In early 2017, the IRS updated its Golden Parachute Payments Audit Technique Guide for the first time since its 2005 issuance. While intended as an internal reference for IRS agents conducting golden parachute examinations, the Audit Technique Guide offers valuable insight for both public and private companies, and recipients of golden parachute payments, into how IRS agents are likely to approach golden parachutes when conducting an audit.
Ashley McCarthy focuses her practice on executive compensation and employee benefits. She has experience working on matters related to executive compensation and employee benefits aspects of public and private company mergers and acquisitions, deferred compensation arrangements, equity award and bonus plan design, employment and severance agreements, and compliance with the Internal Revenue Code, COBRA, the Affordable Care Act, ERISA, and other federal and state statutory and regulatory schemes. Read Ashley McCarthy's full bio.
A United States District Court recently dismissed a claim that an insider’s election to satisfy an income tax obligation by having shares withheld from the delivery of an award constituted a non-exempt sale of shares back to the issuer for purposes of Section 16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 ( Exchange Act), unless the share withholding was required, rather than merely permitted. While an encouraging development, this decision is now on appeal to the Fifth Circuit and there are similar unresolved complaints in other jurisdictions. Until this matter is resolved, public companies should continue to consider what steps are appropriate to avoid Section 16 exposure and to review this situation with their executive officers.
A US District Court recently dismissed a claim that an insider’s election to satisfy an income tax obligation by having shares withheld from the delivery of an award constituted a non-exempt sale of shares back to the issuer for purposes of Section 16(b) of the Exchange Act, unless the share withholding was required, rather than merely permitted.
While an encouraging development, this decision is now on appeal to the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and there are similar unresolved complaints in other jurisdictions. Until this matter is resolved, public companies should continue to consider what steps are appropriate to avoid Section 16 exposure and to review this situation with their executive officers.
There are numerous reasons why organizations exempt from taxation under Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c) (3), as amended (the “Code” and, such organizations, “Tax-Exempt Entities”) may offer severance payments to employees who incur involuntary terminations of employment. For example, severance that is conditioned on the departing employee’s execution of a release of claims in favor of the Tax-Exempt Entity can reduce the likelihood of costly and burdensome litigation. Similarly, payment of severance may reduce the risk of negative publicity for the Tax-Exempt Entity by diminishing resentment felt by departing employees. Severance may also help retain existing employees by providing them with a measure of economic security that can dissuade them from seeking alternative employment, particularly if they suspect that the Tax-Exempt Entity has encountered budgetary shortfalls and may be implementing near-term workforce reductions. For these and other reasons, many Tax-Exempt Entities have either implemented or are considering implementing severance programs. Tax-Exempt Entities should be aware of unique opportunities and recent IRS regulations that impact the design of severance programs. This article discusses key decisions and planning opportunities for Tax-Exempt Entities to consider when designing and implementing severance plans and individual severance arrangements. Tax-Exempt Entities face a number of legal and regulatory challenges in establishing severance arrangements, particularly with respect to executive-level severance, as discussed in more detail in Part I. Part II discusses the legal parameters around using Code Section 403(b) retirement savings plans to offer severance to employees with lower levels of compensation.
The Supreme Court of the United States ruled 5–4 in its highly anticipated Hobby Lobby decision that closely held for-profit corporations do not have to comply with the contraception mandate under the Affordable Care Act if doing so would violate their religious beliefs. The Supreme Court based its decision on the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which protects “persons” from government actions that substantially burden their exercise of religion, unless those government actions are the least restrictive means of furthering a compelling government interest, and determined that because the contraception mandate is not the least restrictive means available to the government, it cannot apply to closely held for-profit corporations that religiously object to the contraception mandate.
A federal court recently declared unconstitutional Internal Revenue Code Section 107(2), which excludes from gross income a rental allowance paid to a “minister of the gospel” as part of his or her compensation, on the grounds that it violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Religious institutions offering such allowances should closely monitor further developments in this area of the law and consider alternative compensation strategies if federal courts in their jurisdiction adopt similar holdings.
To read the full article, click here.
The Internal Revenue Service (IRS) recently announced cost-of-living adjustments to the applicable dollar limits on various employer-sponsored retirement and welfare plans for 2014. Although many dollar limits currently in effect for 2013 will change, some limits will remain unchanged for 2014. This On the Subject provides a chart of these 2014 cost-of-living changes.
To read the full article, click here.