Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

The proposed 409A regulations state that "common law doctrines continue to apply to any such election" to change payment dates under Notice 2005-1, Q&A-19©. Notice 2007-86 extends through 2008 a participant's ability to elect a new payment date for payments due after 2008.

Question: If an account balance plan now provides for only one payment option, which is 60 monthly installments after separation, is there a constructive receipt problem with the employer allowing a current employee to elect in November 2008 to receive either a lump sum in 2009 or three annual installments in 2009-2011?

I don't see the constructive receipt issue. I am familiar with the Martin case.

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 account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use