No Tax On Overtime

 

Let’s look at the overtime tax changes.

This is one of the provisions from the One Big Beautiful Bill (OBBB) that the president signed on July 4, 2025. It is retroactive to January 1, 2025, and we will be seeing the overtime deductions on individual tax returns filed in 2026 for tax year 2025.

Note that I said “deduction.” As we have discussed before, tax credits are generally worth more than a deduction. The tax impact of a credit is dollar-for-dollar. The tax impact from a deduction depends on your tax rate (if you are at a 22% rate, then your deduction is worth 22 cents on the dollar).  That said, we will take the break.

The key thing here is that the break applies to overtime, so you must be in a job that pays overtime. Multiple parties might address overtime requirements: the federal government, a state government, a union, a voluntary arrangement by your employer, but only the federal definition will work here.

The Code looks at the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which introduces us to the terms: “exempt” and “nonexempt” employee. Generally speaking, nonexempt employees are required to be paid overtime, whereas exempt employees are not. The overtime pay is defined as 1.5 times the regular pay rate for all hours over 40 and that itself over a 7-day period.

COMMENT: The definition of exempt looks to a duties test (executive, administrative, or professional). A CPA will be considered a professional and therefore exempt for purposes of the FLSA.

Let’s say you are nonexempt under FLSA. You next question should be: how is your overtime computed? The FLSA requires 1.5 times the regular pay rate. Let’s say that your employer pays double time (I wish). How much is your overtime and how much qualifies for the deduction?

EXAMPLE: You make $35/hour and your employer pays double rate for overtime. You have 150 hours of overtime for the year.

150 hours times $35 times 200% = $10,500

That is what you were paid for those overtime hours, but that is not the deduction.

We have previously discussed how the Code likes to take a common term and restrict it by placing “qualified” in front. Your qualified overtime deduction caps out as follows:

150 hours times $35 times 50% = $2,625

Note that the deduction does not apply to the base pay ($35) for your overtime hours. It applies only to the additional pay, and the additional only up to 50% ($35 times 50%). Chances are good that is not the way you think of overtime, but we are talking tax.

COMMENT: Not quite “No Tax On Overtime.”

The FLSA refers to a 7-day period. There are occupations (firefighters come to mind) that are paid on a different cycle. The Code allows for this variation, and we will not discuss it further.

There is a significant reporting issue for 2025 returns to be filed in 2026: the 2025 Form W-2 does not have a box to report “qualified” overtime. In fact, it does not have a specific box to report overtime at all, although an employer may use an available box (probably box 14) to report. The tax bill (OBBA) was signed by the president on July 4, 2025, a bit late into the year to reasonably demand retroactive changes in W-2 reporting. The new 2026 W-2 forms (for returns to be filed in 2027) will be changed to include the amount of qualified overtime.

But what are we to do for the 2025 returns filed in 2026?

First, it is a concern only if you are paid overtime. That knocks out quite a few of us.

Second, I suspect that tax preparers will routinely request a copy of your last 2025 paystub, if you are paid overtime. The stub should have information showing the calculation. Granted, the numbers may have to be reworked, but it is a logical place to start.

Third, your employer might voluntarily provide this information for 2025, in which case you likely have an attachment to your Form W-2. I suppose an employer could alternatively send you to a website for this information. There is a one-time reporting safe harbor for employers: if they tracked your overtime for the second half of 2025 (remember, OBBA was signed July 4, 2025), they can extrapolate to the full 2025 year. This safe harbor goes away for 2026, as employers will be required to track and report actual detail.

COMMENT: There is a somewhat similar W-2 reporting issue for qualified tips. The difference between the overtime deduction and the tips deduction is there is (some) existing tip reporting on the W-2. The tax preparer has a place to start. The preparer has no similar starting place for overtime.

Like the tips deduction, this is not an itemized deduction. You can get this deduction whether you itemize or not.

There is an overall limit on the deduction. If you are single, the limit is $12,500. If you are married, the limit is $25,000.

And this overall limit is reduced if you have too much income. Too much starts at $150,000 for singles and $300,000 for marrieds. Beyond that point, you will phase-out at a dime on the dollar.

If you are married, you will need to file a joint return.

You will need to provide your social security number to claim the deduction. Leave it out and the IRS will automatically revise your tax return and send you a bill.

A bonus will not qualify for this deduction. It must be overtime, even if the bonus is in lieu of overtime. Stand-by or on-call pay will not qualify either.

Like tips, the overtime deduction is for federal income tax only. It will not reduce your FICA taxes, and your state will decide whether you have a state equivalent to the federal tax deduction. Some states will; other states will not.

In case you were wondering: you cannot claim the overtime deduction and the tips deduction on the same income. One or the other, folks.

The deduction has a shelf life of four years. It will go away (unless a future Congress extends it) after the 2028 returns to be filed in 2029.

BTW, you can now revise your 2026 federal Form W-4 (telling your employer how much to withhold) to allow for your expected qualified overtime deduction. You did not have this option (directly; one could get there indirectly) for 2025. Why the difference between 2025 and 2026? Just look to November.

And there you have the new overtime deduction.

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.

A Call From Chuck

I was speaking with a client this week. He told me that he recently retired and his financial advisor recommended he discuss a matter with me.

