Proposed Tax Bill Would Change the Face of Executive Compensation

Yesterday, Representative Kevin Brady (R-TX), Chair of the powerful House Ways and Means Committee, rolled out the Republican tax reform proposal. And, while no tax bill in my lifetime or likely anyone else's lifetime has made it through the legislative process unscathed, the draft bill fashioned as HR 1 certainly provides an indicator of where we may be headed.

Much seems completely as expected. We knew about the slimming to four tax brackets. We knew about the narrowing of deductions. We knew that some of the more heavily-taxed states would feel the pain of restructuring. What we didn't know and what frankly came as a surprise to me and to others that I know would completely change the face of executive compensation in the US. Honestly, on its surface, these proposed changes look to me as if they they had been constructed by Democrats. It wouldn't surprise me if these changes had been pre-negotiated, but that's entirely speculation on my part.

So, what's the big deal?

There are two extremely significant proposed changes according to my initial reading.

1. The draft would amend Code Section 162(m) (the $1 million pay cap) to eliminate the exemption for performance-based compensation. In addition, that section would be amended to cover the Chief Financial Officer in addition to the Chief Executive Officer. 
2. Code Section 409A would be repealed (you thought that was good news, didn't you?) and replaced with a new Code Section 409B. Essentially, 409B as drafted would apply the much more stringent taxation upon vesting rules that have previously applied generally only to 457(f) plans. 

162(m) Changes

Section 162(m) was added to the Internal Revenue Code by the 1993 tax bill. Widely praised at the time as a way to limit executive compensation, the exemption for performance-based compensation turned out to be a far bigger loophole than had been imagined. Many companies saw this as a license to offer base pay of $1 million to their CEO while offering incentive pay (some only very loosely incentive based) without limits while taking current deductions.

That would change. 

My suspicion is that companies would return to paying their top executives as they and their Boards see fit, but with the knowledge that particularly high compensation whether performance based or not would not be deductible. Additionally, so called mega-grants and mega-awards would likely become much rarer as the cost of providing them would no longer be offset by tax savings.

409B

The ability to defer compensation has long been a favorite of high earners. The requirement to defer compensation has also been considered a good governance technique by many large employers (for example, a number of large financial services institutions require that percentages of incentive compensation be paid in company stock and that receipt must be deferred),

Much of this would go away as very few people have the ability or desire to pay taxes on large sums of money before they actually receive that money.

What Might Happen If the Bill Passes

Nobody really knows what might happen. But since this is my blog, I get to guess. Here, readers need to understand that there is no hard evidence that what I say in this section will happen, but it seems as if it could.

The draft of HR 1 appears to keep tax-favored status for qualified retirement plans. That's important because qualified retirement plans are a form of deferred compensation with some special rules and requirements attached. What this means is that to the extent that an individual would like to defer compensation on a tax-favored basis, he would need to do it through a qualified plan.

However, qualified plans need to be nondiscriminatory; that is, they must (not an exhaustive list):

• Provide benefits that are nondiscriminatory (in favor of highly compensated employees)
• Provide other plan elements sometimes known as benefits, rights, and features that are nondiscriminatory
• Cover a group of employees that is nondiscriminatory

There are techniques by which this can be accomplished in a currently legal manner, but they are not simple. It would not surprise me to see more interest in these techniques.

As I said at the beginning, I don't expect this bill to pass as is. But, these particular provisions written by Republicans should not draw ire from Democrats. We'll see where it goes.

Lessons From California Public Pensions

Over the last few days, the print media (at least we used to call it print media) has hit hard on public pensions in the State of California. The New York Times hit hard on the differences between the "actuarial approach" and the "market approach." The Los Angeles Times took on a pension deal from the late 90s. Both of these are symptomatic of the issues that all of taxpayers, legislators, workers, and actuaries face in the public pension world.

Let's take a step back. Some of the most generous of all public pensions are those available to public safety officers primarily police and fire. I could give you lots of reasons why this approach is correct and why it's not. You might disagree with my analysis on all of them, but that's not what's important here.

Historically, people who have chosen careers in police and fire have thought of their careers differently than people in most other professions. Those careers are very risky and they are physically demanding. Many in those professions would tell you and me that lasting more than 30 years or so is just not practical. And, if we take that as a correct statement (I do), then it is reasonable that such public safety officers be eligible to retire from that career earlier than we would expect in most other careers. After all, if you were trapped in a burning building, would you be happy if the people trying to save you were just trying to hang on until normal retirement age at 65, but weren't really physically capable of handling such a demanding task?

Over time, states, cities, towns, and other governmental organizations found the answer. Provide those public safety officers with a significant incentive to retire early (compared to other careers) and if you do that, you don't have to pay them all that much. So, what that has historically achieved is that costs for current public safety employees have been relatively lower and costs have been deferred into their retirements.

That's a problem. It doesn't need to occur. The correct answer for a governmental employer, or other employer, is to realize that deferred compensation (that's what a pension is) is earned during a employee's working lifetime. Therefore, it should be paid for during that working lifetime. After all, once an individual in any profession retires, they no longer provide a benefit to the organization that they previously worked for. Further, the burden to pay for those pensions should not be passed on to future generations of taxpayers.

In the past, I have commented about various actuarial cost methods. An actuarial cost method is a technique for allocating costs to the past, the present, and the future. Looking at things as any of a taxpayer, legislator, employer, or employee (I happen to not be all of those, but even so, I can put myself in the shoes of those that I am not), the correct answer has the following characteristics:

• An employee's pension is paid for (funded) over their working lifetime. Once they retire, the cost of providing their benefit is over. (Understand that actuarial gains and losses make this an inexact science, but we should be close.)
• The cost of providing that employee's pension should be level. That is, it should either be a constant percentage of their pay or a constant dollar amount. As an employer, I can budget for that. 

Let's consider an example of that second bullet. Suppose I pay a public safety officer $60,000 per year (I know -- in some jurisdictions that seems high and in others it seems low) in salary. Further suppose that their deferred compensation costs me 10% of pay annually. Then when I am budgeting for that person, I know how to budget every year. If their pay goes up by 5%, so does the cost of their pension, roughly. This year, I budget $66,000 for current plus deferred compensation. Next year, with that 5% budgeted increase, I budget $69,300 for current plus deferred compensation.

There is an actuarial cost method that does exactly this. It's called Entry Age Normal (EAN). When I entered the actuarial profession back during the days when we used green accounting paper rather than spreadsheets, in my experience, EAN was the actuarial cost method of choice. But, it had its downsides. 

