LINK From JP Morgan
"Both sections 409A and 457A will, in some cases, apply to the same nonqualified deferred compensation. When this occurs with regard to short-term deferrals, taxes under 457A will be considered a payment under both sections. And, in general, until Treasury and the IRS provide us with further guidance, taxes on earnings under 457A will be considered to pay the taxes under 409A as well."
Monday, April 20, 2009
Thursday, April 16, 2009
Further Reflections On NFL Tax Issues and 409A
From the National Football Post
"Since almost every NFL signing bonus of any significance is paid out over a period of at least a couple of years, 409A could have had dramatic consequences if the full value of these deferred payments could be taxed in the year negotiated, not earned, potentially affecting tens of thousands of dollars, even hundreds of thousands, depending on the size of the contracts. Those affected contracts were brought into compliance through language vetted by the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA to allow for the taxation of deferred guaranteed money in the year of receipt rather than in the year of negotiation of the contract. So the problem was solved, although not without additional headaches for players’ tax advisers."
"Since almost every NFL signing bonus of any significance is paid out over a period of at least a couple of years, 409A could have had dramatic consequences if the full value of these deferred payments could be taxed in the year negotiated, not earned, potentially affecting tens of thousands of dollars, even hundreds of thousands, depending on the size of the contracts. Those affected contracts were brought into compliance through language vetted by the NFL Management Council and the NFLPA to allow for the taxation of deferred guaranteed money in the year of receipt rather than in the year of negotiation of the contract. So the problem was solved, although not without additional headaches for players’ tax advisers."
Friday, April 10, 2009
ERISA Industry Committee Seeking Changes to 409A Regulations
ERIC Files Comment Letter
Sends Attorney to Testify on Proposed Changes
Comment Letter
"The comments are divided into the following six general topics:
Assumptions for calculating amounts deferred;
The date as of which amounts deferred during a taxable year must be calculated;
Safe harbors to calculate the premium interest tax;
Determining whether a previously included amount has been permanently forfeited or otherwise lost;
Code Y reporting; and
Other miscellaneous issues."
Sends Attorney to Testify on Proposed Changes
Comment Letter
"The comments are divided into the following six general topics:
Assumptions for calculating amounts deferred;
The date as of which amounts deferred during a taxable year must be calculated;
Safe harbors to calculate the premium interest tax;
Determining whether a previously included amount has been permanently forfeited or otherwise lost;
Code Y reporting; and
Other miscellaneous issues."
Friday, April 3, 2009
409A Deferred Comp Plans in Bankruptcy
Rethinking Executive Comp Plans When Cash is Tight
"As the U.S. economy sinks deeper into recession, cash-strapped small business are confronting tough decisions about the life insurance-funded, non-qualified executive compensation packages they’ve established to reward and retain their top talent. To ease the financial strain on their balance sheets, sources tell National Underwriter, firms may need to explore a range of options, from restructuring the plans to a suspension of funding. For many, the one option that isn’t available is to do nothing."
"As the U.S. economy sinks deeper into recession, cash-strapped small business are confronting tough decisions about the life insurance-funded, non-qualified executive compensation packages they’ve established to reward and retain their top talent. To ease the financial strain on their balance sheets, sources tell National Underwriter, firms may need to explore a range of options, from restructuring the plans to a suspension of funding. For many, the one option that isn’t available is to do nothing."
Thursday, April 2, 2009
Follow Up On NFL Compensation Issues (off topic)
Law Review Article Discussing Sign On Bonus Tax Issues and Solutions
Do NFL Signing Bonuses Carry a Substantial Risk of Forfeiture within the Meaning of Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code?
Do NFL Signing Bonuses Carry a Substantial Risk of Forfeiture within the Meaning of Section 83 of the Internal Revenue Code?
