Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Under current law, compensation paid to the employees of a tax-exempt organization is not subject to excess remuneration rules as it would be for a similar for-profit organization. Under the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, should certain employees of a tax-exempt organization receive compensation greater than $1,000,000 during the tax year from any combination of a tax-exempt organization and/or its related organizations, the organizations would be subject to an excise tax on that employee's compensation in proportion to their payments to the employee. This rule applies to the five highest compensated employees of the tax-exempt organization with compensation greater than $1,000,000 for the taxable year, as well as any other employee with compensation greater than $1,000,000 who was formerly classified within the “five highest compensated employees” during any taxable year beginning after Dec. 31, 2016 (§4960 of the Code).
Present Law
Taxable employers and other service recipients generally may deduct reasonable compensation expenses. However, in some cases, compensation in excess of specific levels is not deductible. A publicly held corporation generally cannot deduct more than $1 million of compensation (that is not compensation otherwise excepted from this limit) in a taxable year for each “covered employee.” For this purpose, a covered employee is the corporation's principal executive officer (or an individual acting in such capacity) defined in reference to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (Exchange Act) as of the close of the taxable year, or any employee whose total compensation is required to be reported to shareholders under the Exchange Act by reason of being among the corporation's three most highly compensated officers for the taxable year (other than the principal executive officer or principal financial officer). Unless an exception applies, generally a corporation cannot deduct that portion of the aggregate present value of a “parachute payment” that equals or exceeds three times the “base amount” of certain service providers. The nondeductible excess is an “excess parachute payment” — a payment of compensation that is contingent on a change in corporate ownership or control made to certain officers, shareholders and highly compensated individuals. An individual's base amount is the average annualized compensation includible in the individual's gross income for the five taxable years ending before the date on which the change in ownership or control occurs. Certain amounts are not considered parachute payments, including payments under a qualified retirement plan, a welfare benefit plan payment actuarially determined to fund only through working life, a simplified employee pension plan, or a simple retirement account. Under Section 162(m)(6), limits apply to deductions for compensation of individuals performing services for certain health insurance providers. See, Notice 2007-49, IRB 2007-2 1429, IRC §§280G(a) and (b)(1) 280G(b)(2) and (c), 280G(b)(3) 401(a), 403(a), 408(k), and 408(p). These deduction limits generally did not affect a tax-exempt organization.
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
In Rockwell v. Despart, the New York Supreme Court, Third Department, recently revisited a recurring question: When may a landowner seek judicial removal of a covenant restricting use of her land?