• Neither the accounting profession nor the federal legislators accepted it as the method of choice.
• Employers were advised that their current cash cost would be lower using a different actuarial cost method. It's easy to say you will fix that problem later on.
• Observers understand a method where you pay for benefits as they accrue, but nor one in which you pay for benefits as they are allocated by actuaries.

So, now we have come to a crossroads. Many of the largest public pension plans are horribly underfunded regardless of how you determine funding levels (some have been funded responsibly; others have not). Getting them well funded requires cash which can only come from increasing taxes or from taking money from elsewhere in the budget (dream on). Legislators want to get re-elected which means you don't raise taxes. 

Hmm, I see a problem here.

The problem extends to private pensions as well, but there are  good solutions there. Since EAN is not available as an actuarial cost method anymore (we could choose to have our valuation done using the legally prescribed Unit Credit actuarial cost method, but fund not less than the EAN cost although that is very rarely done), we need to look in other places. 

Plan design is an excellent lever in this regard. Suppose we had a plan design  that even under a Unit Credit cost method allowed us to achieve exactly what we are talking about here. And, suppose that design allowed for all the benefits of defined benefit plans (DB) including market-priced with no built-in profits annuity options, professional investing, no leakage, portability, and virtually no cost volatility. Wouldn't that be an ideal world?

That design exists. And, you can have it now.

409A Audit Could Be Coming to Your Company

All the way back in 2004, Congress passed and President George W. Bush signed into law the American Jobs Creation Act (Jobs Act). While it does not appear to have created many jobs, the Jobs Act added Section 409A to the Internal Revenue Code. The reasons were twofold -- first, to ensure that participants in nonqualified deferred compensation plans (NQDC) would never be advantaged over those in qualified plans; and second, to raise revenue for the federal government.

Thus far, the addition of 409A has done a pretty good job at the first of those goals by imposing a very strict set of rules on participants, usually executives, in NQDC arrangements. With regard to raising revenue, however, 409A has been fairly impotent to date.

Several years ago, the IRS rolled out an audit initiative of 409A plans. It had some teeth, but mostly with regard to larger plans (more participants) of larger companies. While there were exceptions, for the most part, if your company has less than about 5,000 employees or if your NQDC plans in total have less than about 100 covered participants, you've been mostly immune from this audit initiative.

Reports are now that the IRS has stepped up their audits. They are doing more of them and they are investigating more and more plans of companies that did seem immune in the early years of the program. In fact, I heard from an NQDC recordkeeper that a client of theirs with only 19 NQDC participants is currently under a 409A audit. I spoke with that recordkeeper, but between us, we couldn't determine what the pattern of companies that have recently come under 409A audit has been. That recordkeeper's anecdotal evidence, though, suggests that in other than very large companies, the primary target plans have been in order:

• Nonqualified defined benefit pension plans that do not have the same formula as a broad-based DB plan in which the covered executives also participate;
• Other nonqualified DB plans that simply make up for IRS limits (415 and 401(a)(17));
• Deferred compensation plans that look different from the company's 401(k) plans; and
• 401(k) mirror plans.

In other words, the target seems to be executive retirement plans.

What can you do?

To understand what the solutions might be, your first need to understand the problems. Generally, there are two ways that you can violate 409A -- either by failing to have or failing to have an appropriate written plan document, or by failing to follow both the plan document and the law and regulations.

In either case, the penalties are severe. But, those penalties are not imposed on the company. Instead, they are imposed on the executive, even if he had neither influence on nor knowledge of the defect from which that penalty will arise.

How bad is the penalty? It's this bad:

• An additional 20% income surtax on the amounts deferred and not compliant for all taxable years in which that was the case; plus
• Interest on previously unpaid taxes (due to failure to include the deferred amounts in income in the year in which they were deferred) at the Federal Underpayment Rate plus 1%.

And, that's in addition to ordinary income (and other) taxes that would be owed on those amounts. They add up quickly.

For most 409A defects, however, there are correction methods, structured somewhat analogously to those under the EPCRS program for qualified plans.

Many of you will seek help from counsel and from tax advisers. That may be a good solution for you. A problem that can occur in either case, though, is that it's very possible that neither has significant experience with determination of 409A benefits or with the administration of those benefits.If they do, that's great. But, if they don't, you probably need to look for additional expertise.

Compensating Executives in a "Challenging" World

The rationale has always gone something like this: if you don't compensate your executives at least equal to their peers and if you don't reward their performance, you will never have a top tier executive group and your company will not succeed.

Is that statement true? Is part of it true?

We're getting much closer to finding out. The big news this proxy season is from shareholder proposals on executive compensation. That's right -- since Say-on-Pay votes are non-binding, shareholder groups are looking to force companies to put components of executive compensation to a binding shareholder vote.

Before getting into a few details, let's understand how most companies are reacting. It's not surprising, but as a group, large corporations do not think their shareholders understand executive compensation. They are seeking to keep these votes off of their proxies. As a precursor to doing so, they request what is known as a "no-action letter" from the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). In brief, when a government agency issues a no-action letter, it assures the requestor that it will not take action on a given issue. So, when a company seeks such a letter from the SEC, the company is asking the SEC to confirm that it will not take action, for example, for a failure to place a particular item in its definitive proxy.

One of the most ardent submitters of executive compensation proposals is the largest American labor union, the AFL-CIO. In a statement, the AFL-CIO said, "We opposed compensation plans that provide windfalls to executives that are unrelated to their performance."

On its surface, that seems very prudent. But, it may be a bit trickier in practice.

What makes compensation related to performance? How does one define performance? Is compensation as expressed in the Summary Compensation Table? Is it cash only? Does it include equity? Does it include the (proxy-includable) value of deferred compensation?

Here is how it would strike me.

