FICA Tax On Nonqualified Deferred Compensation

 

One of the accountants brought me what she considered an unusual W-2.

Using accounting slang, Form W-2 box 1 income is the number you include on your income tax return. Box 3 income is the amount on which you paid social security tax.  There often is a difference. A common reason is a 401(k) deferral – you pay social security tax but not income tax on the 401(k) contribution.

She had seen fact pattern that a thousand times. What caught her eye was that the difference between box 1 and box 3 income was much too large to just be a 401(k). 

Enter the world of nonqualified deferred compensation.

What is it?

Let’s analyze the term backwards:

·      It is compensation, meaning that there is (or was) an employment relationship.

·      There is a lag in the payment. It might be that the employee wants the lag; it might be that the employer wants the lag. A common example of the latter is a handcuff: the employee gets a bonus for remaining with the company a while.

·       The arrangement does not meet the requirements of standardized deferred compensation plans, such as a profit-sharing or 401(k) plan. You have one of those and tax Code requires to you include certain things and exclude others. That standardization is what makes the plan “qualified.”

A common type of nonqual (yep, that is what we call it) is a SERP – supplemental executive retirement plan. Get to be a big cheese at a big company (think Proctor & Gamble or FedEx) and you probably have a SERP as part of your compensation package.

I wish I had those problems. Not a big company. Not a big cheese.

Let’s give our mister big cheese a name: Gouda.

Gouda has a nonqual.

The taxation of a nonqual is a bit nonintuitive: the FICA taxation does not necessarily coincide with its income taxation.

Let’s run through an example. Gouda has a SERP. It vests at one point in time- say 5 years from now. It will not however be paid until Gouda retires or otherwise separates from service.

Unless something goes horribly wrong. Gouda does not have income tax until he receives the money. That might be 5 years from now or it might be 20 years.

Makes sense.

The FICA tax is based on a different trigger: when does Gouda have a right to the money?

Think of it like this: when can Gouda sue if the company fails to pay him? That is the moment Gouda “vests” in the SERP. He has a right to the money and – barring the exceptional – he cannot be stripped of this right.

In our example, Gouda vests in 5 years.

Gouda will pay social security and Medicare (that is, FICA) tax in 5 years.

It is what sets up the weird-looking Form W-2. Let’s say the deferred compensation is $100 grand. The accountant is looking at a W-2 where box 3 income is (at least) $100 grand higher than box 1 income (remember: box 1 is income tax and Gouda will not pay income tax until gets the money).

There is even a name for this accounting: the “Special Timing Rule.”

Why does this rule exist?

You know why: the government wants its money - at least some of it.

But if you think about it, the special timing rule can be beneficial to the employee. Say that Gouda is drawing a nice paycheck: $400 grand. The social security wage base for 2020 is $137,700. Gouda is way past paying the full-boat 7.65% FICA tax. He is paying only the Medicare portion of the FICA - which is 1.45%. If the IRS waited until he retired, odds are the Gouda would not be working and would therefore have to pay the full-boat 7.65% (up to the wage limit, whatever that amount is at the time).

Can Gouda get stiffed by the special timing rule?

Oh yes.

Let’s look at the Koopman v United States case.

Mr Koopman retired from United Airlines in 2001. He paid FICA tax (pursuant to the special timing rule) on approximately $415 grand.

In 2002 United Airlines filed for bankruptcy.

It took a few years to shake out, but Mr Koopman finally received approximately $248 grand of what United had promised him.

This being a tax blog, you know there is a tax hook somewhere in there.

Mr Koopman wanted the excess FICA he had paid. He paid FICA on $415 grand but received only $248 grand.

In 2007 Koopman filed a refund claim for that excess FICA.

Does he have a chance?

Mr Koopman lost, but he did not lose because of the general rule or special rule or any of that. He lost for the most basic of tax reasons: one only has 3 years (usually) to amend a return and request a refund. He filed his refund request in 2007 – much more than 3 years after his withholdings in 2001.

Is there something Koopman could have done?

Yes, but he still could not wait until 2007. He would have had to do it by 2004 – the magic three years.

What could he have done?

File a protective refund claim.

I do not believe we have talked before about protective claims. It is a specialized technique, and an accountant can go a career and never file one.

I believe we have a near-future blog topic here. Let me see if I can find a case involving protective claims that you might want to read and I would want to write.

How To Lose A Tax Deduction For Wages Paid

This weeks’ tax puzzler involves a mom and her kids.

We again are talking about attorneys. Both mom and dad are attorneys, and mom is self-employed.

Sometimes she brought her children to the office, where they helped her with the following:

·        answering the telephone

·        mail

·        greeting clients

·        photocopying

·        shredding unneeded documents

·        moving files

Mom believed that having her children work would help them understand the value of money and lay the foundations for a lifelong work ethic.

She had three kids, and for 2006, 2007 and 2008 she deducted wages of $5,500, $10,953 and $12,273, respectively.

