FICA’s Special Timing Rule

 

I do not often read ERISA cases.

ERISA deals with employee retirement plans and refers to federal law: Employee Retirement and Security Act. It is old law (1974), and provides protection for individuals enrolled in private retirement and health plans. It can be as abstruse as the tax Code, and as difficult to follow. It is more in the purview of retirement specialists and not so much that of a general tax practitioner.

What made me think about it was a reference to the Henkel case from 2015.

Henkel involved a top hat plan for selected management and other highly compensated employees. The idea behind a top hat is to provide benefits in excess of those available to employees through regular plans (think 401(k), cafeteria plans and the like.) Top hats are mostly exempt from ERISA because of that select group of covered employees, You and I are unlikely to ever be enrolled in a top hat plan.

In Henkel, select employees were covered by a nonqualified deferred compensation plan. After benefits began, the company (Henkel Corporation) reduced the monthly benefits for federal tax withholding. ERISA has restrictions on reducing someone’s benefits – hence the litigation.

The federal withholding was FICA.

There is an odd rule in the tax Code for FICA taxation of deferred compensation. What sets it up is the income taxation of the deferred compensation itself.

Generally speaking, deferred compensation will include some kind of qualifying event. For example, say that an executive is entitled to 1% of his/her 2025 division profits as compensation, payable in 2028. To be entitled to the bonus, the executive must remain employed with the company through December 31, 2026.

It is that condition subsequent that makes the income taxation tick. It would be unfair to tax the executive in 2025, as he/she may never receive a dime if they are not employed through December 2026. Let’s say that they are employed through December 2026. It would still be unfair to subject the bonus to income taxation in 2026, as there is no cash until 2028. In general (and a big general at that) the tax Code will slow the income tax horses until 2028.

But this is compensation, meaning that there will also be FICA tax due.

When is that tax due?

A reasonable person would expect the FICA and income tax to lock arms and be due at the same time.

A reasonable person would be wrong.

FICA tax will be due at the later of:

The date the employee performs the services causing the deferred compensation (in our case, 2025), or

The date on which the employee is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiting the deferred compensation (in our case, 2026).

Our executive would be subject to FICA tax in 2026.

What about concern for having cash to pay the tax?

It does not appear to apply to the FICA tax, only to income tax.

In practice, this is rarely as big an issue as it may first appear. FICA is divided into two parts: the old age (which is 6.2%) and Medicare (which is 1.45%). The old age (the acronym is OASDI) cuts off at a certain dollar amount. Medicare does not cut off. Odds are that someone in a top hat plan is well over the OASDI limit (meaning no old age tax), leaving only Medicare. 

It is unlikely that one is going to do a lot of tax planning for 1.45%.

This FICA trigger is called the “special timing rule.”

There is an upside to the special timing rule, and it depends on how the deferred compensation is determined.

If one can flat-out calculate the deferred compensation (in our case, 1% of division profits), the plan is referred to as an account balance plan. Granted, one can add interest or whatever to it to allow for the passage of intervening years, but one can calculate the beginning number.

If one pays FICA on an account balance plan under the special timing rule, there is no additional FICA when the plan finally pays out. This means that interest (for example) added to the beginning number is never subject to FICA.

Sweet.

Switch this over to a nonaccount balance plan and FICA can change. FICA is calculated on the actual distribution, but one is given credit for FICA previously paid under the special timing rule. In this case, one would pay FICA on the interest added to the beginning number.

There are also different ways to calculate the FICA under the special timing rule: the estimated method, the lag method, the administrative convenience method and so on.

Throw all the above in a bag, shake thoroughly, and that is how we got the Henkel case. How can the benefits go down? Take a nonaccount balance plan, with FICA being paid later rather earlier.

Is it a reduction in benefits?

Yes and no. It is technically a reduction if one was not thinking about the FICA.

It is not however a reduction for purposes of ERISA.

Our case this time was Davidson v Henkel, USDC, Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division, Case No. 12-cv-14103.

A Paycheck As A Treasure Trove

 

I am looking at a case where the taxpayer was using Cesarini to argue her position.