• Base pay is not related to performance. But, generally, to the extent that such pay is deductible to the employer under Section 162(m) ($1 million pay cap), some observers will not consider it to be egregious. On the other hand, in today's world of pay ratios and calls for increases in rank and file wages, other observers will ask that it be capped at some multiple of either the median pay for the entire company or even that of the lowest-paid employees of the company.
• Bonuses are theoretically related to performance. To the extent that the criteria used to evaluate executive performance and by extension, executive bonuses, are appropriate, so should those bonuses be. To play devil's advocate, however, if an executive knows how her bonus will be calculated, she may take inappropriate risks (for the company) in order to maximize the expected value of her bonus. Similarly, she may find ways to accelerate certain items into the fiscal year in question while deferring others until the next year. 
• Long-term incentives are [nearly] always performance based. In today's world, it is expected that those incentive payouts will be based on the achievement of a set of goals related to metrics deemed appropriate for that executive. Often, there are circuit breakers (elements that if the executive fails to meet a pre-established minimum level of performance, he will not receive a payout or that part of a payout at all). But, long-term incentives are often paid in company equity. This means that compensation will, to a large extent, be tied to share price. As we know, however, share price is not always tied to corporate performance. On any given day, share price may be influenced by such as the state of peace or war in the Middle East, a speech given by the President of the United States, or the rise or fall of housing starts during the last month. 
• What about deferred compensation (here I am referring to traditional deferred compensation plans, either defined benefit or defined contribution)? It's rarely performance based. Theoretically, the company is paying an executive less today for a promise to give them some of that pay in the future. What sorts of plans should be challenged? If an executive voluntarily defers some of their compensation and it grows at a rate tied to some broadly investable index, is that okay? Suppose she has a DB SERP that looks just like the broad-based plan (qualified plan), but without limitations applicable to qualified plans. Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS) is generally fine with this, but major labor unions may not be. And, if that SERP looks very different from qualified plans, even if there is a good reason for it, this may be a situation where no institutional shareholders are satisfied.

What should Boards of Directors and their Compensation Committees do about all of this? ConocoPhillips shareholders are asking that the Compensation Committee develop a program to determine which portions of a bonus should be paid immediately, which portions should be deferred, and what adjustments should be made to those deferrals based on performance.

Perhaps this has some merit. If it does, however, it's a bit of a nightmare for people who need to figure out how to make such a plan 409A-compliant and for those who need to administer FICA tax payments.

On the other hand, if adjustments are to be made based on performance, can't the same executive who is able to manipulate performance metrics in the LTI scenario described above also find a way to manipulate them here? Where there are objective formulas, there are smart people who can figure out how to game the system. Where there are subjective evaluations, Boards will be accused of pandering to the executives of the companies.

More than ever, the Compensation Discussion and Analysis (CD&A) will be very key. Explaining why the mix of objective and subjective factors was chosen can go a long way to appeasing large shareholders. Explaining how levels of compensation were chosen is a must. And, for the first time, we may see companies rationalizing their levels of executive pay as compared to rank and file pay.

With all of these challenges to executive compensation, these are challenging times for Compensation Committees.

Benefits and Compensation After the Elections

Suppose there was a presidential election this year. Just suppose. And, further, suppose that election had a winner. Just suppose.

It is extremely likely that the winner will be someone nominated by either the Democratic Party or by the Republican Party. And, it is not at all unlikely that the party of the winner will keep or gain control of both houses of Congress.

From the standpoint of tax policy, and by extension, benefits and compensation policy, what will this mean for you, the employer or employee? Should you care?

I don't think we're far enough along to do a candidate-by-candidate analysis, but I do think that we are aided by the fact (at least I think it's a fact) that the remaining viable candidates fall generally into a few small buckets from these standpoints (yes, Carly Fiorina will give us a 3-page tax code (no idea what it might say) and Gary Johnson who has declared for the nomination of the Libertarian Party is a Fair Tax proponent). In fact, I think there are at most four such buckets remaining.

Let's identify them from left to right (that is how we usually read):

• The Democratic Socialist (DS) Bucket whose main component, Senator Bernie Sanders (I-VT, but caucuses with the Democrats and running for the Democratic nomination) has recently told us, "Yes, your taxes will go up."
• The Mainstream Democratic (MD) Bucket whose main component, former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton will, according to her website today (it did say something somewhat different on this topic at the end of last year), lower taxes for the middle class (and by extension the lower class) and raise taxes on the wealthy including big business.
• The Traditional Republican (TD) Bucket that includes the likes of [alphabetically] Chris Christie, governor of New Jersey; John Kasich, governor of Ohio; Marco Rubio, junior Senator from Florida; and Donald Trump (yes he is mainstream for this purpose), businessman from New York, which generally would lower tax brackets and flatten, or make less progressive, the tax code.
• The Conservative Republican (CR) Bucket that includes Ben Carson, retired physician from Maryland, and Ted Cruz, junior Senator from Texas which would replace the current income tax structure with a flat tax.

I'm going to make things a little tougher on you here Rather than reiterating these buckets, I'll comment on how different philosophies might affect things.

We all know the health care debate. Sanders wants to move to a single-payer system. Clinton likes the status quo under the Affordable Care Act (ACA). The Republicans with the exception of Kasich want to repeal the ACA and start over again. Kasich, on the other hand, thinks that this is an impractical solution and would keep some portions of the ACA and change others.

On the pension side, Republicans as a group are in favor of self-reliance. This would tend toward a world of nothing but 401(k) (and similar) plans. Their philosophy is that prudent Americans should be able to save enough for their own retirements, especially with the benefits of an employer match. Of course, many of them will be dismayed WHEN they read my blog to know that I disagree with that.

Clinton is much tougher to figure out on this. But, we can look to her stated tax policy and work our way back. When taxes on high earners and large corporations increase, so does the value of tax deductions. So, under a Clinton presidency, we might expect to see more high earners and profitable corporations accelerate contributions to benefit plans in order to accelerate tax deductions. Could this result in somewhat of a rebirth of defined benefit (DB) plans? Theoretically, it should, but in practice, I would expect that even if that rebirth occurs, it will be very limited.

Sanders would prefer to see a single government-run retirement system for everyone; that is, we would have expanded Social Security and Medicare with smaller benefits and less availability for those who have been the highest earners. In this scenario, although I personally don't see Congress going along with it, the prevalence of employer-provided retirement plans could decline significantly. On the other hand, it would not be antithetical to his philosophy to see a DB requirement in much the same way that the ACA leaves employers with a health care requirement. Could we see pay or play here?

With regard to executive compensation (nobody is saying much about broad-based compensation other than to say that under their Presidency, there will be more and better jobs and pay will increase rapidly), we have another large rift between the candidates. Here, one of the biggest elements is the view of what has probably been President Obama's second signature bill, the Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform and Consumer Protection Act of 2010 (Dodd-Frank). (Why couldn't they have given the law a short name like Fred so that I don't have to test my typing skills every time I cite the law?) 

