"I'm hoping to get others' input on the correct standard for the future performance of substantial services under 457(f) for non-elective employer payments. Under section 1.457-12(e)(1)(ii) of the proposed regulations, 'the determination of whether an amount of compensation is conditioned on the future performance of substantial services is based on the relevant facts and circumstances, such as whether the hours required to be performed during the relevant period are substantial in relation to the amount of compensation." There is no minimum vesting period in the proposed regulations or preamble.

When adding to current compensation or extending a substantial risk of forfeiture, proposed regulation 1.457-12(e)(2)(iii) requires performance of at least two years of future substantial services.

Under example 1 in proposed regulation 1.457-12(e)(3), a one-year (January to January) vesting period is implemented, which goes unmentioned as the example is aimed at an insubstantial amount of post-termination consulting services. One would think that if a two-year minimum deferral were required to begin with, the example would not need to resort to measuring the amount of work performed during the one-year period (or would use a longer duration). But the general substantial risk of forfeiture rule only looks at the amount of work performed, not the duration of the future services.

I know there has been a general rule of thumb stemming from section 83 that a minimum two-year deferral period is required to validly delay a substantial risk of forfeiture.

While it may be a matter of degree, I'm interested to hear others' takes on the following, all non-elective employer payments, all outside the short-term deferral date if the substantial risk of forfeiture is deemed not to take hold because it's less than two years:

• On July 1, 2021, employer awards employee a bonus payable on June 30, 2022, provided they remain employed full-time until the date of payment.
• On December 1, 2021, employer awards employee a bonus payable on June 30, 2022, provided they remain employed full-time until the date of payment.
• On December 1, 2021, employer awards employee a bonus payable on June 30, 2023, provided they remain employed full-time until the date of payment.
• On December 1, 2021, employer awards employee two separate bonuses, one payable on June 30, 2022, and one payable on June 30, 2023, provided they remain employed until each separate payment date.
• On December 1, 2021, employer awards employee five separate bonuses, one payable on each succeeding June 30, provided they remain employed until each separate payment date.

Would anyone argue that some or all of these would immediately vest and be taxed on July 1, 2021, or December 1, 2021, as the case may be?'