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.

The IRS Will Be Looking At Deferred Compensation Plans

The IRS recently launched a limited audit effort to gauge how well nonqualified deferred compensation plans are complying with the tax Code. My understanding is that the number of companies to be contacted will be less than 100. The IRS will use this effort to refine its audit techniques in three areas of nonqualified deferred compensation:

1. Initial election to defer compensation
2. Subsequent election to defer compensation
3. Eventual payment of said compensation

Before proceeding further, let’s define the “nonqualified” part of this term. Someone is deferring compensation. Perhaps someone (say, Tom Brady) is earning $15 million this year, but some or all of it will not be paid until some future date. It happens all the time, and the IRS has limited “preapproved” ways to do so. The classic way is stock options, for example.

Deviate in any way from the IRS-preapproved road, however, and the plan is referred to as “nonqualified.” I use nonqualifieds on a common basis, as they allow more flexibility in their planning and implementation than qualifieds. There is no connation of good or bad to being “nonqualified.”

The IRS is looking at Section 409A, a particularly nasty Code section.

What was the purpose of Section 409A? Let’s go back to 2000 and 2001. We are now talking about Enron, an energy and commodities company headquartered in Houston and one of the most scandalous business frauds of all time. Enron executives pushed their way to the front of the line by accelerating the payout of their deferred compensation before the company went under. You may recall that the average employees were blocked-out of their 401(k)s, with the result that they saw their retirement dwindle if not evaporate while company fat cats, like Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling,  walked away with wheel barrels full of cash.

How did it evaporate? There were two primary drivers:

(1)  Enron made its 401(k) matching contribution with company stock. Then it put in a lockdown, preventing employees from selling that stock until age 50.

(2)  Enron decided to transfer the administration of its 401(k). Unfortunately, this occurred during the period the stock collapsed, and employees were preventing from selling their stock even if they could and wanted to.

The truth of the matter is that many companies, not just Enron, use their own stock to fund a 401(k). For example, Coca Cola employees keep more than 80% of their 401(k) assets in Coca Cola stock. At Proctor & Gamble, the percentage is over 90%.

So what we have is an issue of corporate 401(k) matching, as well as an issue of the interregnum between plan administrators. That was not sufficient for Congress, which loves nothing more than a good scandal (unless it is their own, of course). In response, Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. It then passed the American Jobs Creation Act – containing Section 409A – in 2004.

Congress was after deferred compensation.  

Section 409A starts off easy enough: it applies to any “plan” that provides for the “deferral of compensation” to “service providers.” A “plan” does not need to be reduced to writing, and “”service providers” can included independent contractors as well as employees. “Deferral” means any payment (to which a service provider has a legally binding right) that may be received in a future tax year.

            STEP ONE: Carpet bomb. Look for survivors later.

The IRS had to start excluding something, otherwise this thing was going to dragnet everything- think accrued sick leave or accrued vacation pay - into its wake. Remember: any compensation not paid IMMEDIATELY could potentially detonate this tax trap.

It didn’t matter how much money you made, either. This thing was not limited to the big wigs. Section 409A swept up the small and large alike.

How ridiculous does this go? A number of years ago the IRS decided that schoolteachers were violating Section 409A by deferring their salary over 12 months rather than being paid over the 9 months comprising a school year. Let that sink in: the IRS felt driven to protect Americans from the rapaciousness of schoolteachers wanting to budget their salary over 12 months.

NOTE: The IRS received so much bad press that it was forced to reverse its position. That was fine, but a more cogent question was whether the law was so deeply flawed that its logical progression inevitably led to absurd results.

Therefore, the IRS gave us a few exceptions, including:

·       “Short term deferrals”

o   This means being paid by March 15 of the following year

·       Qualified plans, which means pension and profit-sharing plans, including your 401(k)

o   Obvious

·       Certain welfare plans, such as vacation and sick leave plans

o   Obvious

·       Grants of incentive stock options (ISOs) and employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs)

o   Have their own rules

·       Options to buy the stock of the service recipient, but only if the exercise price is not less than the market value of the stock on the date of grant

o   This means that – if you work at P&G and can buy P&G stock through a plan, you had better pay full retail price. If P&G gives you a discount – say you buy for 90 cents on the dollar – the IRS sees this as a “feature for the deferral of compensation.”

What happens if you are pulled into this thing?

·       The plan better be in writing

·       You better make a timely election to defer

·       Distributions to you may only be made upon occurrence of six IRS-approved events

·        You better not be able to accelerate your deferred benefits

What is a timely election? It is not what you may think. Timely in this context means “before you earn it.” For example, if your 2014 bonus is payable in 2015, you had better have your election in place in 2013.

What if you want to make a change to an existing deferral?

·       The payment must be deferred for at least another five years

o   So if you were to start in 2017, you can now start no earlier than 2022

·       And you better make this change at least 12 months before the payment was scheduled to be paid

What do you have to do to get to your money?

·       Death

·       Disability

Good grief! What else have you got?

