"With the advent of IRS Section 409A and the introduction of certain fair value accounting rules, valuation issues have become increasingly important for start-up companies. In the past, industry specific start-up “rules of thumb” may have been sufficient to serve as reasonable basis for any valuation concern. For example, the “Silicon Valley Rule” holds that the value of a common share is equal to 1/10 of the value of the preferred share pricing in the most recent capital round. While the simplicity of such rules can be appealing, the scrutiny of the IRS, SEC, and your auditors in combination with the potential liability associated with misreporting financial performance make it critical that value be determined and articulated in a credible fashion."
ARTICLE BY B. PATRICK LYNCH HERE
Monday, November 30, 2009
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Student Law Article Re: 409A Correction Program
"This article reviews the current Code §409A(a) correction program and analyzes several issues related to creating the program, including whether the Treasury Department and the Service have legal authority to create it. The first section of this article discusses the history of Code §409A(a) and its requirements. The second section reviews Notice 2007-100 and provides an analysis of several issues related to the Notice. The third section reviews a few authoritative and administrative issues related to the development of the Code §409A(a) correction program. The fourth section suggests measures that should accompany the creation of an effective correction program under Code §409A(a). The fifth and final section provides concluding thoughts on the issues discussed in this article"
Article By Brian A. Benko Here
Article By Brian A. Benko Here
Monday, November 16, 2009
Thursday, November 5, 2009
409A AUDITS COMMENCE
"The Internal Revenue Service ("IRS") has begun auditing companies' compliance with Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code ("Section 409A"). This news may come as an unwelcome surprise to many who were hoping that the complexities and uncertainties of Section 409A might delay the IRS's enforcement efforts until more guidance was available and practices further developed. Information Document Requests ("IDRs") from the IRS to companies undergoing audits reveal that the IRS requires an audited company to disclose details of pay practices that could be subject to Section 409A and also to consider the possible application of Section 409A to these practices."
LINK FROM JONES DAY
Wednesday, November 4, 2009
Franchisors Using 409A Plans to Encourage Franchisee Store Remodeling
"A key provision of 409A allows a manufacturer (franchisor) to sponsor a deferred compensation plan for a service provider or independent contractor (franchisee). The resulting plan enables the franchisee to save up to 100 percent of their franchisee income pre-tax and invest it tax-deferred for the needed remodel. When the date arrives for the remodel, the franchisee takes the distribution and pays ordinary income taxes on the money received. If used for remodeling, which is a business expense, the franchisee may be able to expense it again.
To encourage system-wide participation, the franchisor could even make a matching contribution, or could predicate the match to the franchisee resigning their contract. A vesting provision could be added stating the match be used only for a refresh, remodel, or rebuild.
By sponsoring a tax-favored savings plan and encouraging participation with a match, the franchisor is assured that needed updating will take place on schedule. An updated store assures a consistent, positive customer experience across the system. The franchisor has also contributed to the goodwill of the relationship between franchisor and franchisee. And finally, the franchisee is happy because he or she now has a vehicle to save pre-tax and tax-deferred for a large future expenditure."
ARTICLE HERE
To encourage system-wide participation, the franchisor could even make a matching contribution, or could predicate the match to the franchisee resigning their contract. A vesting provision could be added stating the match be used only for a refresh, remodel, or rebuild.
By sponsoring a tax-favored savings plan and encouraging participation with a match, the franchisor is assured that needed updating will take place on schedule. An updated store assures a consistent, positive customer experience across the system. The franchisor has also contributed to the goodwill of the relationship between franchisor and franchisee. And finally, the franchisee is happy because he or she now has a vehicle to save pre-tax and tax-deferred for a large future expenditure."
ARTICLE HERE
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
xtremErisa Discusses Substantial Risk of Forfeiture Under 457A
Forfeitable Manager Compensation - Here
"A question is bouncing around the market regarding what type of substantial risk of forfeiture is necessary before compensation will be subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. This particular question boils down to the question of whether there needs to be a substantial risk that a service provider will voluntary separate or be terminated in order for that SP to be considered unvested. If the SP is considered unvested, and if the compensation in question is paid while the service requirement continues in place, or immediately after it expires, then the compensation may be a S-TD and Section 457A will, as to that compensation, be much ado about nada."
