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.

 

IRAs and Nonqualified Compensation Plans

Can an erroneous Form 1099 save you from tax and penalties?

It’s an oddball question, methinks. I anticipate the other side of that see-saw is whether one knew, or should have known, better.

Let’s look at the Clair Couturier case.

Clair is a man, by the way. His wife’s is named Vicki.

Clair used to be the president of Noll Manufacturing (Noll).

Clair and Noll had varieties of deferred compensation going on: 

(1)   He owned shares in the company employee stock ownership program (ESOP).

(2)   He had a deferred compensation arrangement (his “Compensation Continuation Agreement”) wherein he would receive monthly payments of $30 grand when he retired.

(3)   He participated in an incentive stock option plan.

(4)   He also participated in another that sounds like a phantom stock arrangement or its cousin. The plan flavor doesn’t matter; no matter what flavor you select Clair is being served nonqualified deferred compensation in a cone.

Sounds to me like Noll was taking care of Clair.

There was a corporate reorganization in 2004.

Someone wanted Clair out.

COMMENT: Let’s talk about an ESOP briefly, as it is germane to what happened here. AN ESOP is a retirement plan. Think of it as 401(k), except that you own stock in the company sponsoring the ESOP and not mutual funds at Fidelity or Vanguard. In this case, Noll sponsored the ESOP, so the ESOP would own Noll stock. How much Noll stock would it own? It can vary. It doesn’t have to be 100%, but it might be. Let’s say that it was 100% for this conversation. In that case, Clair would not own any Noll stock directly, but he would own a ton of stock indirectly through the ESOP.

If someone wanted him out, they would have to buy him out through the ESOP.

Somebody bought out Clair for $26 million.

COMMENT: I wish.

The ESOP sent Clair a Form 1099 reporting a distribution of $26 million. The 1099 indicated that he rolled-over this amount to an IRA.

Clair reported the roll-over on his 2004 tax return. It was just reporting; there is no tax on a roll-over unless someone blows it.

QUESTION: Did someone blow it?

Let’s go back. Clair had four pieces to his deferred compensation, of which the ESOP was but one. What happened to the other three?

Well, I suppose the deal might have been altered. Maybe Clair forfeited the other three. If you pay me enough, I will go away.

Problem:

         § 409 Qualifications for tax credit employee stock ownership plans

So?

        (p)  Prohibited allocations of securities in an S corporation

                      (4)  Disqualified person

Clair was a disqualified person to the ESOP. He couldn’t just make-up whatever deal he wanted. Well, technically he could, but the government reserved the right to drop the hammer.

The government dropped the hammer.

The Department of Labor got involved. The DOL referred the case to the IRS Employee Plan Division. The IRS was looking for prohibited transactions.

Found something close enough.

Clair was paid $26 million for his stock.

The IRS determined that the stock was worth less than a million.

QUESTION: What about that 1099 for the rollover?

ANSWER: You mean the 1099 that apparently was never sent to the IRS?

What was the remaining $25 million about?

It was about those three nonqualified compensation plans.

Oh, oh.

This is going to cost.

Why?

Because only funds in a qualified plan can be rolled to an IRA.

Funds in a nonqualified plan cannot.

Clair rolled $26 million. He should have rolled less than a million.

Wait. In what year did the IRS drop the hammer?

In 2016.

Wasn’t that outside the three-year window for auditing Clair’s return?

Yep.

So Clair was scot-free?

Nope.

The IRS could not adjust Clair’s income tax for 2004. It could however tag him with a penalty for overfunding his IRA by $25 million.

Potato, poetawtoe. Both would clock out under the statute of limitations, right?

Nope.

There is an excise tax (normal folk call it a “penalty”) in the Code for overfunding an IRA. The tax is 6 percent. That doesn’t sound so bad, until you realize that the tax is 6 percent per year until you take the excess contribution out of the IRA.

Clair never took anything out of his IRA.

This thing has been compounding at 6 percent per year for … how many years?

The IRS wanted around $8.5 million.

The Tax Court agreed.

Clair owed.

Big.

Our case this time was Couturier v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-69.