Me:              So, what are we going to talk about?”

Chuck:         I worked for Costco for many years.”

Me:              OK.”

Chuck:         I bought their stock all along.”

Me:              Not sure where this is going. Are you diversifying?”

Chuck:         Have you heard of Net Unrealized Appreciation?”

Me:              Sure have, but how does that apply to you?”

That was not my finest moment. I did not immediately register that Chuck had – for many years – bought Costco stock inside of his 401(k).

Take a look at this stock chart: 

Costco stock was at $313 on February 7, 2020. Five years later it is at $1,043.

It has appreciated – a lot.

I missed the boat on that one.

The appreciation is unrealized because Chuck has not sold the stock.

The difference between the total value of the Costco stock in his 401(k) and his cost in the stock (that is, the amount he paid over the years buying Costco) is the net unrealized appreciation, abbreviated “NUA” and commonly pronounced (NEW-AHH).

And Chuck has a tax option that I was not expecting. His financial advisor did a good job of spotting it.

Let’s make up a few numbers as we talk about the opportunity here.

Say Chuck has 800 shares. At a price of $1,043, the stock is worth $834,400.

Say his average cost is 20 cents on the dollar: $834,400 times 20% = cost of $166,880.

Chuck also owns stocks other than Costco in his 401(k). We will say those stocks are worth $165,600, bring the total value of his 401(k) to an even $1 million.

Chuck retires. What is the likely thing he will do with that 401(k)?

He will rollover the 401(k) to an IRA with Fidelity, T Rowe, Vanguard, or someone like that.

He may wait or not, but eventually he will start taking distributions from the IRA. If he delays long enough the government will force him via required minimum distributions (RMDs).

How is the money taxed when distributed from the IRA?

It is taxed as ordinary income, meaning one can potentially run through all the ordinary tax rates.

It was not that long ago (1980) that the maximum tax rate was 70%. Granted, one would need a lot of income to climb through the rates and get to 70%. But people did. Can you imagine the government forcing you to take a distribution and then taking seventy cents on the dollar as its cut?

Hey, you say. What about those capital gains in the 401(k)?  Is there no tax pop there?

Think of a 401(k) as Las Vegas. What happens in Las Vegas stays in Las Vegas. What leaves Las Vegas is ordinary income.

And that gets us to net unrealized appreciation. Congress saw the possible unfairness of someone owning stock in a regular, ordinary taxable brokerage account rather than a tax-deferred retirement account. The ordinary taxable account can have long-term capital gains. The retirement account cannot.

Back to NEW-AHH.

How much is in that 401(k)?

A million dollars.

How much of that is Costco?

$834,400.

Let’s roll the Costco stock to a taxable brokerage account. Let’s roll the balance ($165,600) to an IRA.

This would normally be financial suicide, as stock going to a taxable account is considered a distribution. Distributions from an IRA are ordinary income. How much is ordinary income tax on $834,400? I can assure you it exceeds my ATM withdrawal limit.

Here is the NUA option:

You pay ordinary tax on your cost - not the value - in that Costco stock.

OK, that knocks it down to tax on $166,880.

It still a lot, but it is substantially less than the general rule.

Does that mean you never pay tax on the appreciation – the $667,520?

Please. Of course you will, eventually. But you now have two potentially huge tax planning options.

First, hold the stock for at least a year and a day and you will pay long-term capital gains (rather than ordinary income tax) rates on the gain.

QUIZ: Let’s say that the above numbers stayed static for a year and a day. You then sold all the stock. How much is your gain? It is $667,520 (that is, $834,400 minus $166,880). You get credit (called “basis” in this context) for the income you previously reported.

What is the second option?

You control when you sell the stock. If you want to sell a bit every year, you can delay paying taxes for years, maybe decades. Contrast this with MRDs, where the government forces you to distribute money from the account.

So why wouldn’t everybody go NUA?

Well, one reason is that (in our example) you pony up cash equal to the tax on the $166,880. I suppose you could sell some of the Costco stock to provide the cash, but that would create another gain triggering another round of tax.

A second reason is your specific tax situation. If you just leave it alone, distributions from a normal retirement account would be taxable as ordinary income. If you NUA, you are paying tax now for the possibility of paying reduced tax in the future. Take two people with differing incomes and taxes and whatnot and you might arrive at two different answers.

Here are high-profile points to remember about net unrealized appreciation:

(1)  There must exist a retirement account at work.

(2)  There must be company stock in that retirement account.

(3)  There is a qualified triggering event. The likely one is that you retired.

(4)  There must be a lump-sum distribution out of that retirement account. At the end of the day, the retirement account must be empty.

(5)  The stock part of the retirement account goes one way (to a taxable account), and the balance goes another way (probably to an IRA).

(6)  The stock must be distributed in kind. Selling the stock and rolling the cash will not work.

BTW taking advantage of NUA does not have to be all or nothing. We used $834,400 as the value of the Costco stock in the above example. You can NUA all of that – or just a portion. Let’s say that you want to NUA $400,000 of the $834,400. Can you do that? Of course you can.

Chuck has a tax decision that I will never have.

Why is that?

CPA firms do not have traded stock.