ERISA Services, Inc.
Plumbers Local Union No. 1 Benefit Funds
Pension Rights Center
RTD Financial Advisors
Retirement Plan Consultants
Farmer & Betts, Inc.
Retirement Industry Trust Association (RITA)
Hochheiser Deutsch & Co, Inc.
Kentucky Trust Company
Loren D. Stark Company
Nicholas Pension Consultants
EPIC Retirement Plan Services
“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
|The Correct Standard for the Future Performance of Substantial Services Under 457(f) for Non-Elective Employer Payments|
BenefitsLink Message Boards
June 9, 2021
"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:
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?'
|Please click here to report this link if it is broken (for example, if you see a "404 File Not Found" error message after you click on the link above).|
|An important word about authorship: BenefitsLink® is providing a hypertext link to the item shown above, but is not the author of the item (unless otherwise specified).|