Sanders is a huge fan of Dodd-Frank. That said, he doesn't think the law has gone far enough. He has said many times that the reinstatement of Glass-Steagall should have been part of Dodd-Frank. Sanders, much like Senator Warren (D-MA) as well as former Senator Dodd (D-CT) and former Representative Frank (D-MA) believes that one of the most important parts of Dodd-Frank is Title IX, the section on executive compensation. Sanders is a huge proponent of tieing levels of executive compensation to that of the rank and file and of their companies as well as generally limiting executive compensation. Under a Sanders presidency, do not be surprised to see a presidential proposal that would limit CEO compensation for example to a pay ratio as defined in Section 953(b) of Dodd-Frank to something like 10.

Clinton is also a Dodd-Frank fan. But, there is a big difference here. Secretary Clinton has long had both ties and obligations to the large Wall Street banks. She periodically invokes Glass-Steagall, but knows that its repeal allowed Goldman Sachs, for example, to grow into the financial giant that it has. At the same time, though, Clinton, who I believe is still far more likely than not to be the Democratic nominee, knows that the Democratic platform will be influenced by the likes of Sanders and Warren. Expect that the compromise will be in the form of promises to scale back executive compensation. As broad-based plans in which executives participate tend to be exempt from similar scrutiny, those higher-paid individuals may look to solutions that have been proposed over time in this blog.

On executive compensation, Republicans are fairly united. All, that I am aware, would push for the repeal of Dodd-Frank and for no more (or fewer) restrictions on executive compensation. As free market proponents, they would tell us to let the fair markets determine how top executives should be paid. All that said, proposals like that will be anathema to most (perhaps all) Democrats and unless the GOP were to gain a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate, such proposals are not likely to become law. However, as Republicans without exception are looking to lower the top marginal tax rates as well as corporate tax rates, look for more emphasis on current compensation and perhaps less emphasis on deferral opportunities.

As the 2016 election process matures and there are fewer candidates, we'll be able to dig deeper. In the meantime, you have my opinion. What's yours?

And, if you think my opinions have any merit, let me help you address what will be coming with the 2016 elections.

Are You Handling Your FICA Taxes on Deferred Compensation Properly?

FICA taxes on nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) were never a big deal. Chances were that if you had NQDC that your pay was well over the Social Security Wage Base. So, while there were situations where that was not the case, the IRS largely ignored the issue. There just weren't enough situations where it applied and there wasn't enough tax revenue in it to worry about enforcement.

Then came the uncapping of Medicare wages. That is, employees and employers were required to pay HI (Medicare) taxes on all wages, not just those up to the wage base. Suddenly, large amounts of NQDC were subject to this tax and it mattered.

For the last few years, there was a court case in Michigan related to payment of FICA taxes. I had largely forgotten about Davidson v. Henkel, but another blog reminded me of it (thanks Mike Melbinger). In the case, Henkel failed to pay FICA taxes on behalf of Plaintiff Davidson and others in the class leaving that class with a significant (to them) tax liability including penalties.

Why do we care? Why am I taking the time to write about this?

Most NQDC plans are drafted by or reviewed by attorneys (as they should be). While this is not always the case, in the typical situations, the plans are somewhat boilerplate in nature. In my personal experience, counsel often does not ask the client all of the details about how the plan will actually be administered. Frankly, even when they do ask, the client may not know. After all, the client may not be administering the plan on its own.

The plan document is a legal document. When that document says that the company shall remit FICA tax, it must. When the document instructs how or when FICA taxes will be calculated, that is what must happen.

In many plans, this is really a non-issue. There may only be one way to calculate these amounts and taxes will be due annually. In defined benefit (DB) SERPs and Restoration Plans however, there are multiple ways of handling the FICA situation. Most prominently, the sponsor may calculate (and remit) FICA taxes when they are reasonably ascertainable (a technical term from the regulations, but for many, this means at the employee's date of termination from the company) or by early inclusion which essentially means that FICA is calculated and paid annually. Early inclusion is sometimes more beneficial than waiting until retirement, but it is also more administratively complex.

Some plan documents leave the option of payment entirely to the discretion of the sponsor or administrator. Others specify that there will or will not be early inclusion.

What does yours say? Do you know?

Suppose your plan specifies early inclusion and you've not been doing that, do you have a problem? You might.

In fact, in my experience, more companies than not are not particularly on top of the administration of their NQDC plans. They've never particularly focused on compliance with these FICA rules or, even worse, Code Section 409A.

Oftentimes, it will be a good investment to have someone assist you in making sure the processes in this regard are being handled properly.

Proxy Hysteria Coming For Companies With DB Plans

You read it here first. During the upcoming proxy season, there is going to be hysteria over the executive compensation disclosures in proxies for companies with defined benefit (DB) plans, especially those with nonqualified plans for their named executive officers (NEOs).

What's going on? As part of an NEO's compensation, filers are required to include the increase in the actuarial present value of DB plans. The actuarial present value is a discounted value of the anticipated payment stream just as it was a year earlier. While there are many assumptions that actuaries select in determining an actuarial liability, two, in particular, have changed for many companies from 12/31/2013 to 12/31/2014. One is the discount rate which will have decreased by somewhere in the neighborhood of 100 basis points and the other is the mortality assumption. Late last year, the Society of Actuaries (SOA) released its newest mortality study and many companies elected to adopt the new tables.

The effect of the change in discount rate will vary, largely on the age of the NEO in question, but it's not unreasonable to think that for most NEOs that just that discount rate change will have increased the actuarial liability attributed to them by 8%-12%. Yes, Americans are living longer. Mortality assumptions should be updated from time to time. But, for proxy purposes, the year of the update causes an additional spike in the liability attributed to the individual NEO, perhaps an additional 5% depending upon age and gender.

So consider an NEO whose 2013 compensation included $1,000,000 due to the increase in the actuarial present value of accrued pension benefits. If that person is still an NEO at the end of 2014, he or she will have had an increase in liability due to surviving one more year (interest and mortality totaling perhaps 6%), an increase due to increases in included compensation (a large bonus could have increased even 3-to-5 year average compensation by 25% (recall that in the case of a 5-year average that 2014 which was a good year for many businesses replaces 2009 which was a dismal year for many businesses)), and increases due to changes in discount rates and mortality assumptions.

So, with no changes in compensation practices, our NEO who had $1,000,000 of compensation attributable to him or her in 2013 might see that turned into an increase of $1,500,000 in 2014.

