Do I dare suggest that it's done at least one good thing?

[Lori Friedman]

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.

[E as in ERISA]

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...

[Guest Ben Wells]

Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the lawmakers who wrote 409A were aware of the existence of 457(f) either.

[Lori Friedman]

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.

[E as in ERISA]

Oh, I think that they were very aware of it. They just didn't care.

[david rigby]

To increase the accuracy, shorten the sentence:

"Unfortunately, it doesn't appear that the lawmakers were aware."

[Guest mjb]

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.

[Lori Friedman]

Ben and I were being facetious, not literal.

[E as in ERISA]

I thought that pax' comment covered that!