"A question is bouncing around the market regarding what type of substantial risk of forfeiture is necessary before compensation will be subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. This particular question boils down to the question of whether there needs to be a substantial risk that a service provider will voluntary separate or be terminated in order for that SP to be considered unvested. If the SP is considered unvested, and if the compensation in question is paid while the service requirement continues in place, or immediately after it expires, then the compensation may be a S-TD and Section 457A will, as to that compensation, be much ado about nada."
Sysco Reports Material Accelerated Distributions Under 409A Transition Relief
"The net balances of other long-term liabilities and prepaid pension cost decreased $85,596,000 during the first quarter of fiscal 2010 and decreased $34,507,000 during the first quarter of fiscal 2009. The decrease in the first quarter of fiscal 2010 is primarily attributable to three items....Second, our liability for deferred incentive compensation decreased due to accelerated distributions taken by plan participants of all or a portion of their vested balances pursuant to certain transitional relief under the provisions of Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code...."
Report in 10-Q
News Report
Report in 10-Q
News Report
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Year End Planning Issues for Exec Comp - Includes 409A
Checklist of Year End Executive Compensation Issues
"Of unique importance for the 2009 calendar year, the Notice provides one-time transition relief for non-insiders. Under this transition relief, 2009 will be treated as the immediately following taxable year for correction of operational failures occurring prior to 2008, which should result in less severe tax penalties. In addition, companies should be cognizant that certain general income tax principles may provide opportunities to make same-year corrections to Code Section 409A violations without relying on the Notice for relief. Finally, Code Section 409A regulations occasionally provide relief from certain apparent operational failures. For example, a payment made up to 30 days prior to the scheduled due date may not be treated as a violation of Code Section 409A."
"Of unique importance for the 2009 calendar year, the Notice provides one-time transition relief for non-insiders. Under this transition relief, 2009 will be treated as the immediately following taxable year for correction of operational failures occurring prior to 2008, which should result in less severe tax penalties. In addition, companies should be cognizant that certain general income tax principles may provide opportunities to make same-year corrections to Code Section 409A violations without relying on the Notice for relief. Finally, Code Section 409A regulations occasionally provide relief from certain apparent operational failures. For example, a payment made up to 30 days prior to the scheduled due date may not be treated as a violation of Code Section 409A."
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
ABA and Skadden Get 409A Clarity from IRS
Skadden summarizes 409A Q&A session with IRS
"Annually, the American Bar Association's Joint Committee on Employee Benefits organizes a conference with IRS and Treasury officials to present written questions and proposed responses for reaction from the government panelists. Although the government's responses to these interpretive and practical questions do not constitute official guidance and cannot be relied upon, this year's responses to questions posed by Skadden, Arps and other practitioners help clarify the government's position on some of the difficult questions that remain unanswered by the Treasury regulations under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A relating to taxation of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement."
"Annually, the American Bar Association's Joint Committee on Employee Benefits organizes a conference with IRS and Treasury officials to present written questions and proposed responses for reaction from the government panelists. Although the government's responses to these interpretive and practical questions do not constitute official guidance and cannot be relied upon, this year's responses to questions posed by Skadden, Arps and other practitioners help clarify the government's position on some of the difficult questions that remain unanswered by the Treasury regulations under Internal Revenue Code Section 409A relating to taxation of nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement."
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Monday, October 5, 2009
IRS Says it Will Guide on 457A
Will provide guidance and issue private rulings on 457A.
"The IRS is planning to issue guidance on a number of issues involving Code Sec. 457 deferred compensation plans, officials from Treasury and the IRS indicated. In the meantime, the IRS is issuing private letter rulings and responses to congressional inquiries on hardship issues, grandfathered plans and other concerns, Cheryl Press, a senior attorney with the IRS Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities), stated."
"The IRS is planning to issue guidance on a number of issues involving Code Sec. 457 deferred compensation plans, officials from Treasury and the IRS indicated. In the meantime, the IRS is issuing private letter rulings and responses to congressional inquiries on hardship issues, grandfathered plans and other concerns, Cheryl Press, a senior attorney with the IRS Associate Chief Counsel (Tax Exempt and Government Entities), stated."