There are tax advantages to hiring a minor child. For example, if the child is age 17 or younger, there are no social security (that is, FICA) taxes. In addition, there is no federal unemployment tax for a child under age 21, but that savings pales in comparison to the FICA savings.

Then you have other options, such as having the child fund an IRA. All IRAs require income subject to social security tax. It doesn’t matter if one is an employee (FICA tax) or is self-employed (self-employment taxes), but social security is the price of admission.

Her children were all under the age of ten. Can you imagine what those IRAs would be worth 50 years from now?

The IRS disagreed with her deducting payroll, and they wound up in Tax Court.

Your puzzler question is: why?

(1) You: The Court did not believe that the kids really did anything. Maybe she was just trying to deduct their allowances.

Me: The tax law becomes skeptical when related parties are involved, and you cannot get much more related than a mother and her children.  It was heightened in this case as the children were so young. For the most part, though, the Court believed her when she described what the children did.

(2) You: Mom used the money she “paid” the kids for their support – like paying their school tuition, for example.

Me: The tax law disallows a deduction if the money is disguised support, which tax law expects to be provided a dependent child. In this case, the Court saw the children buying books, games and normal kid items; some money also went to Section 529 plans. The Court did not believe that mom was trying to deduct support expenses.

(3) You: She could not provide paperwork to back-up her deductions. What if she paid the kids in cash, for example?

Me: Good job. One reads that the Court wanted to believe her, but she presented no records. She did not provide bank statements showing the kids depositing their paychecks, presumably because the children did not have bank accounts.

She did not provide copies of the Section 529 plans. That was so easy to do that I found the failure odd.

At least she could show the Court a Form W-2.

Mom had not even issued W-2s.

The Court was exasperated.

It allowed her a deduction of $250 per child, as it believed that the kids worked. It could not do more in the absence of any documentation.

And there is the answer to the puzzler.

Too often it is not mind-numbing tax details that trip-up a taxpayer. Sometimes there is just a lapse of common sense.

Like issuing a W-2 if you want the IRS to believe you paid wages to somebody.

 

Pay Payroll Taxes Or Go Out Of Business?

We have talked before about the “big boy” penalty. It is one of the harshest penalties in the tax Code.

This is a payroll related penalty. It is not because you were late with a payment or failed to send in a return on time. No sir, it kicks in when you do not send the government any money at all.

And I am reading about two guys who decided to play big boy. One of them surprised me.

The company itself was based in Rhode Island and provided wireless internet in public spaces. Think Facebook at the airport, for example.

Business tanked. Cash was tight. Vendors did not get paid, including the IRS.

The company needed help. They hired Richard Schiffmann as president in October, 2004. In October, 2005 he brought in Stephen Cummings (who had worked there previously as a consultant) to be chief financial officer.

Cummings quickly found out they had problems with back taxes.

The Board granted check-signing authority to the pair: Schiffmann up to $100,000 and Cummings up to $75,000.

The two tried; they really did. But there was nothing there. The Board fired the two in June, 2006.

You know that the IRS eventually knocked on the door. They were angry and they wanted scalps. They went after Schiffmann and Cummings for the big boy penalty.

In the literature, this is known as the trust fund recovery or responsible person penalty. It addresses the income and FICA taxes withheld from employees. Mind you, the IRS wants the employer FICA also, but it is emphasizing the employee withholding. The IRS takes the position that this was never the employer’s money, whose function was solely to transfer the money as agent for the employees to the IRS.

The penalty is 100%.

It is intended to be Defcon 1.

The IRS went after Schiffmann for $394,334 and against Cummings for $254,280.

Think about this. You got hired. You were there for nine months. I doubt you got paid anywhere near $254,280. This is the lousiest job ever.

The two fought back, although there were some procedural misses we will not discuss but which leave me scratching my head. The two for example raised the following arguments:

(1) Schiffmann argued that he did not learn of the liability until late 2005. The most he could be liable for is two or three quarters, which would not add-up to $394 thousand.

He had a point. The penalty technically goes quarter-by-quarter.

But only in a classroom or in a textbook. In the real world, the IRS will argue that – if you could write a check – then you could have written checks for both current and past payroll taxes. Those past taxes become your problem.

And Schiffmann could write checks up to $100,000. Cummings could write up to $75,000.

Gentlemen, let me introduce problem. Problem, let me introduce gentlemen.

(2) They argued that all monies were encumbered and spoken for. They remitted what they could.

This is the “I had to pay … or the business would have folded” argument.

The IRS will respect encumbrances, but there better be a legal obligation. A pinky swear is not enough. 

The IRS will not respect a responsible person prioritizing them down, when the IRS had as much right to what money may exist as anyone else.

Schiffmann and Cummings could not meet that test.

(3) The Board would not let them pay certain bills.

More specifically, the Board would not let them pay taxes.

Now we have something. The IRS looked into this. It decided that there were two directors who raised a fuss, but it also decided that those two could be outvoted by the remaining directors.

And the directors never formally voted on a resolution, so the IRS could presuppose that the two would have been outvoted.