·       Separation from service

This means you have to be fired. 

·       Change in control

This means that there is a change in ownership or control of the company. I suppose you could sell the company AND get yourself fired, just to be certain.

·       Unforeseen emergency

Think illness or accident or property loss. Even then, you have to show that expenses could not otherwise be met by insurance or your liquidation of other assets. Goes without saying that amount of distribution is limited to the amount needed for the emergency, plus taxes.

·       Date certain or fixed schedule

Finally, here is the heart of the matter. The IRS wants you to select when the deferred monies are to be paid and how (lump sum, series of payments) and then stick to it. It wants you to decide this way ahead of time, and then severely penalize you if later life events cause you to change in your mind.

What happens if you botch it?  Well, Section 409A will kick-in. 

·       There is tax on the distribution

·       There is interest (called a “stinger”) equal to the regular underpayment rate plus 1%

·       There is a 20% penalty

What if you take a distribution early? Bam – you have tax, interest and penalty.

What if you do not do anything wrong, but the company flubs the paperwork? Bam – you have tax, interest and penalty.

Can you say lawsuit?

That 20% penalty is not calculated as you would expect, either. A reasonable person would anticipate the penalty to be 20% of the tax, or possibly 20% of the tax plus the stinger. It is not, however. The penalty is 20% of the deferred balance, whether received by you or not. 

            STEP TWO: Bayonet the survivors.

What if you are in several plans simultaneously and one goes south? Does one plan contaminate the other? 

Of course it does.

STEP THREE: Repeat steps one and two. 

So what did Congress really accomplish with Section 409A?

·       Inability to distinguish publicly-traded from privately-owned

I scratch my head why Congress thinks that my auto mechanic down the street can get himself in the same trouble as a Humana or a General Electric.

Publicly-traded stock is almost like cash. These companies can buy other companies with it. They can pay employees with it. They can fund retirement plans with it. They can … well, they can play Enron with it.  

A privately-owned company however cannot.  Privately-owned companies are playing with their own money. Even the most reckless take a pause when reaching into their own wallet. A publicly-traded executive is closer to a Washington politician than any of the business owners I am likely to represent.

·       Crippling tax bombs for the unadvised

Change your deferral payment date 363 days – rather than 366 - before scheduled payout and risk tax annihilation. 

Does Congress expect that every businessperson can keep a tax attorney on retainer?

·       Yet another tax “industry”

There are advisors out there specializing in Section 409A. There has to be. You could endanger a large company by implementing a faulty plan. 

However, this is not quite the same contribution to the economy as Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone, is it?   

·       Insinuation into routine business transactions

We have a client who recently hired a business development manager. Their intention is to grow the company for 7 or so years, then sell out. It is their retirement program of sorts, I guess. The deal with the development manager includes deferred compensation, driven off year-over-year business growth and eventual sale of the company. What should be a routine tax matter now requires a Section 409A specialist, to be sure the employment package doesn’t blow up.

You want an alternative to 409A? How about this: all accelerations of executive deferred compensation (remember: Enron was only about acceleration) have to go to a shareholder vote. While we are at it, let’s lock down the executives for the same period as the rank-and-file are locked out of their 401(k)s.

And if Enron was caused by acceleration, why does 409A penalize additional deferrals? What is the point?

So the IRS is going to be looking at 50 – to 100 large companies to check on their 409A compliance. I suspect these companies will be fine, as they have the people, resources and advisors to navigate Section 409A. I would give you a different answer were the IRS to train its attention on privately-owned companies, however. 

CPAs Blow Their Own Tax Planning

Here is one of my favorite tax quotes thus far in 2012:

                That an accounting firm should so screw up its taxes is the most remarkable feature of the case.”

You can be sure that language isn’t going to make it to the firm’s brochure.

What happened? It started with compensation. There is a CPA firm in Illinois with three senior partners. These partners were making pretty good jack, enough so that they did not want the other partners to know the actual amounts. Considering that they are – you know, a CPA firm – that could be a tall order. So the three senior partners in turn started three other companies.

EXAMPLE: Let’s say you, me, and the guy in the elevator form three companies to hide our good fortunes from our partners. Let’s say company 1 paints and wallpapers CPA offices, company 2 shreds CPA firm files and company 3 provides door-to-door transportation to CPAs during busy season.  We will have our firm “pay” these companies for services and then we will split it up – behind the scenes, of course. Brilliant! What could go wrong?

The firm and tax case is Mulcahy, Pauritsch, Salvador & Co. They had approximately 40 employees and revenues between $5 and $7 million during the years at issue. The firm was organized as a C corporation. This technically made the partners “shareholders,” and the existence of a C corporation allowed for the possibility of dividends. The three shareholders had the following ownership:

                Edward Mulcahy                              26%

                Michael Pauritsch                            26%

                Philip Salvador                                  26%

For the years at issue they received W-2s as follows:

                                               

                                                              2001                       2002                       2003

                Mulcahy                           106,175                 103,156                 102,662                    

                Pauritsch                            99,074                  96,376                   95,048                         

                Salvador                           117,824                 106,376                 112,086

The firm paid consulting fees to the three companies of:

                2001                                   911,570                

                2002                                   866,143

                2003                                   994,028

The three companies then paid the three shareholders according to the hours each worked during the year.