COMMENT: Cesarini is one of my favorite tax decisions and a big reason this case caught my eye. The family purchased a piano at auction for $15. Seven years later – while cleaning the piano – they discovered approximately $4,500 in currency. The tax case addressed when the $4,500 was taxable – when they bought the piano, when they found the money, or some other date. It also introduced us to the “treasure trove” doctrine, addressing – not surprisingly – when finding a treasure is taxable.

COMMENT: $4,500 does not strike as that much money in 2025. Cesarini however was decided in 1964, when median U.S. household income was about $6,000. We probably would agree that finding 75% of your annual household income by fluke could be described as a treasure trove.

Let’s introduce Corri Fiege, who worked in Alaska for a U.S. subsidiary of an Australian corporation. She participated in a performance rights plan and was granted 60,000 unvested rights in parent company stock. The rights vested over three years, and she received 20,000 shares on each of July 31, 2011, 2012 and 2013.

There of course was tax involved. She had the company sell 1/3 of the stock and send the cash as federal tax withholding. She owed tax. She paid tax. There was no problem with these years.

In 2013 she received a fresh tranche of rights - 400,000 rights vesting over the four-years ending December 21, 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016.

This time the grant was a handcuff. The parent company was in financial distress and was firing people left and right. However, they wanted to keep Corri - that is, until they let her go on November 24, 2014.

Vesting did not happen until December 21. She wasn’t going to make it.

But the company did something unexpected: it transferred 100,000 shares of stock into her Charles Schwab account. She assumed they made a mistake, and she was required by plan terms to report if there was a mistake. She called someone in Brisbane, Australia; that person had left. She called another in Houston, Texas. That person had left too. She gave up trying to report the matter to the company.

She received a W-2 showing an additional $75,660 from the stock.

But this time there was no selling 1/3 of the shares for tax withholding. She would be writing a check to Uncle Sam.

What to do?

She did not file a joint income tax return for 2014.

COMMENT: Worst. Possible. Decision.

This was easy picking for the IRS computers.

Off to Tax Court they went.

Corri and the IRS had two very different arguments.

She argued that the treasure trove doctrine applied.

Corri argued that the shares were transferred contrary to the performance rights plan, making the money subject to an ongoing claim by her employer under Alaska law.

I get it: she argued treasure trove because it would delay taxation until the taxpayer had undisputed possession.

This of course put a lot of pressure on her argument that she had disputed possession.

The IRS came from an altogether different angle.

·       Corri had an employment relationship.

·       She was compensated both in cash and property.

·       Under the tax Code, both cash and property are taxable.

·       The Code does have a specific provision (Section 83) for property transferred with restrictions on its further transfer or with a risk of forfeiture. This is what happened here. Corri was awarded rights, exercisable in the future. If she remained employed, the rights were exchangeable for actual shares, which she was free to keep or sell without further restriction. The rights were not taxable when awarded, as Corri had to remain employed until the exercise date. Once she reached that date, the restrictions came off and she had taxable compensation.

The IRS argument proved formidable against Corri. She had no further obligations to the company after she left. In addition, she was not required to refrain from acting (think a covenant not to compete). There was no risk of forfeiture from her acting or not acting. She was also free to sell or otherwise transfer the shares.

And it was there that she lost the argument of disputed possession. In Cesarini nobody knew who the cash had belonged to, and the matter of its possession had to be sorted out under state law. In this case all parties knew who the shares belonged to, and there remained nothing to be sorted out under Alaska law.

There was no treasure trove.

There was no delay.

The IRS won.

There are two things in this case that bother me. Neither are tax driven. I would describe them instead as common sense.

1. The Company had the right to overrule the terms of the performance rights plan and award shares even if plan terms were not met. To rephrase, the company was not allowed to remove a benefit already granted but it was allowed to grant a benefit an employee would otherwise not receive. I believe that is what happened here: Corri was a diligent and valued employee, and the company wanted to show appreciation, even if they had to release her.
2. If an employer gives me free money, why wouldn’t I pay tax? It seems to me that I am still better off than without the free money.