Then the IRS made an interesting observation: EVEN IF the Board has prohibited the two from paying the taxes, the most that would have happened is that the Board would have joined them in also being subject to the penalty. It would not have gotten Schiffmann and Cummings off the hook.

The two were held responsible.

Cummings was the one who surprised me.

He used to be an IRS field auditor.

Suboptimal Tax Laws Are Still Valid Tax Laws

I have a family member who has accepted in position in, and will be moving to, Chicago. You can bet that we have discussed the compensation package, and I am to review the deferred compensation package when provided. His is a “C suite” position, so deferred compensation means more than just the 401(k) with which you and I are familiar.

I find myself reviewing a Federal Court of Claims decision on an airline pilot that got on the wrong side of FICA taxation of deferred compensation.

His name is Louis Balestra, and he was a pilot with United Airlines from 1979 until his retirement in 2004. There may have been no tax case, except that United Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

Let’s talk about the “general timing rule” for FICA taxation. It is easy: you pay FICA when you are paid. No pay, no tax. No fair to not cash your paycheck!

We also have deferred compensation, more specifically “nonqualified” deferred compensation, which means a retirement plan which deviates, either a little or a lot, from somewhat rigid IRS requirements in order to be “qualified.” There is then a ‘special timing rule” (I am not making this up, I swear), the purpose of which is to speed-up when the income is taxed for FICA. The Code section is 3121(v)(2):

   3121(v)(2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS.—

3121(v)(2)(A) IN GENERAL.— Any amount deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan shall be taken into account for purposes of this chapter as of the later of—

3121(v)(2)(A)(i)   when the services are performed, or

3121(v)(2)(A)(ii)   when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to such amount.

We have a new shiny: “substantial risk of forfeiture.” If the company funds your benefit, for example, chances are that your FICA tax will be accelerated, perhaps many years before you actually receive any money.

Let’s work through this with an extremely simplified example. The company agrees to pay you $100,000 five years from now. Let’s also posit that you clear the second requirement of “no substantial risk of forfeiture.” Congratulations, you have FICA tax. Right now.

Being a tax accountant by training if not by temperament, I have to ask the question: how do I calculate the income to be taxed? Is it $100,000? That doesn’t make sense, as you will receive the money five years from now. A hundred grand then is not the same as a hundred grand now, if for no other reason than you could put it n a CD (if you received it now) and have more than a hundred grand five years hence. Is it the present value of the $100,000, discounted at some interest rate and for five years? That makes more sense, and that is the guidance provided by the Regulations.

Remember what I said about United Airlines filing for bankruptcy in 2002, two years before Balestra retired? Shouldn’t we take into consideration that United Airlines might not pay everything to which Balestra is entitled?

Makes sense to me. For example, Balestra paid FICA on approximately $289,000 of deferred compensation. United actually paid him approximately $63,000. He had paid FICA on that entire $289,000, and he wanted some of it back.

CLARIFICATION: It would be more correct to say that he paid the Medicare portion of FICA, as the social security side only applies up to an income limit.  Let’s continue. We are on a roll.

Balestra sued.  

And the Court was looking at the Shakespearean prose of Reg 31.3121(v)(2)-1(c):

(ii) Present value defined.— For purposes of this section, present value means the value as of a specified date of an amount or series of amounts due thereafter, where each amount is multiplied by the probability that the condition or conditions on which payment of the amount is contingent will be satisfied, and is discounted according to an assumed rate of interest to reflect the time value of money. For purposes of this section, the present value must be determined as of the date the amount deferred is required to be taken into account as wages under paragraph (e) of this section using actuarial assumptions and methods that are reasonable as of that date. For this purpose, a discount for the probability that an employee will die before commencement of benefit payments is permitted, but only to the extent that benefits will be forfeited upon death. In addition, the present value cannot be discounted for the probability that payments will not be made (or will be reduced) because of the unfunded status of the plan, the risk associated with any deemed or actual investment of amounts deferred under the plan, the risk that the employer, the trustee, or another party will be unwilling or unable to pay, the possibility of future plan amendments, the possibility of a future change in the law, or similar risks or contingencies.

Balestra tried, but he could not overcome the fact that the Regulations did not include “employer bankruptcy” as a possible reason to discount the amount of income accelerated for FICA tax – or, at least, to allow some of the FICA to be refunded once the actual payments are known.

Balestra lost his case.

The Court did realize the unfairness of the law, however.

It might have been wiser to have selected as a trigger something other than there being ‘no substantial risk of forfeiture’ … and instead considered the financial solvency of the employer – or to have deferred taxation while an employer is in bankruptcy, rather than until promised benefits are ‘reasonable ascertainable.”

You think?

But these are matters for law makers, not judges – suboptimal laws are still valid tax laws.”

I know. I would be more optimistic if I had any regard for the suboptimals in Congress.

Tile 26 of the United States Code would be a good deal shorter if the unwise tax laws could be purged by the judiciary.”

You must admit, it is easy to like this Court.