Tuesday, March 31, 2009
NY Bar Responds to IRS Request for Comments on 409A Documentary Noncompliance
Responds to IRS Notice 2008-113
NY Bar Link
"[W]e propose below a three-pronged program. The first would set out specific, narrowly targeted types of violations which may be viewed as presenting a low probability of abuse and which we therefore view as appropriate for inclusion in a list of correctable violations. The second would relate to those circumstances in which errors are quickly discovered and corrected. The third involves the establishment of a policy of prospective enforcement and liberal transitional relief to allow taxpayers to adapt to new authorities interpreting Section 409A or changes in enforcement approach. Our proposals are intended to facilitate the establishment of a program consistent with Treasury's and the IRS's two identified general principles, while also addressing over the course of our discussion below the seven issues specifically identified by Treasury and the IRS for comment."
NY Bar Link
"[W]e propose below a three-pronged program. The first would set out specific, narrowly targeted types of violations which may be viewed as presenting a low probability of abuse and which we therefore view as appropriate for inclusion in a list of correctable violations. The second would relate to those circumstances in which errors are quickly discovered and corrected. The third involves the establishment of a policy of prospective enforcement and liberal transitional relief to allow taxpayers to adapt to new authorities interpreting Section 409A or changes in enforcement approach. Our proposals are intended to facilitate the establishment of a program consistent with Treasury's and the IRS's two identified general principles, while also addressing over the course of our discussion below the seven issues specifically identified by Treasury and the IRS for comment."
Friday, March 20, 2009
409A Too Hard For Law School
From The Conglomerate
"I'm trying to design an executive compensation syllabus. I hope the course accomplishes two things: getting students who are generally interested in the subject (and who isn't these days) thinking in a more rigorous way and preparing (a subset of) students to actually practice in the field. In fleshing out the syllabus, I've run up against a problem - Section 409A of the IRC which establishes rules for deferred compensation. 409A is perhaps the most important topic for compensation lawyers today, touching almost everything that they do. On the other hand, 409A is probably not such a big deal to the general audience. Moreover, the regulations are incredibly convoluted even by Treasury's standards (for just a taste, see Michael Doran's summary (hat tip: Paul Caron)). The rules are so difficult that they've even inspired a blog called 409A Dismay."
"I'm trying to design an executive compensation syllabus. I hope the course accomplishes two things: getting students who are generally interested in the subject (and who isn't these days) thinking in a more rigorous way and preparing (a subset of) students to actually practice in the field. In fleshing out the syllabus, I've run up against a problem - Section 409A of the IRC which establishes rules for deferred compensation. 409A is perhaps the most important topic for compensation lawyers today, touching almost everything that they do. On the other hand, 409A is probably not such a big deal to the general audience. Moreover, the regulations are incredibly convoluted even by Treasury's standards (for just a taste, see Michael Doran's summary (hat tip: Paul Caron)). The rules are so difficult that they've even inspired a blog called 409A Dismay."
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
American Indian Tribe to Vote on Whether or Not to Comply with 409A
Friday, February 27, 2009
Friday, February 13, 2009
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
IRS Undecided About 409A Document Correction Program
Persons will document failures would be in better position to amend that Persons in compliance.
"Catherine Creech, principal, Ernst & Young LLP, Washington, D.C., who moderated the program, noted that a plan failure is not technically a violation of Code Sec. 409A if all of the deferred amounts are nonvested. Tackney responded that there is technically a violation, but that nothing is included in income, so there are not tax consequences. He indicated that the plan could be corrected in the current year if the nonvested amounts will not vest until a later year.
Morrison contrasted Code Sec. 409A with Code Sec. 457A . Under the latter provision, deferred amounts are not taxable if the amount is not determinable, she said. For example, an amount payable under a formula based on future profits might be vested but not taxable until the formula is applied. However, under Code Sec. 409A , the taxable amounts have to be estimated, if necessary, in the case of a violation. She said that this treatment reflects a congressional stance that does not favor nonqualified deferred compensation plans and requires inclusion at the earliest time."
"Catherine Creech, principal, Ernst & Young LLP, Washington, D.C., who moderated the program, noted that a plan failure is not technically a violation of Code Sec. 409A if all of the deferred amounts are nonvested. Tackney responded that there is technically a violation, but that nothing is included in income, so there are not tax consequences. He indicated that the plan could be corrected in the current year if the nonvested amounts will not vest until a later year.