Our case this time was Corri Feige v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-88.

Owing Tax on Social Security Not Received

 

I am spending more time talking about social security.

The clients and I are aging. If it does not affect me, it affects them – and that affects me.

Social security has all manners of quirks.

For example, say that one worked for an employer which does not pay into social security. There are many - think teachers, who are covered instead by state plans. It is common enough to mix and match employers over the course of a career, meaning that some work may have been covered by social security and some was not. What does this mean when it comes time to claim benefits?

Well, if you are the employee in question, you are going to learn about the windfall elimination provision (WEP), which is a haircut to one’s social security for this very fact pattern.

What if this instead is your spouse and you are claiming spousal benefits? Well, you are going to learn about the “government pension offset,” which is the same fish but wrapped in different paper.

What if you are disabled?

Kristen Ecret was about to find out.

She worked a registered nurse until 2014, when she suffered an injury and became medically disabled. She started receiving New York workers compensation benefits.

Oh, she also applied for social security benefits in 2015.

In December 2017 (think about it) she heard back from the SSA. She was entitled to benefits, and those benefits were retroactive to 2015.

Should be a nice check.

In January 2018 she received a Form SSA-1099 for 14,392, meaning the SSA was reporting to the IRS that she received benefits of $14,332 during 2017.

But there was a bigger problem.

Kristen had received nothing – zippo, nada, emptitadad – from SSA. The SSA explained that her benefits had been hoovered by something called the “workers’ compensation offset.”

She filed a request for reconsideration of her benefits.

She got some relief.

It’s a year later and she received a Form SSA-1099 for 2018. It reported that she received benefits of $71,918, of which $19,322 was attributable to 2018. The balance – $52,596 – was for retroactive benefits.

Except ….

Only $20,749 had been deposited to her bank account. Another $5,375 was paid to an attorney or withheld as federal income tax. The difference ($45,794) was not paid on account of the workers’ compensation offset.

Something similar happened for 2019.

Let’s stay with 2019.

Instead of using the SSA-1099, Kristen reported taxable social security on her 2019 joint income tax return of $5,202, which is 85% of $6,120, the only benefits she received in cash.

I get it.

The IRS of course caught it, as this is basic computer matching.

The IRS had records of her “receiving” benefits of $55,428.

The difference? Yep: the “workers’ compensation offset.”

There was some chop in the water, as a portion of the benefits received in 2019 were for years 2016 through 2018, and both sides agreed that portion was not taxable. But that left $19,866 which the IRS went after with vigor.

The Court walked us through the life, times and humor of the workers’ compensation offset, including this little hummable ditty:

For purposes of this section, if, by reason of section 224 of the Social Security Act [i.e., 42 U.S.C. § 424a] . . . any social security benefit is reduced by reason of the receipt of a benefit under a workmen’s compensation act, the term ‘social security benefit’ includes that portion of such benefit received under the workmen’s compensation act which equals such reduction."

Maybe the Court will find a way ….

            Section 86(d) compels us to agree with respondent."

The “respondent” is the IRS. No help here from the Court.

Applying the 85% inclusion ratio, we conclude that petitioners for 2019 have taxable Social Security benefits of $16,886, viz, 85% of the $19,866 in benefits that were attributable to 2019. Because petitioners on their 2019 return reported only $5,202 in taxable Social Security benefits, they must include an additional $11,684 of such benefits ($16,886 − $5,202) in their gross income."

Kristen lost.

Oh, the IRS applied an accuracy-related penalty, just to make it perfect.

We know that tax law can be erratic, ungrounded, and nonsensical. But why did Congress years ago change the tax Code to convert nontaxable disability income into taxable social security income? Was there some great loophole here they felt compelled to squash?

Our case this time was Ecret v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-23.

Ohtani’s New Baseball Contract

I was reading about Shohei Ohtani’s new contract with the Las Angeles Dodgers. If the name rings a bell, that is because he both bats and pitches. He is today’s Babe Ruth. He played with the Los Angeles Angels in 2023, led the American League with 44 home runs and pitched over 130 innings with a 3.14 ERA.