Thursday, September 17, 2009
IRS Says Salary Advances May Cause 409A Issue
Hat Tip from Stanley D. Baum - Article Here
"The IRS said that the doctrine of constructive receipt applies to the "salary advances" to employees. Accordingly, an employee would be required to include the amount available as a salary advance in gross income in the earliest open tax year in which the advance was available (even if not taken), and this amount would be subject to income tax withholding at such time as a constructive payment. The IRS continued by saying that, even if there was no constructive receipt, salary advances which an employee is expected to earn through future services are taxed as compensation, and are therefore included in gross income, at the time of receipt. The IRS conceded that an (unspecified) employment tax exception would apply to an employee, so that any advance would not be subject to employment tax. Further, if there is no constructive receipt, the salary advance program causes the Plan to violate IRC Section 409A, due to the permitted off-set feature described above. Apparently, the IRS felt that this offset, which is a pre-employment termination use of amounts deferred under the Plan, causes an acceleration of the payment of deferred compensation by the Plan, and this acceleration violates Section 409A."
IRS Memo
"The IRS said that the doctrine of constructive receipt applies to the "salary advances" to employees. Accordingly, an employee would be required to include the amount available as a salary advance in gross income in the earliest open tax year in which the advance was available (even if not taken), and this amount would be subject to income tax withholding at such time as a constructive payment. The IRS continued by saying that, even if there was no constructive receipt, salary advances which an employee is expected to earn through future services are taxed as compensation, and are therefore included in gross income, at the time of receipt. The IRS conceded that an (unspecified) employment tax exception would apply to an employee, so that any advance would not be subject to employment tax. Further, if there is no constructive receipt, the salary advance program causes the Plan to violate IRC Section 409A, due to the permitted off-set feature described above. Apparently, the IRS felt that this offset, which is a pre-employment termination use of amounts deferred under the Plan, causes an acceleration of the payment of deferred compensation by the Plan, and this acceleration violates Section 409A."
IRS Memo
Friday, August 21, 2009
Correcting 409A Failures
Interesting/Contraversial Article Regarding Correcting Failures and Mistakes
"In Part Two, we explore how to correct failures
when the notice’s program is unavailable. We suspect
these will be legion. The IRS might not think that
correction outside the notice is permitted. If this is
their view, we do not agree. The IRS’s narrow view
appears based on the notice’s underlying and, we
believe, mistaken theory of section 409A. We set forth
a better view of section 409A, one more consistent
with the statute and regulations, and based on traditional
concepts of income receipt. On the basis of this
preferred view, we explore how 409A operational
failures might be corrected using rescission doctrine,
the longstanding rule of Couch v. Commissioner, and
other theories of income receipt derived from the case
law. The difference between these two opposing theories
of section 409A will underlie this and no doubt
other disputes about section 409A compliance and
administration for years to come."
"In Part Two, we explore how to correct failures
when the notice’s program is unavailable. We suspect
these will be legion. The IRS might not think that
correction outside the notice is permitted. If this is
their view, we do not agree. The IRS’s narrow view
appears based on the notice’s underlying and, we
believe, mistaken theory of section 409A. We set forth
a better view of section 409A, one more consistent
with the statute and regulations, and based on traditional
concepts of income receipt. On the basis of this
preferred view, we explore how 409A operational
failures might be corrected using rescission doctrine,
the longstanding rule of Couch v. Commissioner, and
other theories of income receipt derived from the case
law. The difference between these two opposing theories
of section 409A will underlie this and no doubt
other disputes about section 409A compliance and
administration for years to come."
Tuesday, August 18, 2009
Supreme Court Will Hear Case on Executive Pay
"The Supreme Court will hear the case this fall, as anger over huge bonuses paid to the executives of failing companies continues to grow. The case, Jones v. Harris Associates, may turn out to be the court’s first significant statement on the corporate culture that helped lead to the Great Recession."
Link
Link
Monday, August 17, 2009
"Ignorning 409A" Chosen Top "Classic and Costly" Mistake for Start-ups
"The introduction of this element of 409A has dramatically changed the practices of private start up company boards who historically had priced options using their business judgment and some simple rules of thumb based on discounts from the most recent preferred stock price."
LINK
LINK
Monday, July 27, 2009
Backdating Returns to Spotlight; IRS GC Memorandum
Link from CFO Magazine
"The IRS legal memorandum, AM 2009-006, released on July 6, 2009, addresses the issue of whether the compensation emanating from these discounted options constitutes "qualified performance based compensation." The answer is an unequivocal no...
