Over a year ago I blogged about the situation of former employees of Verizon who had never worked or resided in the United States but who had U.S. income taxes withheld from payments under benefit plans in which they participated while they worked for Verizon. The former employees had brought a claim for breach of
Understanding Employee Benefits and key developments in the employee benefits field and items of interest to our clients. MORE
Deferred Compensation and 409A
Next Stop: IRS Compliance Checks of Non-Governmental 457(b) Deferred Compensation Plans
By Jeffrey Cairns on
Recently the Employee Plans Compliance Unit (EPCU) of the Internal Revenue Service completed an informal compliance check of 401(k) plans conducted via an extensive written questionnaire sent to plan sponsors. The results of the compliance checks are being used to refine the focus of plan examination efforts.
This week, the IRS announced that it is…
Nonresident Employee Avoids New York Taxes on Deferred Compensation Payment
By Stinson LLP on
A taxpayer we will call John worked for a savings bank in New York that was acquired by Washington Mutual Bank. John participated in the New York bank’s supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP) and its deferred compensation plan, both of which were nonqualified deferred compensation plans. When Washington Mutual Bank acquired the New York bank, …
More on Discounted Stock Options Under Section 409A
By Stinson LLP on
My colleague Jeff Cairns blogged about a recent court case confirming the IRS’s position that discounted stock options can be considered noncompliant nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Unless structured to be exercised only on a fixed date or an allowable 409A event, discounted stock options will result in …
New York Taxes a Portion of Stock Option Gain of Nonresident Retiree
By Stinson LLP on
Like a number of states, New York requires nonresidents to pay income taxes on wages earned in the state. Those rules extend to an allocable portion of deferred compensation and gain from the exercise of stock options earned while employed in the state. The state’s ability to tax a nonresident is limited to this extent: …
It is Always Good to Follow the Plan’s Claims Procedure in Denying a Claim
By Stinson LLP on
A recent Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision involved high ranking executives who participated in a company’s long-term incentive plan. Under the plan agreements, executives who did not continue employment for a three year performance period forfeited benefits under the plan unless they qualified for a pro-rated award. A pro-rated award was available for participants …
Not All Courts Agree With The Eighth Circuit
By Stinson LLP on
I blogged recently about an Eighth Circuit decision concluding that an agreement with a single employee cannot be an ERISA plan because a plan necessarily requires more than one participant. Other courts disagree. Recently the United States District Court for the District of Idaho in the case of Knoll v. Moreton Insurance of Idaho, Inc…
Top Hat Plan Benefits Can Be Garnished
By Stinson LLP on
In a recent District Court decision, a court held that non-qualified deferred compensation benefits being paid to a participant under a “top hat” plan could be garnished by the participant’s creditor. Employers who sponsor plans covered by ERISA know that creditors cannot garnish a participant’s benefits under a qualified retirement plan. Any state laws …
Agreement With Single Employee is Not an ERISA Plan
By Stinson LLP on
If an arrangement is subject to ERISA, state law claims relating to that arrangement are preempted. In some situations, therefore, employers try to argue that a particular arrangement is subject to ERISA. In a recent decision involving a state law breach of contract claim, the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that a deferred compensation …