There will be outrage. Proponents of the pay ratio rule of Dodd-Frank Section 953(b) will point to these increases and say that the rank-and-file got 2%-4% increases. The media will not understand what happened. Congress, and this might be the year that it matters as the new Republican control has suggested that it will try to repeal some parts of Dodd-Frank, will not understand.

But those people who chose to read my ramblings will get it. Companies that foresee the issue can address it. It can't be solved in its entirety, but it can be managed.

I know how.

Do you?

A Service to Go with a Sad Story

I am going to pitch a service here that all employers should consider. If you are spending money to provide additional benefits for your executives, that money should go to them and not to the government.

Sometimes a good idea comes out of a sad story. And, I'm happy to report that in this case, it's sad because a company wasted money providing a generous benefit for its executives and then didn't tell the executives the pitfalls, but it's not sad in the context of someone going bankrupt or suffering a tragedy.

I got a call yesterday afternoon from someone who found me on the internet, probably through this blog. His wife is a participant in a SERP. Her employment with the company ended in July (I don't know how or why, I just know that it ended).

In early 2007, the wife received a communication from her employer. It told her that her SERP was being split into two pieces -- a 409A-grandfathered piece and a non-grandfathered piece. This was a not uncommon strategy. In addition, the non-grandfathered piece had a default payment of a lump sum of the present value of the accrued benefit payable six months after termination. A participant could elect a different form and or timing of payment (within limits defined in the plan). All of this is very normal in the world of SERPs post-409A.

Apparently, that is all the communication told her. It didn't explain the complexities of 409A. From what I could gather, her employer didn't want to give too much information because they were worried about potential litigation. So, they probably figured that giving no guidance at all meant that they gave no incorrect guidance.

When I answered the phone, the unhappy husband told me that he and his wife assumed that she could change her option when she terminated. So, she accepted the default and went on her merry way. Now, she will be receiving a lump sum that they don't really need right now and paying about half of it to various governments in the form of taxes.

Here's the idea. An employer could choose to go all the way or just do part of this.

Get an outsider like me who understands executive rewards and the 409A and other tax implications to help communicate to your executive group. In what I would term a perfect world (assuming that the employer chooses to not do the communication themselves), here is what would be entailed:

• Provide the outside consultant with the plan provisions and data for all the parts of the rewards package that you would like covered (SERP, deferred compensation plan, equity compensation, cash compensation, severance, change in control, etc.)
• Invite your executive group to a meeting. In that meeting, the outside consultant presents to the group generically on those elements of the rewards package. In that meeting, each executive, will get a summary/informal statement of their rewards package showing values and costs. The executives will place greater value on their rewards packages when they know how much they are worth and how much you are spending on them.
• With signed waivers (consulting, not legal, tax or accounting advice), allow executives to have individual meetings with the outside consultant after the group meeting. Let them ask questions about what they can change and when, what are their options, and what are their restrictions?
• These meetings can cover as much or as little of the executive rewards package as you would like, but the idea is to use the money that you are spending on executives for executives, not for the government.

Consider it. Let me help.

The Election Happened, Now What?

As the politicians like to say, the people have spoken. Now what?

There are lots of things I could say here about the policies of either side and what I think is right, wrong, or beyond comprehension, but that would be as worthless as much of the blather that occurs inside the Beltway.

What we have now is the same President that we have had for the past four years, roughly the same makeup of the Senate, albeit very slightly more left-leaning it appears and the same House of Representatives although perhaps slightly more right-leaning in its ideology. What we also have is an Administration which no longer needs to be in campaign mode. This means that policies and regulatory agendas which perhaps were on hold for political or non-political reasons may move forward.

Before moving forward, I caution you that what I am about to write is nobody's opinion but my own and that it is only my opinion on the morning of November 7, 2012. It may be different this afternoon, tomorrow, or some other day, but I hope that it doesn't change too much.

PPACA (health care reform or ObamaCare if you prefer) remains the law and it will remain. Whether they like the law or not, companies must prepare for 2014 when many of the key provisions of the law will take full effect. As an American, I hope that most employers do not make the decision to convert many employees from full-time to less than 30 hours for the sole purpose of excluding those employees from semi-mandatory coverage, but that is a decision that some will make.

The President is a strong believer in nationalized benefits programs (see, for example, ObamaCare). Look for his Administration to put forth a proposal for mandatory employer-provided retirement coverage with the option being contributing to a national retirement exchange. Retirement plans will look much more portable in this proposal. And, more coverage means more tax expenditures which must be paid for. Look for them to be paid for with tax savings generated from reductions in 415 limits and 402(g) limits. In other words, the highest earners will not be able to save as large a percentage of their incomes for retirement.

Historically, the Democrat Party has favored defined benefit (DB) plans more than the Republican Party. Republicans as a group have viewed that such plans are not representative of individuals taking responsibility for themselves. However, unless Congress really seeks the assistance of outside experts, do not look for any sort of resurgence in the DB world. Every effort from Washington to promote DB plans has been fraught with agency intrusion that moves employers away from DB.

At the same time, look for the President to leave Ben Bernanke in charge of the Federal Reserve and Tim Geithner in charge of Treasury. This will likely mean continuing low interest rates in an effort to spur the economy. The pension funding stabilization provisions of MAP-21 have, in the short run, allowed companies to not have exorbitant expenditures to fund their DB liabilities, but accounting disclosure often attached to loan covenants and credit-worthiness of companies that sponsor the plans will be unaffected by funding rules. In fact, companies that choose to make the MAP-21 minimum required contributions will have their accounting disclosures look worse.

President Obama has made it clear that he plans to raise taxes on high earners. We've previously written here about the FICA tax increases under ObamaCare as well as the 2013 combination of tax increases sometimes referred to as Taxmageddon. When marginal tax rates increase, deferred compensation becomes more valuable. Look for more companies to focus on nonqualified deferred compensation plans for their executives.

Similarly, the estate tax, or death tax, if you prefer, is due to return with a 55% top rate. Individuals who have accumulated significant wealth will be looking for ways to transfer that wealth to their heirs. Privately-owned companies will frequently look to ESOPs perhaps through so-called 1042 exchanges to plan for wealth succession.

Executive compensation is going to be a huge issue. As tax rates increase and the limitations in qualified plans likely decrease, deferred compensation will be become a bigger issue. With increases in deferred compensation come larger risks both for the executive and the employer. Funding such plans has become increasingly difficult while failure to fund them leaves unmitigated risk for both parties.