Morrison contrasted Code Sec. 409A with Code Sec. 457A . Under the latter provision, deferred amounts are not taxable if the amount is not determinable, she said. For example, an amount payable under a formula based on future profits might be vested but not taxable until the formula is applied. However, under Code Sec. 409A , the taxable amounts have to be estimated, if necessary, in the case of a violation. She said that this treatment reflects a congressional stance that does not favor nonqualified deferred compensation plans and requires inclusion at the earliest time."
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
More Dismay from 457A
Unanswered Questions Abound - From D&T
"Notice 2009-8 provides helpful information on compliance with IRC § 457A. Application of this section in practice, however, may be complicated for multinational corporations with operations and subsidiaries in different jurisdictions, including corporations that have a US corporation as the parent entity, and for tiered partnerships."
"Notice 2009-8 provides helpful information on compliance with IRC § 457A. Application of this section in practice, however, may be complicated for multinational corporations with operations and subsidiaries in different jurisdictions, including corporations that have a US corporation as the parent entity, and for tiered partnerships."
Thursday, February 5, 2009
Law Prof Blasts 409A - Should be Scuttled
Supports Curbs on CEO "Pirates" - But 409A Misses the Mark - Hurts All Except CEOs
Article Here
"The Pirates Will Party On! The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Rules Will Not Prevent CEOs from Acting Like Plundering Pirates and Should Be Scuttled." William A. Drennan, Southern Illinois University School of Law
Abstract
The government went off course when it attempted to stop outrageous CEO compensation schemes with new income tax rules on nonqualfied deferred compensation. IRC Section 409A should be scuttled.
Suggested Citation
William A. Drennan. 2008. "The Pirates Will Party On! The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Rules Will Not Prevent CEOs from Acting Like Plundering Pirates and Should Be Scuttled"
"CEOs and their sidekicks resemble swashbuckling pirates emptying the coffers of vulnerable prey. Although some argue that CEOs, like professional athletes, must be worth their compensation or corporations would not pay it, structural deficiencies at publicly held corporations impede natural market forces. A Delaware Chancery Court judge stated, “executive compensation seems . . . to have come spectacularly unhinged from the market for corporate talent.”"
Article Here
"The Pirates Will Party On! The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Rules Will Not Prevent CEOs from Acting Like Plundering Pirates and Should Be Scuttled." William A. Drennan, Southern Illinois University School of Law
Abstract
The government went off course when it attempted to stop outrageous CEO compensation schemes with new income tax rules on nonqualfied deferred compensation. IRC Section 409A should be scuttled.
Suggested Citation
William A. Drennan. 2008. "The Pirates Will Party On! The Nonqualified Deferred Compensation Rules Will Not Prevent CEOs from Acting Like Plundering Pirates and Should Be Scuttled"
"CEOs and their sidekicks resemble swashbuckling pirates emptying the coffers of vulnerable prey. Although some argue that CEOs, like professional athletes, must be worth their compensation or corporations would not pay it, structural deficiencies at publicly held corporations impede natural market forces. A Delaware Chancery Court judge stated, “executive compensation seems . . . to have come spectacularly unhinged from the market for corporate talent.”"
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
409A Does Not Require A Professional Valuation
Internal valuation is permitted, although the burden of evidence shifts.
"That is not to say that an independent appraisal may not be advisable or worthwhile. In fact, if done in the manner specified in the final regulations, a valuation will create a presumption that the valuation of the stock reflects the fair market value of the stock, which presumption is only rebuttable by a showing that the valuation is grossly unreasonably."
"That is not to say that an independent appraisal may not be advisable or worthwhile. In fact, if done in the manner specified in the final regulations, a valuation will create a presumption that the valuation of the stock reflects the fair market value of the stock, which presumption is only rebuttable by a showing that the valuation is grossly unreasonably."
Monday, January 26, 2009
Friday, January 23, 2009
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Tax Pros Make Grim Predictions for Companies that Missed 409A Deadline
Companies may need to offer employees cash make-whole bonuses, or face litigation.