I am more an NFL than an MLB fan these days, but it is hard to ignore this guy’s athletic chops. It is also hard to ignore his new contract.

•  Contract totals at $700 million
•  He will draw “only” $2 million for the first 10 years.
•  He will draw the deferral (that is, $68 million annually) beginning in 2034 and through 2043.

At $700 million, Ohtani’s is the largest MLB contract ever, but what caught my eye was deferring 98% of the contract for over a decade. Do not be concerned about his cash flow, however. $2 million a year is sweet (that is way over CPA bank), and I understand that his endorsements alone may exceed $50 million annually. Cash flow is not a problem.

Why would Ohtani do this?

For one, remember that athletes at his level are hyper-competitive. There is something about saying that you received the largest contract in MLB history.

Why would the Dodgers do this?

A big reason is the time value of money. $100 ten years from now is worth less than $100 today. Why? Because you can invest that $100 today. With minimal Google effort, I see a 10-year CD rate of 3.8%. Invest that $100 at 3.8% and you will have a smidgeon more than $145 in ten years. Invest in something with a higher yield and it will be worth even more.

Flip that around.

What is $100 ten years from now worth today?

Let’s make it easy and assume the same 3.8%. What would you have to invest today to have $100 in ten years, assuming a 3.8% return?

Around $70.

Let’s revisit the contract considering the above discussion.

Assuming 10 years, 3.8% and yada yada, Ohtani’s contract is worth about 70 cents on today’s dollar. So, $700 million times 70% = $490 million today.

My understanding is the experts considered Ohtani’s market value to be approximately $45 million annually, so our back-of-the-envelope math is in the ballpark.

Looks like the Dodgers did a good job.

And deferring all that money frees cash for the Dodgers to spend during the years Ohtani is on the team and playing. He may be today’s Ruth, but he cannot win games by himself.

There is one more thing …

This is a tax blog, so my mind immediately went to the tax angle – federal or state – of structuring Ohtani’s contract this way.

Take a look at this bad boy from California Publication 1005 Pension and Annuity Guidelines:

          Nonresidents of California Receiving a California Pension

In General

California does not impose tax on retirement income received by a nonresident after December 31, 1995. For this purpose, retirement income means any income from any of the following:

• A private deferred compensation plan program or arrangement described in IRC Section 3121(v)(2)(C) only if the income is either of the following:

1.    Part of a series of substantially equal periodic payments (not less frequently than annually) made over the life or life expectancy of the participant or those of the participant and the designated beneficiary or a period of not less than 10 years.

Hmmm. “Substantially equal periodic payments” … and “a period of not less than 10 years.”

Correlation is not causation, as we know. Still. Highly. Coincidental. Just. Saying.

Ohtani is 29 years old. 98% of his contract will commence payment when he is 40 years old. I doubt he will still be playing baseball then. I doubt, in fact, he will still be in California then. He might return to Japan, for example, upon retirement.

That is what nonresident means.

Let me check something. California’s top individual tax rate for 2024 is 14.4%.

COMMENT: Seriously??

Quick math: $680 million times 98% times 14.4% equals $95.96 million.

Yep, I’d be long gone from California.

 

Failing To Take A Paycheck

I am looking at a case involving numerous issues. The one that caught my attention was imputed wage income from a controlled company in the following amounts:

2004                    $198,740

2005                    $209,200

2006                    $220,210

2007                    $231,800

2008                    $244,000

Imputed wage income means that someone should have received a paycheck but did not.

Perhaps they used the company to pay personal expenses, I think to myself, and the IRS is treating those expenses as additional W-2 income. Then I see that the IRS is also assessing constructive dividends in the following amounts:

2004                    $594,170

2005                    $446,782

2006                    $375,246

2007                    $327,503

2008                    $319,854 

The constructive dividends would be those personal expenses.

What happened here?

Let’s look at the Hacker case.

Barry and Celeste Hacker owned and were the sole shareholders of Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that operated daycare centers throughout Tulsa. Mr. Hacker also worked as an electrician, and the two were also the sole shareholders of another company - Hacker Corp (HC).