Whether a stock option satisfies the requirements of Regulation Section 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) is determined as of the date of grant of the option. The regulations do not provide a mechanism to retroactively reprice an option to transform compensation resulting from the exercise of the option into performance based compensation. Because the compensation arising from the option grants in this case was not based solely on an increase in the price of the stock after the grant date, none of the compensation attributable to the options in question was qualified performance based compensation."
Link to IRS GC Memo
"The IRS legal memorandum, AM 2009-006, released on July 6, 2009, addresses the issue of whether the compensation emanating from these discounted options constitutes "qualified performance based compensation." The answer is an unequivocal no...
Whether a stock option satisfies the requirements of Regulation Section 1.162-27(e)(2)(vi)(A) is determined as of the date of grant of the option. The regulations do not provide a mechanism to retroactively reprice an option to transform compensation resulting from the exercise of the option into performance based compensation. Because the compensation arising from the option grants in this case was not based solely on an increase in the price of the stock after the grant date, none of the compensation attributable to the options in question was qualified performance based compensation."
Link to IRS GC Memo
Wednesday, July 15, 2009
Is it Still Possible to Fix Unvested Arrangements?
Article suggests that it is not too late to fix arrangements if they are not yet vested.
Link From ComplianceWeek
"In most cases, an employer with a plan document failure can only report the violation, fix the problem so that it doesn’t affect any future deferrals, and possibly make a tax gross-up payment to an employee who gets hit with the tax, penalty, and interest for a violation. However, the authors note that employers may have a limited opportunity to correct errors for certain types of non-compliant plans that impose vesting conditions, such as severance arrangements."
Link From ComplianceWeek
"In most cases, an employer with a plan document failure can only report the violation, fix the problem so that it doesn’t affect any future deferrals, and possibly make a tax gross-up payment to an employee who gets hit with the tax, penalty, and interest for a violation. However, the authors note that employers may have a limited opportunity to correct errors for certain types of non-compliant plans that impose vesting conditions, such as severance arrangements."
Wednesday, July 1, 2009
Law Article Discusses 409A
Article by Joy Mullane of Villanova Law Review Article discusses regulation of Executive Compensation through the tax code, including 409A.
"Section 409A was also enacted in response to popular sentiment. The public was in an uproar over Enron’s pay practices in general and its deferred compensation practices in particular. Enron’s deferred compensation practices allowed executives to access their retirement plans and deplete Enron’s assets while rank-and-file employees were locked out of accessing their retirement plans. In response, Congress enacted section 409A to discourage companies from establishing nonqualified deferred compensation plans that would allow an executive to have a significant degree of control over amounts deferred. While it is too early to make any certain claims regarding section 409A, prior experience suggests that it will share the experience of its predecessors and thus do little to prevent executives from finding a way around the rules to whatever end they desire, or else their employers will pay any imposed penalties."
"Section 409A was also enacted in response to popular sentiment. The public was in an uproar over Enron’s pay practices in general and its deferred compensation practices in particular. Enron’s deferred compensation practices allowed executives to access their retirement plans and deplete Enron’s assets while rank-and-file employees were locked out of accessing their retirement plans. In response, Congress enacted section 409A to discourage companies from establishing nonqualified deferred compensation plans that would allow an executive to have a significant degree of control over amounts deferred. While it is too early to make any certain claims regarding section 409A, prior experience suggests that it will share the experience of its predecessors and thus do little to prevent executives from finding a way around the rules to whatever end they desire, or else their employers will pay any imposed penalties."
Friday, June 19, 2009
Stock Option Exchange Programs
Stock Option Exchange Programs (a.k.a. "repricings") on the Rise
From Footnoted.org: "A quick scan of Edgar shows that the pace of companies offering stock option exchange programs seems to be accelerating. We counted over 80 filings that mentioned stock option exchange programs in June 2009, compared to just 11 filings in 2008. Granted, many of those are multiple filings for the same company. Still, it’s hard to ignore the fact that option exchange programs seem to have really taken off lately."
Note on Legal and 409A Issues
From JP Morgan: "The final regulations indicate that such a re-pricing not below the fair market value of the stock on the date of the re-pricing will not, by itself, cause the program to be subject to 409A. Instead, it is treated as a new award exempt from 409A."
From Footnoted.org: "A quick scan of Edgar shows that the pace of companies offering stock option exchange programs seems to be accelerating. We counted over 80 filings that mentioned stock option exchange programs in June 2009, compared to just 11 filings in 2008. Granted, many of those are multiple filings for the same company. Still, it’s hard to ignore the fact that option exchange programs seem to have really taken off lately."
