¹⁹
Unemployment (Pension Corpus)	Accumulated EPS amount (if service < 10 years).	36 months (Continuous unemployment).⁴	Generally tax-exempt if service < 10 years.

Income Tax

Business & Economy

Markets

Company Law