The Hackers were Blossom’s only corporate officers. Mrs. Hacker oversaw the workforce and directed the curriculum, for example, and Mr. Hacker was responsible for accounting and finance functions.

Got it. She sounds like the president of the company, and he sounds like the treasurer.

For the years at issue, the Hackers did not take a paycheck from Blossom.

COMMENT: In isolation, this does not have to be fatal.

Rather than pay the Hackers directly, Blossom made payments to HC, which in turn paid wages to the Hackers.

This strikes me as odd. Whereas it is not unusual to select one company out of several (related companies) to be a common paymaster, generally ALL payroll is paid through the paymaster. That is not what happened here. Blossom paid its employees directly, except for Mr. and Mrs. Hacker.

I am trying to put my finger on why I would do this. I see that Blossom is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), whereas HC is an S corporation (meaning its income is included on its shareholders’ tax return). Maybe they were doing FICA arbitrage. Maybe they did not want anyone at Blossom to see how much they made.  Maybe they were misadvised.

Meanwhile, the audit was going south. Here are few issues the IRS identified:

(1)  The Hackers used Blossom credit cards to pay for personal expenses, including jewelry, vacations, and other luxury items. The kids got on board too, although they were not Blossom employees.

(2)  HC paid for vehicles it did not own used by employees it did not have. We saw a Lexus, Hummer, BMW, and Cadillac Escalade.

(3) Blossom hired a CPA in 2007 to prepare tax returns. The Hackers gave him access to the bank statements but failed to provide information about undeposited cash payments received from Blossom parents.

NOTE: Folks, you NEVER want to have “undeposited” business income. This is an indicium of fraud, and you do not want to be in that neighborhood.

(4)  The Hackers also gave the CPA the credit card statements, but they made no effort to identify what was business and what was family and personal. The CPA did what he could, separating the obvious into a “Note Receivable Officer” account. The Hackers – zero surprise at this point in the story - made no effort to repay the “Receivable” to Blossom.  

(5) Blossom paid for a family member’s wedding. Mr. Hacker called it a Blossom-oriented “celebration.”  

(6) In that vein, the various trips to the Bahamas, Europe, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New Orleans were also business- related, as they allowed the family to “not be distracted” as they pursued the sacred work of Blossom.

There commonly is a certain amount of give and take during an audit. Not every expense may be perfectly documented. A disbursement might be coded to the wrong account. The company may not have charged someone for personal use of a company-owned vehicle. It happens. What you do not want to do, however, is keep piling on. If you do – and I have seen it happen – the IRS will stop believing you.

The IRS stopped believing the Hackers.

Frankly, so did I.

The difference is, the IRS can retaliate.

How?

Easy.

The Hackers were officers of Blossom.

Did you know that all corporate officers are deemed to be employees for payroll tax purposes? The IRS opened a worker classification audit, found them to be statutory employees, and then went looking for compensation.

COMMENT: Well, that big “Note Receivable Officer” is now low hanging fruit, isn’t it?

Whoa, said the Hackers. There is a management agreement. Blossom pays HC and HC pays us.

OK, said the IRS: show us the management agreement.

There was not one, of course.

These are related companies, the Hackers replied. This is not the same as P&G or Alphabet or Tesla. Our arrangements are more informal.

Remember what I said above?

The IRS will stop believing you.

Petitioner has submitted no evidence of a management agreement, either written or oral, with Hacker Corp. Likewise, petitioner has submitted no evidence, written or otherwise, as to a service agreement directing the Hackers to perform substantial services on behalf of Hacker Corp to benefit petitioner, or even a service or employment agreement between the Hackers and Hacker Corp.”

Bam! The IRS imputed wage income to the Hackers.

How bad could it be, you ask. The worst is the difference between what Blossom should have paid and what Hacker Corp actually paid, right?

Here is the Court:

Petitioner’s arguments are misguided in that wages paid by Hacker Corp do not offset reasonable compensation requirements for the services provided by petitioner’s corporate officers to petitioner.”

