Lori Friedman Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 From 1978 - 2004, some lawyers were completely unaware of Sec. 457(f)'s existence. These individuals would create nonqualified arrangements for their tax-exempt clients, using the same documents and language as they would for taxable clients (i.e. no substantial risk of forfeiture). Thanks to Sec. 409A, people are now becoming educated about Sec. 457(f). That's at least one good result of the new law. Anyone else who's ever discovered or had to clean up a Sec. 457(f) mess would probably agree. Lori Friedman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E as in ERISA Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 That doesn't make me feel good. I think that it's difficult to explain to knowledgeable persons how 409A and 457(f) jointly apply to a plan. I can't imagine these guys are going to get it... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Ben Wells Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the lawmakers who wrote 409A were aware of the existence of 457(f) either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Friedman Posted January 10, 2006 Author Share Posted January 10, 2006 Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the lawmakers who wrote 409A were aware of the existence of 457(f) either. Ben, you make a very good point. Lori Friedman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E as in ERISA Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 Oh, I think that they were very aware of it. They just didn't care. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
david rigby Posted January 10, 2006 Share Posted January 10, 2006 To increase the accuracy, shorten the sentence: "Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the lawmakers were aware." I'm a retirement actuary. Nothing about my comments is intended or should be construed as investment, tax, legal or accounting advice. Occasionally, but not all the time, it might be reasonable to interpret my comments as actuarial or consulting advice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest mjb Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 They were aware of it because the Conference Agreement modified the house bill to exempt 457(b) plans from 409A. There are specific references in the conference agreement to the tax issues for 457(f) plans under 409A. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lori Friedman Posted January 11, 2006 Author Share Posted January 11, 2006 Ben and I were being facetious, not literal. Lori Friedman Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E as in ERISA Posted January 11, 2006 Share Posted January 11, 2006 I thought that pax' comment covered that! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now