"I have a governmental client (not state or local, so 457 doesn't apply) that wants to implement a nonqualified plan for an official. Without getting too far into the details, the plan would provide that the basic benefit is $X per year, but that a supplemental benefit of another $X a year is payable if the official doesn't engage in a paid activity (employment or self-employment) for as much as six months of the year. Note that any paid activity (not just employment with the original employer) for six months would eliminate the supplemental benefit for that year. Leaving aside for the moment the question of interpretation (e.g., how do you measure the number of months in the case of self-employment?), does this violate 409A?"