"“If I’m an employee who for whatever reason is assessed a penalty because their employer did not meet 409A requirements, about the only remedy at this point — assuming that employer is willing because they might not have responsibility or liability — is to bonus the employee to cover the penalty and income tax from the bonus itself,” said Sonia Agee, a tax attorney at Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel Inc. in San Jose."
"“If I’m an employee who for whatever reason is assessed a penalty because their employer did not meet 409A requirements, about the only remedy at this point — assuming that employer is willing because they might not have responsibility or liability — is to bonus the employee to cover the penalty and income tax from the bonus itself,” said Sonia Agee, a tax attorney at Hoge, Fenton, Jones & Appel Inc. in San Jose."
Monday, January 19, 2009
Wednesday, January 14, 2009
D.C. Insider Believes More Dismay for Executives in 2009
409A Draconian; More Compensation Legislation Coming
"First, Mr. Iwry discussed the near future of executive compensation legislation. After providing the great truism, “it is easier to afflict the comfortable than to comfort the afflicted,” Mr. Iwry explained how it is likely that Congress has yet to finish punishing executives for earning money. While providing no opinion as to whether limiting executive compensation is a laudable goal, Mr. Iwry was simply making the point that it is easier for Congress to hinder the rich through policy changes than it is to make life better for other. Certainly, it is easier to garner support from their constituents for such work. Therefore, despite the recent effectiveness of the Draconian 409A requirements, more is still to come. Ironically, around the time Mr. Iwry was talking , Barney Frank was introducing legislation to further limit executive compensation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act."
"First, Mr. Iwry discussed the near future of executive compensation legislation. After providing the great truism, “it is easier to afflict the comfortable than to comfort the afflicted,” Mr. Iwry explained how it is likely that Congress has yet to finish punishing executives for earning money. While providing no opinion as to whether limiting executive compensation is a laudable goal, Mr. Iwry was simply making the point that it is easier for Congress to hinder the rich through policy changes than it is to make life better for other. Certainly, it is easier to garner support from their constituents for such work. Therefore, despite the recent effectiveness of the Draconian 409A requirements, more is still to come. Ironically, around the time Mr. Iwry was talking , Barney Frank was introducing legislation to further limit executive compensation under the Emergency Economic Stabilization Act."
Monday, January 12, 2009
457A Dismay
Section 457A
From Plan Advisor:
Included in the guidance are answers to (and some examples of ) the following:
What is a nonqualified deferred compensation plan for purposes of § 457A?
What is a substantial risk of forfeiture for purposes of § 457A?
What is a short-term deferral for purposes of § 457A (a § 457A short-term deferral)?
To which types of service providers does § 457A apply?
What is a nonqualified entity for purposes of § 457A?
How is it determined whether an entity is a foreign corporation or a partnership for purposes of determining whether an entity is a nonqualified entity under § 457A?
How is it determined whether substantially all of a foreign corporation’s income is subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax?
How is it determined whether substantially all of a foreign corporation’s income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States?
When is a foreign person eligible for the benefits of a comprehensive income tax treaty for purposes of § 457A?
How is it determined whether substantially all of a partnership’s income for a taxable year is allocated to persons other than (A) foreign persons with respect to whom such income is not subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax and (B) organizations which are exempt from tax under Title 26 of the United States Code?
Does § 457A apply to deferred compensation that would have been deductible against income of a foreign corporation which is taxable under § 882 if the compensation had been paid in cash on the date that such compensation ceased to be subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture?
When is the determination made whether an entity is a nonqualified entity?
How is it determined whether a nonqualified deferred compensation plan is a plan of a nonqualified entity?
Does § 457A apply to a right to earnings on deferred compensation that is subject to § 457A?
How is the amount includible in income under § 457A determined?
If an amount is included in gross income under § 457A before the amount is paid to the service provider, is the amount also includible in income when the amount is paid to the service provider?
If an amount is included in income under § 457A before the amount is paid to the service provider, and before such amount is paid the right to the amount is forfeited or otherwise permanently lost, is the service provider entitled to a loss?