Can it go farther south?

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for employment taxes, penalties under section 6656 for failure to deposit tax, and accuracy-elated penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence.”

How much in penalties are we talking about?

2005                    $17,817

2006                    $18,707

2007                    $19,576

2008                    $20,553

I do not believe this is a case about tax law as much as it is a case about someone pushing the boundary too far. Could the IRS have accepted an informal management agreement and passed on the “statutory employee” thing? Of course, and I suspect that most times out of ten they would. But that is not what we have here. Somebody was walking much too close to the boundary - if not walking on the fence itself - and that somebody got punished.

Our case this time was Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-86.

Can A Severance Be A Gift?

I am looking at a case wondering why a tax practitioner would take it to Tax Court.

Then I noticed that it is a pro se case.

We have talked about this before: pro se means that the taxpayer is representing himself/herself. Technically that is not correct (for example, someone could drag me in and still be considered pro se), but it is close enough for our discussion.

Here is the issue:

Can an employer make a nontaxable gift to an employee?

Jennifer Fields thought so.

She worked at Paragon Canada from 2009 to 2017. Apparently, she was on good terms with her boss, as the company …

·      Wired her 35,000 Canadian dollars in 2012

·      Wired her $53,020 in 2014 to help with the down payment on a house in Washington state.

I am somewhat jealous. I am a career CPA, and CPA firms are not known for … well, doing what Paragon did for Jennifer.

She separated from Paragon in 2017.

They discussed a severance package.

Part of the package was forgiveness of the loan arising from those wires.

Forgiveness here does not mean what it means on Sunday. The company may forgive repayment, but the IRS will still consider the amount forgiven to be taxable income. The actual forgiveness is therefore the after-tax amount. If one’s tax rate is 25%, then the actual forgiveness would be 75% of the amount forgiven. It is still a good deal but not free.

Paragon requested and she provided a Form W-9 (the form requesting her social security number).

Well, we know that she will be getting a W-2 or a 1099 for that loan.

A W-2 would be nice. Paragon would pick-up half of the social security and Medicare taxes. If she is really lucky, they might even gross-up her bonus to include the taxes thereon, making the severance as financially painless as possible.

She received a 1099.

Oh well.

She left the 1099 off her tax return.

The IRS computers caught it.

Because … of course.

Off to Tax Court they went.

This is not highbrow tax law, folks. She worked somewhere. She received a paycheck. She left work. She received a final paycheck. What is different about that last one?

·      She tried to get Paragon to consider some of her severance as a gift.

The Court was curt on this point. You can try to be a bird, but you better not be jumping off tall buildings thinking you can fly.

·      She was good friends with her boss. She produced e-mails, text messages and what-not.

That’s nice, said the Court, but this is a job. There is an extremely high presumption in the tax Code that any payment to an employee is compensatory.

But my boss and I were good friends, she pressed. The law allows a gift when the relationship between employer and employee is personal and the payment is unrelated to work.

Huh, I wonder what that means.

Anyway, the Court was not buying:

Paragon’s inclusion of the disputed amount in the signed and executed severance agreement and the subsequent issuance of a Form 1099-MISC indicates that the payments were not intended to be a gift.”

She really did not have a chance.

The IRS also wanted penalties. Not just your average morning-drive-through penalties, no sir. They wanted the Section 6662(a) “accuracy related” penalty. Why? Well, because that penalty is 20%, and it is triggered if the taxpayer omits enough income to underpay tax by the greater of $5 grand or 10% of what the tax should have been.

Think biggie size.

The Court agreed on the penalty.

I was thinking what I would have done if Jennifer had been my client.

First, I would have explained that her chance of winning was almost nonexistent.

COMMENT: She would have fired me then, realistically.

Our best course would be to resolve the matter administratively.

I want the penalties dropped.

That means we are bound for Appeals. There is no chance of getting that penalty dropped before then.

I would argue reasonable cause. I would likely get slapped down, but I would argue. I might get something from the Appeals Officer.

Our case this time was Fields v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2022-22.