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.

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.