Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
When the Tax Cut and Jobs Act became law in December of 2017 there was a question whether some of the highest salaried employees at non-profit organizations would be exempt from the $1M remuneration tax. In the majority of states (39 out of 50), the highest salaried employees are athletic coaches. Of the 50 U.S. states, a college football or men's basketball coach were the highest-paid employee in 2016. Further Checking the Office of President University of California website the top 20 salaried employees are athletic coaches.
A position was taken by some advisers that where a state sponsored college or university was not subject to income tax based on IRC §115(1) and not §501(c) therefore the excise tax should not apply. On Dec. 31, 2018, the IRS issued interim guidance that addresses how excise tax will apply in various situations that commonly arise for tax-exempt employers. These announcements together with the Blue Book issued on Dec. 20, 2018 by the Joint Tax Committee provide clear guidance. Overall, the IRS has interpreted Section 4960 in a manner that is unfavorable to tax-exempt employers, particularly nonprofit health systems and state sponsored colleges and universities. Establishing internal systems to determine which employees are covered by this excise tax is likely to be challenging. Key highlights of Notice 2019-09 addressing Non Profit Organization executive compensations include:
The IRS issued final regulations in June 2016 and further direction with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act, the Bluebook and Notice 2019-09 that provide a roadmap for a successful solution to the excise tax conundrum. A solution applies an actuarially based methodology to provide benefits for selected non-profit executives on a tax efficient basis. If you already have a plan in place it is most likely a 457(f) plan for the executive, management and professional employees. This is not meant to replace a plan in existence, rather it compliments it as there are decided differences. Most significant for the participants is the opportunity to provide for their families, a pre-retirement death benefit without risks of forfeiture and with enormous flexibility. This is not an ERISA plan, it does not need a Trustee and the participant and plan sponsor will avoid the claims of creditors while providing for the participant's loved ones. Because this is not a qualified plan and it is not considered as deferred comp by the IRS, the plan can be self-funded and the benefit amounts can vary on a participant by participant basis. Because it follows the “top hat” rules it does not require any form of ongoing or annual filings with any regulatory agencies. A one-time e-filing with Department of Labor is the only regulatory filing. It is two pages long and does not require the listing of participants or amounts contributed.
Non-profit organizations have limited opportunities to recruit, retain and reward highly prized Executives, because of regulatory, economic, human resources, communication and compliance requirements. New rules provided by the IRS offer the opportunity to use a planning tool that will provide a current benefit for the top five executives not otherwise available in ERISA based plans, deferred compensation and split dollar insurance planning.
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?