Dodd-Frank was one of the hallmark laws of the first Obama Administration. Seven key executive compensation provisions remain unregulated, but look for all of them to be regulated soon. Particularly critical among them are:

• Policy on erroneously awarded compensation
• Disclosure of pay versus performance
• Pay ratio disclosure

Look for the Administration to consider policies that would cut the million dollar pay limit under Code Section 162(m). While the original 162(m) codification probably backfired, most Americans would not consider it particularly controversial to limit the amount of compensation that is not performance-based that top executives receive.

Finally, in all areas, look for increases in required disclosures. Thus far, regulatory guidance in this arena has gone to levels under the Obama Administration not seen before. For employers, this means additional administrative burden. For employees, unless disclosures can be more useful, this will mean more stacks of paper for the trash bin.

And, look for gridlock once again as each side blames the other. Who will blink first? I'll report on the first blinkage here.

On ISS and SERPs

We're getting close to proxy season for issuers of proxies under the purview of the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). And, especially since the passage of Dodd-Frank which gave us the new concept of the  (non-binding, but very important) Shareholder Say-On-Pay (SSOP), one of the most important names that we see is Institutional Shareholder Services (ISS).

In a nutshell, ISS provides a service to institutional shareholders of issuers. By performing their analysis of SSOP proposals, ISS gives its subscribers guidance related to how they should cast their SSOP votes. While I may not sound entirely favorable toward ISS and their opinions in this post, I do think this is a valuable service.

For those people who would like to understand ISS's standards and protocols, they have a fairly detailed website with new practices for 2013 as well as their comprehensive 2012 policies.

Now I quote directly from their comprehensive 2012 policies:

 Egregious pension/SERP (supplemental executive retirement plan) payouts:

§  Inclusion of additional years of service not worked that result in significant benefits provided in new arrangements

§  Inclusion of performance-based equity or other long-term awards in the pension calculation

I could be particularly troubled by what I see there, but it's not what gives me pause. Generally, granting of additional years of service for top executives is not a best practice. Similarly, inclusion of long-term awards in compensation for SERP purposes is not a best practice.

However, ISS appears (emphasis here on appears as compared to has) to have taken the position that having a SERP with a more generous formula than in a qualified plan also constitutes an egregious SERP. Often, they are correct. But, not always.

There is a reason, or at least there ought to be, that SERPs are designed as they are. Some companies, for example, tend to promote from within and their executives will likely be long-service employees who are motivated by retention devices rather than attraction devices. SERPs perform this function well. Freezing a SERP when the qualified defined benefit (DB) plan is frozen may be detrimental to shareholders as executives will no longer be bound by the retention device.

What should ISS do? While I have often said negative things about the Summary Compensation Table (SCT) in the proxy, perhaps the SEC had it somewhat correct when they designed it. While technical pension issues may make the pension data in the proxy less valuable than it otherwise might be, the pension accrual is part of annual compensation.

Now, suppose an executive receives lower direct cash compensation than his peer group (other companies), but receives more in deferred compensation through a SERP. Should this be problematic to shareholders? In my opinion, it should not be. In fact, since direct cash compensation is the proverbial bird in the hand while deferred compensation may not be paid if the company suffers particularly adverse business circumstances such as bankruptcy, the generous SERP in lieu of generous current cash may actually be more desirable. But, it's not viewed that way.

New methodologies allow reviewers of proxies to better make this analysis. I'm working on a paper that will explain this in more detail. Regular readers will see it here.

Connecting Executive Rewards

After all these years, I find it amazing. Consideration of executive rewards is still split up into pieces. And, those pieces are handled by different internal functions and by different consulting constituencies.

In a fairly typical case, cash, long-term incentives and equity are handled by the executive compensation function and by the executive compensation consultants. Executive retirement programs are typically handled by the retirement function and by the retirement consultants (frequently actuaries).

This is not a problem. The problem lies in the fact that the left hand and the right hand don't communicate with each other. And, they don't have compatible methodologies.

Let's look at retirement first. Traditionally, executive retirement packages have been designed to replace some targeted percentage of the executive's base plus bonus in their last few years before retirement. That methodology is not wrong. In the typical executive retirement study, consultants are asked to benchmark the plan design. Does it align with current trends and practices?

Consider executive compensation. Here, consultants look at such this as total cash compensation and total direct compensation. They benchmark this against the organization's peer group regressing (adjusting) for differences in size (and sometimes complexity). They develop medians and percentiles. That methodology is not wrong.

Suppose a Board chooses to pay its CEO at the 60th percentile. Perhaps they feel that their is complexity to their organization that belies its size. Suppose they also have an executive retirement program that their consultants say is pretty mainstream. I am going to tell you that almost to a degree of certainty, the retirement consultants have not considered the level of the CEO's pay in determining that the retirement program is mainstream. Isn't deferred compensation a part of compensation?

What would happen if we used the same approach for retirement benefits as we do for other forms of executive compensation? Suppose we calculate an annual value for such benefits and add it to other forms of compensation before doing that regression. Something tells me that the results might be surprising. In some cases, it might justify that rich SERP for which the proxy analysts have such disdain. In other cases, we might find that the company is perhaps inappropriately inflating TOTAL compensation -- the sum of the value of the entire rewards package.

In order to make this work, the executive compensation people need to talk to the retirement people and conversely. They need to speak each other's languages. Today, there are many gaps. There just aren't enough of us who are bilingual in this regard.

Perhaps we need to be.

Higher FICA Taxes on the Horizon

Health care reform in the guise of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA) came to us with many new benefits. In order to pay for those benefits, the government had two options -- cut costs or raise revenue (spelled T-A-X). Here we talk about one of those new taxes.

Beginning January 1, 2013, high earners will be required to pay additional HI (Medicare) taxes under the FICA program. The additional tax is 0.9% of compensation in excess of $200,000 for individual filers or $250,000 for couples filing jointly. The employer portion of FICA will not increase.

First, this is going to need to be administered differently from traditional FICA taxes which generally are paid through payroll deduction. Here, your employer has no obligation to know how you file (in fact, you don't need to decide until you actually file), and your employer has neither the obligation nor the right to know your spouse's income. So, presumably, higher earners will simply have an additional tax tacked on to their Form 1040.