An Attorney Learns Passthrough Taxation

 

I have worked with a number of brilliant attorneys over the years. It takes quite a bit for a tax attorney to awe me, but it has happened.

But that law degree by itself does not mean that one has mastered a subject area, much less that one is brilliant.

Let’s discuss a case involving an attorney.

Lateesa Ward graduated from law school in 1991. She went the big firm route for a while, but by 2006 she opened her own firm. For the years at issue, the firm was just her and another person.

She elected S corporation status.

We have discussed S status before. There is something referred to as “passthrough” taxation. The idea is that a business – an S corporation, a partnership, an LLC – skips paying its own tax. Rather the tax-causing numbers are pushed-out to the owners – shareholders, partners, members – who then include those numbers on their personal return and pay the taxes thereon personally.

Why would a rational human being do that?

Sometimes it makes sense. A lot of sense, in fact.

I will give you one example. Say that you have a regular corporation, one that the tax nerds call a “C.” Say that there is real estate in there that has appreciated insanely. It wouldn’t hurt your feelings to sell the real estate and pocket the money. There is a problem, though. If the real estate is inside a “C,” the gain will be taxed to the corporation upon sale.

That’s OK, you reason. You knew taxes were coming.

When you take the money out of the corporation, you pay taxes again.

Huh?

If you think about, what I just described is commonly referred to as a “dividend.”

That second round of income taxes hurts, unless one is a publicly-traded leviathan like Apple or Amazon. More accurately, it hurts even then, but ownership is so diluted that it is unlikely to greatly impact any one owner.

Scale down from the behemoths and that second round of tax probably locks-in the asset inside the C corporation. Not exactly an efficient use of resources, methinks.

Enter the passthrough.

With some exceptions (there are always exceptions), the passthrough allows one – and only one – round of tax when you sell the real estate.

Back to Lateesa.

In 2011 the S corporation deducted salary to her of $62,388.

She reported no salary on her personal return.,

In 2012 the S deducted salary to her of $73,448.

She reported salary of $47,171.

In 2011 her share (which was 100%, of course) of the firm’s profits was $1,373.

She reported that.

Then she reported the numbers again as though she was self-employed.

She reported the numbers twice, it seems.

The IRS could not figure out what she was doing, so they came in and audited several years.

There was the usual back-and-forth with documenting expenses, as well as quibbling over travel and related expenses. Standard stuff, but it can hurt if one is not keeping adequate records.

I was curious why she left her salary off her personal return. I have a salary. Maybe she knew something that has escaped me, and I too can run down my personal taxes.

She explained that only some of the officer compensation was salary or wages.

Go on.

The rest of the compensation was a distribution of “earnings and profits.” She continued that an S corporation shareholder is allowed to receive tax-free distributions to the extent she has basis.

Oh my. Missed the boat. Missed the harbor. Nowhere near water.  Never heard of water.

What we are talking about is a tax deduction, not a distribution. The S corporation took a tax deduction for salary paid her. To restore balance to the Force, she has to personally report the salary as income. One side has a deduction; the other side has income. Put them together and they net to zero. The Force is again in balance.

Here is the Court:

Ward also took an eccentric approach to the compensation that she paid herself as the firm’s officer.”

It did not turn out well for Ms. Ward. Remember that there are withholdings and employer-side payroll taxes required on salary and wages, and the IRS was already looking at other issues on those tax returns. This audit got messy.

There was no awe here.

Our case this time was Lateesa Ward v Commissioner and Ward & Ward Company v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-32.

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.

The Nick Saban Tax

Have you heard about the “Nick Saban” tax?

Let’s set it up.

There has been a longstanding tax provision limiting the deduction for public company executive compensation to $1 million. Mind you, this is not a restriction on how much you can pay an executive; the restriction only applies to how much you can deduct on a tax return. The restriction does not apply to all executives, either; it applies to the CEO, CFO and three other most-highly-paids.

But there was an exception large enough for the Fortune 500 to drive through. The exception was for “performance.” Magically and almost overnight, virtually all executive compensation packages became based on “performance.” Options were considered performance-based, and eventually options came to be passed around like candy. Realistically, one had to refuse to do any tax planning for this provision to actually apply.

