Tax-exempt employers face a matrix of tax and disclosure issues in designing an appropriate supplement retirement program. This resource intends to examine the income tax, payroll tax and Form 990 reporting aspects of the major plans currently available to tax-exempt employers, and review those major plans from the reference point of several major design considerations.
Andrew Liazos and Allison Wilkerson wrote this bylined article on Tax Code Section 409A’s deferral and payment requirements for nonqualified deferred compensation plans. Recent IRS Section 409A guidance makes “several helpful changes that employers will want to consider and take advantage of,” the authors wrote, and they warned employers that they ignore final IRS “at their peril…in light of the more limited ability to correct errors.”
Originally published in The Practical Tax Lawyer, Spring 2017
The recent presidential election has tax professionals busy analyzing predicted (and hoped for) tax reform proposals, including the potential reduction in the top marginal rates for individuals. It is unclear whether and when rates will be reduced, and how soon thereafter rates may creep up again, but tax rate proposals invariably lead to discussions relating to the timing of compensation payments.
On June 21, 2016 the IRS issued proposed regulations to modify and clarify existing regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Many of these changes resulted from practitioner comments and the IRS’ experience with Section 409A after issuing the final regulations. Overall, most of the proposed changes are favorable, and may provide some planning opportunities.
In the corporate transactions context, it is increasingly important to be familiar with the key tax considerations relating to mergers and acquisitions, and how to minimize tax risks in such transactions.
In the following presentation, Andrew Liazos, partner at McDermott Will & Emery, provides an overview of executive compensation tax issues to limit the effect of “golden parachute” taxes and avoid adverse deferred compensation tax results under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code.
Multinational companies increasingly have internationally mobile employees (IMEs) who perform services in more than one country, other than their country of citizenship, during a single taxable year. It can be quite challenging to manage legal compliance and tax risks with a globally mobile workforce using a typical secondment arrangement. Under this arrangement, an IME is employed by the home country (usually the place of citizenship) employer and is then assigned or seconded to work in a host country. This approach can result in several entities within a multinational company’s controlled group having multiple assignment letters for each IME, without having any common administration.
A global employment company, or GEC, is an entity established by a multinational company to employ its IMEs. In effect, the GEC serves as a leasing company that is responsible for the employment, compensation and benefits, immigration and income and social tax matters for IMEs. The GEC provides the assignment letter to the IME, pays – or arranges with a third party to pay – compensation and benefits, and handles all required administrative support for the assignment. The GEC in turn charges a service fee to each entity that uses the IME’s services.
For more details about GECs, read the full article here.
Subscribe