Note on Legal and 409A Issues
From JP Morgan: "The final regulations indicate that such a re-pricing not below the fair market value of the stock on the date of the re-pricing will not, by itself, cause the program to be subject to 409A. Instead, it is treated as a new award exempt from 409A."
Friday, June 5, 2009
Friday, May 29, 2009
Update on Costs and Practices for 409A Valuations
"Who's Doing 409A Valuations These Days?" From William Carleton, Esq.
"Industry practice is currently in flux right now. Generally speaking, early stage companies that are not venture backed are by and large not hiring independent valuation firms and instead are determining FMV in other ways. Venture backed companies, on the other hand, still appear to seek the extra comfort of an outside appraisal (depending on your point of view, this reflects an appropriately professional prudence, little different than insisting a startup purchase D&O insurance; or else it reflects an aversion to exposure of firm members who would appear to be qualified, under 409A, as persons “with significant knowledge and experience” at valuations). As Davis Wright attorney Joe Wallin points out on his firm’s startup blog, third party appraisals are not required. At the same time, a formal valuation may be better at shifting the burden to the IRS to prove that a particular valuation is not reasonable. Prices for such appraisals, at least from the “cottage industry” shops and programs, have come down now, within a range of from $3000 to $7000 (some of these providers will commit to doing annual updates at a lower rate). That’s still a lot for most startups to spend these days. And there’s also a question as to whether some investors will respect valuations from some of the lower end providers."
"Industry practice is currently in flux right now. Generally speaking, early stage companies that are not venture backed are by and large not hiring independent valuation firms and instead are determining FMV in other ways. Venture backed companies, on the other hand, still appear to seek the extra comfort of an outside appraisal (depending on your point of view, this reflects an appropriately professional prudence, little different than insisting a startup purchase D&O insurance; or else it reflects an aversion to exposure of firm members who would appear to be qualified, under 409A, as persons “with significant knowledge and experience” at valuations). As Davis Wright attorney Joe Wallin points out on his firm’s startup blog, third party appraisals are not required. At the same time, a formal valuation may be better at shifting the burden to the IRS to prove that a particular valuation is not reasonable. Prices for such appraisals, at least from the “cottage industry” shops and programs, have come down now, within a range of from $3000 to $7000 (some of these providers will commit to doing annual updates at a lower rate). That’s still a lot for most startups to spend these days. And there’s also a question as to whether some investors will respect valuations from some of the lower end providers."
Wednesday, May 27, 2009
More from NFL on Compensation and Benefits (off topic)
Indy Colts and Peyton Manning run into ERISA Issues
"And that seems to be precisely what Mudd and Moore would be doing, based on this quote from Kennan: “As long as Howard and Tom pay their own taxes for the next six months, they can return to the Colts as paid consultants, I’d say effective right away, based on what the ERISA attorney just told me.”
The “ERISA attorney,” however, is merely a private specialist in the field of benefits law. The U.S. government might disagree with this approach, either as it relates to the lump-sum pension payments that Mudd and Moore have taken, or as it relates to the Colts’ likely intention to treat them as independent contractors, and to not withhold taxes (and not make matching FICA and FUTA payments) from their pay.
Bottom line? Like most things that seem too good to be true because they are, retiring on paper for the purposes of taking advantage of the pension laws likely entails a procedure far more complex than walking out the door one day as an “employee” and returning the next morning as a “consultant.”
"And that seems to be precisely what Mudd and Moore would be doing, based on this quote from Kennan: “As long as Howard and Tom pay their own taxes for the next six months, they can return to the Colts as paid consultants, I’d say effective right away, based on what the ERISA attorney just told me.”
The “ERISA attorney,” however, is merely a private specialist in the field of benefits law. The U.S. government might disagree with this approach, either as it relates to the lump-sum pension payments that Mudd and Moore have taken, or as it relates to the Colts’ likely intention to treat them as independent contractors, and to not withhold taxes (and not make matching FICA and FUTA payments) from their pay.
Bottom line? Like most things that seem too good to be true because they are, retiring on paper for the purposes of taking advantage of the pension laws likely entails a procedure far more complex than walking out the door one day as an “employee” and returning the next morning as a “consultant.”
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