When is the deferred amount to which a service provider is entitled treated as not determinable for purposes of § 457A?
When is a deferred amount that is treated as not determinable at the time that the compensation is otherwise includible in gross income under § 457A required to be included in income?
What additional taxes apply to a deferred amount that is treated as not determinable at the time that the compensation is otherwise includible in gross income under § 457A?
What is the effective date of § 457A?
For purposes of applying the effective date, how are the periods of service to which the compensation is attributable determined?
How does § 457A coordinate with § 409A?
What transition rules apply under § 409A with respect to amounts covered by § 457A that are attributable to services performed before January 1, 2009?
What transition rules apply under § 409A with respect to amounts covered by § 457A that are attributable to services performed after December 31, 2008?
What transition rules apply under § 409A with respect to certain back-to-back arrangements attributable to services performed before January 1, 2009?
From Plan Advisor:
Included in the guidance are answers to (and some examples of ) the following:
What is a nonqualified deferred compensation plan for purposes of § 457A?
What is a substantial risk of forfeiture for purposes of § 457A?
What is a short-term deferral for purposes of § 457A (a § 457A short-term deferral)?
To which types of service providers does § 457A apply?
What is a nonqualified entity for purposes of § 457A?
How is it determined whether an entity is a foreign corporation or a partnership for purposes of determining whether an entity is a nonqualified entity under § 457A?
How is it determined whether substantially all of a foreign corporation’s income is subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax?
How is it determined whether substantially all of a foreign corporation’s income is effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business in the United States?
When is a foreign person eligible for the benefits of a comprehensive income tax treaty for purposes of § 457A?
How is it determined whether substantially all of a partnership’s income for a taxable year is allocated to persons other than (A) foreign persons with respect to whom such income is not subject to a comprehensive foreign income tax and (B) organizations which are exempt from tax under Title 26 of the United States Code?
Does § 457A apply to deferred compensation that would have been deductible against income of a foreign corporation which is taxable under § 882 if the compensation had been paid in cash on the date that such compensation ceased to be subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture?
When is the determination made whether an entity is a nonqualified entity?
How is it determined whether a nonqualified deferred compensation plan is a plan of a nonqualified entity?
Does § 457A apply to a right to earnings on deferred compensation that is subject to § 457A?
How is the amount includible in income under § 457A determined?
If an amount is included in gross income under § 457A before the amount is paid to the service provider, is the amount also includible in income when the amount is paid to the service provider?
If an amount is included in income under § 457A before the amount is paid to the service provider, and before such amount is paid the right to the amount is forfeited or otherwise permanently lost, is the service provider entitled to a loss?
When is the deferred amount to which a service provider is entitled treated as not determinable for purposes of § 457A?
When is a deferred amount that is treated as not determinable at the time that the compensation is otherwise includible in gross income under § 457A required to be included in income?
What additional taxes apply to a deferred amount that is treated as not determinable at the time that the compensation is otherwise includible in gross income under § 457A?
What is the effective date of § 457A?
For purposes of applying the effective date, how are the periods of service to which the compensation is attributable determined?
How does § 457A coordinate with § 409A?
What transition rules apply under § 409A with respect to amounts covered by § 457A that are attributable to services performed before January 1, 2009?
What transition rules apply under § 409A with respect to amounts covered by § 457A that are attributable to services performed after December 31, 2008?
What transition rules apply under § 409A with respect to certain back-to-back arrangements attributable to services performed before January 1, 2009?
Thursday, January 8, 2009
Law Professor Blasts 409A - Questions Enforceability
Professor Drennan notes that 409A is "complex and bizarre" and will impose heavy burdens on small business, charities and their employees; contributes to the erosion of voluntary compliance with tax laws. 40 U. Tol. L. Rev. 53 (2008).
Prof. Drennan.
Hat tip to Roth, CPA.
Hat tip to Tax Prof.
Prof. Drennan.
Hat tip to Roth, CPA.
Hat tip to Tax Prof.
Wednesday, January 7, 2009
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