Think about this. What are FICA wages. Generally, they are compensation first vested and reasonably ascertainable in a year. For most deferred compensation plans, the amount of compensation that has been deferred is reasonably ascertainable. However, for plans such as defined benefit SERPs or for certain stock plans, this may not be the case. Regulations under Code Section 3121(v) allow taxpayers to early include such deferred compensation. In the case of individuals with significant SERP benefits in particular, they may want to discuss the possibility of early inclusion with their employers. While the tax hit for 2012 could be meaningful, it may lessen the long-term blow.

On the other hand, we don't yet know the outcome of the 2012 presidential election. Mitt Romney has pledged to repeal PPACA if elected. Its repeal would eliminate this tax.

Planning isn't as easy as it used to be.

Compensation Risk

I was reading Mike Melbinger's blog today about compensation risk assessments (if you want to read online legal analysis of compensation issues, I strongly recommend his blog) and I got to thinking that oftentimes, the people who may be assisting clients with this assessment may not know much about risk. You see, in evaluating compensation risk (and the SEC doesn't really tell us what that means), companies are to look at all elements of remuneration for both executives and for other employees. So, that includes things like deferred compensation which includes both qualified and nonqualified retirement plans.

I've written a lot about risk in retirement plans from the employer standpoint. How much cost variability is there? Does this benefit properly align with corporate goals? In an enterprise risk framework, where do these plans fit in? Is there compliance risk? Is there risk associated with having retirement benefits that are so large that you can't get employees to leave when you'd like them to? Is there risk associated with not having a defined benefit plan when some of your competitors for talent have them?

That last question is confusing, isn't it?. But, think about it. Defined benefit plans to favor older workers, not because they are discriminatory, but because of the shorter discount period until retirement date. So, if you sponsor a generous 401(k) plan and your top competitor sponsors a generous defined benefit plan, then a knowing employee might work for you until they get to be about 45 and then just when they really know the business, take off to your competitor who has a generous defined benefit program. It just makes sense.

So, compensation risk isn't only what you probably think it is. If you want to do a really thorough analysis and consider all of your rewards programs, consider people who have sufficient expertise to help you through the process. You might just learn something about your programs that you hadn't thought of before. And, it might be really useful.

Beware the Compensation Audit

OK, HR people, if your company got audited, how would it do? I'm not talking about the audits of broad-based employee benefit plans that the IRS and DOL have been conducting for years. I've heard attorneys give advice with regard to those benefit plans that they may not be compliant, but you'll never get caught on audit. I'm talking about compensation audits, targeting primarily executives. I'm talking about 409A and 162(m) audits. Would you feel confident if you got that dreaded letter than an auditor would be arriving soon? Many companies have felt confident. Many of them have not been so happy when the auditor left.

Before discussing those audits and what you might do to prepare (long before you get that audit notice), I digress. What is your role in the company? Do you have a boss? Murphy's Law says that the first person in the company with a 409A problem will be either your boss or your boss's boss. In my experience, the 409A version of Murphy's Law strikes far more often than logic or probability dictate that it should. And, if it does, you are going to get blamed ... and that's not good.

Let's suppose you do get a request for information from the IRS for a 409A audit. They give such requests a nice name. They call them Information Document Requests. I have one sitting in front of me. Thankfully, from my standpoint, it was provided to me by a company that I did not assist with their 409A compliance process. I say thankfully because at the end of their audit, they were not happy with what the IRS found. In any event, here is what the IRS requested (paraphrasing somewhat to take out IRS-speak where possible) from them:

• Every plan and arrangement providing for a legally binding right to compensation in one year, but payment in some future year that is not subject to 409A. The company is then asked to explain why it is not subject to 409A. If the answer that they will give is the exclusion for short-term deferrals, then the company is to provide the relevant terms of that plan and and relevant terms for substantial risk of forfeiture.
• Terms and conditions, including deadlines for initial deferral elections.
• Terms and conditions for any subsequent deferral elections, including documentation of the initial deferral election, documentation to show that the subsequent election was made at least 12 months before the initial payment date and documentation to show that the subsequent election reflects at least a five-year pushback. 
• Detail related to any accelerations in payment that have been made.
• A list of specified employees and the times at which such employees have been specified employees.
• Payments made to specified employees and documentation demonstrating compliance with the six-month delay rule.
• Any funding of deferred compensation as a result of an event relating to a decline in the company's finances.
• Violations of 409A and whether they were fixed in one of the IRS 409A corrections programs.

For some companies, that's a lot of stuff (that's a technical term for saying that it may take you a long time to comply with the Information Document Request). But, that's only the first part of the misery. Let's look at where the IRS has been generating revenue (that is also a technical term, this time for finding compliance errors).

• Time and form of payments
• Short-term deferral rule
• Identifying specified employees

With regard to time and form of payments, the biggest culprit has probably been in severance plans. Recall that broad-based severance plans may be exempt from 409A, but to the extent that the payment is more than two times the pay cap under Code Section 401(a)(17), they are not. So, we are talking about executive severance payments here and there have been a lot of them the last few years. 

How have companies gone wrong? Many executives have had employment agreements that provide for significant severance payments in the event of termination without cause. And, in a lot of those cases, they allowed the executive freedom to take that payout in a lump sum or installments as he saw fit. 

Oops! That's a 409A violation. And, if he was a specified employee and he took the payment within 6 months of separation from service, Oops again.

Companies (and their advisers) have taken significant advantage of the short-term deferral rule. Oversimplifying somewhat, here's how it works. Suppose compensation is earned in one year (and vests in that year) and is paid out (without employee choice) by March 15 of the following year, then it usually qualifies as a short-term deferral. Think of a typical annual bonus plan.

Now, let's change the situation. An employee earns compensation (and it vests) in one year. He separates from service the next year before March 15 and the amount gets paid out (because of the separation from service). It is NOT a short-term deferral because the payment could have been after March 15 if the separation from service had occurred later. Essentially, you can't dodge the short-term deferral rule in this fashion.

Identification of specified employees is not easy for large companies. At a minimum, they are the key employee group as determined under Code Section 416(i). Here is the problem. During the year, you may not know who those 50 highest-paid officers are for a year. This is why the 409A regulations defined specified employees as compared to just key employees. Specified employees can be a group of up to 200 that includes the key employees, but may also include certain other employees. It's that group that must not be paid out within 6 months of separation from service. And, all 409A plans and arrangements of an employer must use the same definition of specified employees.

Many companies have applied the 6 month delay rule to all 409A plans of the company for all employees. In that case, it doesn't matter who the specified employees are. Other companies have chosen not to do this. Therefore, they need to know who their specified employees are. IRS experience says that many companies don't know who their specified employees are. This is another good revenue source for them.