This changed with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December, 2017. Congress tightened up this code Section (162(m)) by taking away the performance exception. The $1 million cap now has a real bite.

But Congress was still looking for money.

Congress decided to put the same $1 million compensation limit on nonprofits.

This creates a quandary, as nonprofits (generally) do not pay tax. If I were a nonprofit executive and Congress threatened to disallow my deduction, I would not be feeling the tremulous fear of my for-profit peers.

Congress thought of that. They decided that the nonprofit would pay a 21% tax on my behalf.

Whoa. Now you have my attention. Granted, the tax is not on me, but we all know how this works in the real world. Only small children and Congress believes in free. The rest of us have to pay.

Congress passed a tax provision applying the $1 million cap to the five highest- paid employees of a 501(a), which includes a 501(c)(3). Think nonprofits, certain hospitals, colleges and universities and the like.

BTW medical professors were excluded from this, so it appears clear that Congress was trying to reach the athletics programs and their coaches.

But there is a problem.

Here is Code section 4960 imposing the tax:

       (c)  Definitions and special rules.

For purposes of this section-

(1)  Applicable tax-exempt organization.

The term "applicable tax-exempt organization" means any organization which for the taxable year-

(A)  is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) ,

(B)  is a farmers' cooperative organization described in section 521(b)(1) ,

(C)  has income excluded from taxation under section 115(1) , or

(D)  is a political organization described in section 527(e)(1) .

What is that Section 115(1)?

         § 115 Income of states, municipalities, etc.

Gross income does not include-

(1)  income derived from any public utility or the exercise of any essential governmental function and accruing to a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia; or …

What does this mean?

Congress thought that – by extending Section 4960 to reference Section 115(1) – it would reach those entities exempt via Section 115(1).

Entities such as Alabama.

Or the University of Alabama.

Why?

Because the University of Alabama is an instrumentality of the state of Alabama.

And here the tax law goes wonky.

The Courts have looked at the interaction of Sections 115(1) and 511(which is the unrelated business income tax which applies to a nonprofit). Can a state instrumentality (say a university) run a business – say a farm-to-table restaurant chain – and avoid the unrelated business income tax because of Section 115(1)? If that were the case, then Illinois could start a chain called Outfront Steakhouse, make a zillion dollars and never pay tax because of Section 115(1).

The Courts have clarified that is not the case. There is a limit to Section 115(1).

According to that reasoning, it seems to me that Congress should be able to tax those university salaries.

But there is another argument – the doctrine of implied statutory immunity. This arises from our federalist system of government: the federal government has to respect the state government. Under this theory, if the federal government wants to tax a state, it has to say so in an unambiguous manner – that is, it cannot be “implied.”

Continuing our example, if the federal government wanted to tax Illinois for opening a steakhouse chain and locating them adjacent to every Outback Steakhouse location throughout the land, it would have to say something like:

… the [] tax will apply to an entity relying upon Section 115(1) for nontaxability of their [] business activity should that activity be the same or substantially similar to a business activity conducted by a for-profit restaurant chain.”

That is explicit. That breaches implied statutory immunity. The tax would then stick.

Is that what Congress did with the new Section 4960(c) tax?

Nowhere close, it appears.

Under that reasoning the University of Alabama will not pay the Nick Saban tax, as the tax does not reach the University of Alabama.

There are universities clearly affected by this new law: Duke, for example, or Northwestern. They have to pay up. Think of it as the difference between a “public” university and a “tax-exempt” university.

But having the state name in the university’s name, however, does not mean that the university is exempt as “public.” It depends on how the university was organized and chartered. Texas A&M will be affected by the new tax provision, but the University of Texas - Austin will not. It is enough to give one a headache.

What happens next?

The easiest path is for Congress to revise Code section 4960 and clean up the language. Without Congressional action, you can be certain the “public” universities will litigate this matter. They have to.

But the likelihood of the present Congress accomplishing anything seems unlikely, at best.