The IRS comes in and asks the obvious question: what consulting services were provided?

Back to our example:

               

                IRS:  Steve, how many paints and wallpapers did you do?

                Me:  Er, none.              

                IRS:  How many files did you shred?

                You: None.

                IRS:  How many transportation clients did you drive?

                Elevator guy: None.

Truly folks, it does not require graduate school and years of study and practice in taxation to guess the IRS’ reaction. They disallowed the deduction and said that it was a disguised dividend to the three shareholders.

MPS is upset. If it is not consulting, they argue, then it is compensation.

The IRS says: please show us the W-2, the 1099, anything which indicates that this is compensation. MPS argues that it is “like” compensation. Heck, at the end-of-the-day the three companies paid the shareholders based on their hours worked. Doesn’t that sound like compensation? “Sounds like” is a childhood game, says the IRS, and is not recognized as sound tax planning. Surely MPS would know this, being a CPA firm and all.

MPS goes to Tax Court. MPS argues that its intent was to compensate, therefore the tax consequence should follow its intent. It brought in experts to prove that the shareholders were undercompensated, malnourished and in need of more sunshine. The Court listened to the argument, gave it weight and said the following:

               

There is no evidence that the ‘consulting fees’ were compensation for the founding shareholders’ accounting and consulting services. If they had been that—rather than appropriations of corporate income—why the need to conceal them?”

There is an important point here. There is a long-standing tax doctrine that you may select any form and structure you wish for a transaction, but once you do you are bound by that form and structure. The CPA firm was a C corporation and was transacting with its shareholders. A C corporation transacts in one of two ways with its shareholders: as compensation or as dividends/distributions. If the compensation was disallowed, you have the possibility of a dividend.

The Court did try to work with MPS. It noted that two tests for compensation are that (1) it must be reasonable and (2) it must be for services performed. This brought in the “independent investor test” of Exacto Spring, which precedent the Tax Court had used in the past. The idea is easy: what return would you need on your investment to pay someone a certain amount of compensation?

EXAMPLE: A hedge fund manager receives 20% of the fund’s capital gains. This is referred to as the “carry.” Why would an investor agree to this? What if the manager was returning 20% to 30% to you annually – even after deducting his/her 20%? Would you agree to this? Uh, yes.

So the Court looks at MPS’ taxable income for the years at issue:

                2001                                    11,249

                2002                                   (53,271)

                2003                                      -0-

The Court observed that the firm had money invested in its offices, technology, furniture, etc. It noted that – according to normal market expectations – that invested capital required a rate of return. It did not think that taxable income of zero was a reasonable rate of return. The Court was aware that the firm was zeroing-out its taxable income by paying consulting fees. This indicated to the Court that the firm was not concerned with a reasonable return on invested capital. MPS could not meet the Exacto standard. Without meeting that standard, the Court could not weave “compensation” out of “consulting fees” whole cloth. This was an unfortunate result because the firm received no deduction for dividends but the shareholders had to pay taxes on them. That is the double taxation trap of a C corporation. It is also a significant reason why many planners – including me – do not often use C corporations.

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment. I believe that MPS would have substantially prevailed had it deducted the payments as compensation (and included on the W-2) and the IRS in turn argued unreasonable compensation. Why? Because I believe the Court might have disallowed some of the compensation but permitted the rest. MPS instead came from the other direction: it had to argue that the payments were compensation rather than something else. This changed the dynamic, and it now became an all-or-nothing argument. MPS lost the argument and got nothing.

MPS appealed the case but with the same result. It is here that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals gave us the quote:

                That an accounting firm should so screw up its taxes is the most remarkable feature of the case.”

The taxes were almost $980,000. Remember, the personal service corporation lost its deduction (and paid taxes) and the shareholders received dividends (and paid taxes). The penalties alone exceeded $190,000.

MY TAKE: This tax strategy borders on the unforgivable. There were so many ways to sidestep this result.  One way would have been working with disregarded entities, also known as single-member LLCs. The three shareholders performed services for and received W-2s from the accounting firm. The Court however did not agree that their three companies performed services for the accounting firm. A disregarded entity would have avoided that result by having the member’s activities attributed to the SMLLC.

How could the firm pay entities that provided no services? Was nobody in that tax department paying attention? I presume they were steamrolled by the three senior shareholders.

I was brought up with the technique of draining professional service corporation profit to zero by using year-end bonuses. That technique has frayed over recent years as new doctrines – such as Exacto Spring– have appeared. It is as though these MPS guys were stuck in a time warp.

Another way, and the obvious, would be to have just paid the founding partners more compensation. Yes, that would have given away the amount of actual compensation to the senior partners. Then again, this case has also given away that information.