Guest strayhorn Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 Are plan sponsors amending their 457(f) plans now or waiting for issuance of regulations? Eliminating deferrals? Eliminating noncompetes? Adding materially greater benefits? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
QDROphile Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 I imagine that if a sponsor (or the sposor' advisers) were on the edge or ove the line on the law before enactment of section 409A they will do the same under the 409A regime. But flauting the law now is even worse than flauting it then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
J Simmons Posted November 10, 2008 Share Posted November 10, 2008 457f Scoflaws beware! 409A is a bigger hammer. John Simmons johnsimmonslaw@gmail.com Note to Readers: For you, I'm a stranger posting on a bulletin board. Posts here should not be given the same weight as personalized advice from a professional who knows or can learn all the facts of your situation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Tauriffic Posted February 7, 2009 Share Posted February 7, 2009 See IRS Notice 2007-62. IRS will issue 457(f) regs but they will be substantially similar to 409A regs. One major difference to look for is the definitions of a "substantial risk of forfeiture." There was some discussion in the notice that the definition for SRF in the 409A regs may not be applicable to eligible 457 entities and that the 457(f) regs should therefore not include the same definition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest strayhorn Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 See IRS Notice 2007-62. IRS will issue 457(f) regs but they will be substantially similar to 409A regs. One major difference to look for is the definitions of a "substantial risk of forfeiture." There was some discussion in the notice that the definition for SRF in the 409A regs may not be applicable to eligible 457 entities and that the 457(f) regs should therefore not include the same definition. 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