So, how should companies prepare for the possibility that they may get audited? Have an independent third party review. Don't have it done by the people who did your initial compliance work. They'll never think they made any mistakes. If the initial work was done by an attorney, consider having the third party review done by a consultant. You'll get a different and hopefully useful perspective. If the initial work was done by a consultant, consider an attorney to do the third party review.

Or, in either case, if I didn't do the initial compliance work, I'll give you a different perspective than the person who did it originally.

Do You Have a Top-Hat Plan?

Recently, the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in a top-hat plan case, Daft v Advest, Inc. This case adds to the litany of top-hat decisions rendered by different appeals courts. Most of them are similar in their conclusions. No two are the same.

The good news is that I have two potential remedies: 1) The US Supreme Court could hear one of these cases and give us a litmus test to live by in determining who is eligible to participate in a top-hat plan; or 2) More than 37 years later, the Department of Labor could write regulations on the topic.

We might not like either one, but at the very least, we would have some certainty. People making business decisions like certainty. As a consultant, and I'm sure it's the same for an attorney, it's not a good client relationship technique to tell a client that their eligibility criteria are probably okay, or that they seem to comport with the current law in the circuits in which they operate. Should be and seem to are horrible consulting words. Since I can't give a legal opinion, though, they may be the best I can do.

So, at least in the 6th Circuit (Kentucky, Michigan, Ohio, and Tennessee), Daft gives us a four-prong test (sort of):

1. What percentage of the workforce is covered by the plan? 
2. What is the nature of employment duties of the participants covered by the plan?
3. What is the compensation disparity between members of the plan and non-members of the plan?
4. What does the plan language say?

Unfortunately, or perhaps fortunately, Daft does not give us a bright-line test for any of 1, 2, 3, or 4. In fact, Daft doesn't even give us a hint. 

Think back to your school days. One of your friends is good enough to steal the test questions from the teacher (I do not condone this) and give them to you. The problem is that every question is subjective and you don't know the teacher's thoughts.

Alas ...

Causing A SERP to Violate 409A By (lack of) Default

Code Section 409A has been one of the biggest disasters ever written into the Internal Revenue Code. It was supposed to raise lots of money for the government, but to my knowledge, it has not. It was supposed to make nonqualified deferred compensation no less favorable than its qualified brother, and it certainly has done that. But, some of the pitfalls that have come up are way beyond the scope of what Congress could possibly have considered. Let's consider a not uncommon situation.

XYZ Company decides to start a new (traditional) deferred compensation plan for certain executives. Eligible executives will be able to make deferral elections (amount, timing of payment, form of payment) during year X-1 with respect to compensation earned during year X. Earnings will be credited on those amounts based on the earnings of a funds selected by an executive from the group of funds also available under the qualified 401(k) plan. Deferrals will be matched by XYZ dollar for dollar on the first 10% of compensation deferred to the nonqualified plan (NQDC). As these executives previously participated in a nonqualified cash balance plan (that plan was frozen when the qualified plan was frozen), vesting is 100% after 10 years of service, with service counting back to date of hire.

Believe it or not, all, or at least most of these executives will be in violation of Code Section 409A the moment that they make their elections. Why? How can that be? Without reading down, do you know?

Here is the catch. Vesting service starts before the effective date of the plan. This is not the first plan of this type (account balance plans) in which the executives participate. For those who are immediately vested (10 years of vesting service), making an election in Year X-1 is making an election for services already performed. Yes, the mere fact that vesting service starts before the effective date of the plan causes the problem.

How do you fix this? The good news is that it is actually fairly simple. Make the initial deferral election a default. In other words, specify it in the plan with no choices. Given that no choices are available, the rules will be interpreted so that the executives have not made an election after the date on which some services have been performed.

Do you think this is ridiculous? So do I. Do you think that Congress intended it this way? Neither do I.

This, dear readers, is the level of stupidity to which 409A has sunken.

IRS Still Auditing Executive Compensation

Over a year ago, the IRS announced that it was stepping up its audit program with respect to executive compensation. Frankly, any activity at all would have been a step up. For the majority of the time since we have had an income tax (and therefore an Internal Revenue Code) in the US, audits of executive compensation have been virtually nonexistent. Why? The biggest reason is that there have not been a whole lot of rules. Number two on the list is that the IRS has not chosen to place its resources there.

For many who are fortunate enough to be the beneficiaries of executive [levels] of compensation, the good news is that most are still not getting audited. However, with the interplay of Code Sections 83 (constructive receipt and the economic benefit doctrine plus some other related stuff), 162(m) (the million dollar pay cap), 409A (taxing people to death when they mess up their deferred compensation programs), and 3121(v) (FICA tax on deferred compensation), the IRS has plenty of things to audit. Surprisingly, at least to this writer, we're finding that they are catching people on some fairly tricky applications of the law.

Notably, I've seen or heard of multiple people getting dinged on these infractions:

• Stock awards that vest at a retirement date, causing constructive receipt under Section 83
• Linked retirement plans where the offset from the qualified plan is not well enough specified, causing a 409A violation
• Failure to pay FICA tax on deferred compensation that employers didn't realize technically was deferred compensation
• Improperly constructed performance pay plans that run afoul of 162(m) by not qualifying as performance pay
• Severance pay plans that did not have a 6-month payment delay for specified employees because they looked like broad-based plans. The fact that the compensation considered exceeded the pay cap (401(a)(17)) caused the problem.
• A 409A plan having a plan document that specifies for one set of administrative procedures, but the plan being administered the way it always was before someone wrote a document without bothering to check to see how it was being administered.

There are more, plenty more. There are a few ways that you can handle this.

• Do nothing and play audit roulette.
• Have your documents reviewed by someone other than the person who wrote them (the person who wrote them will read what they intended even if nobody else reads it that way).
• Have your administrative processes reviewed by someone who is not your administrator, but has experience with the administration of nonqualified deferred compensation plans.
• If you find problems, take corrective action. The IRS has been nice enough to give us corrective methods that lessen or eliminate the additional tax burden, but only if you fix them before the IRS catches you.

Incentive Compensation Arrangements Under Dodd-Frank

The sky must be falling, or perhaps it has fallen already. There is no other possible explanation. On Monday, February 7, the following alphabet soup of government agencies published proposed rules under the incentive compensation provisions of the Dodd-Frank Act:

• Office of the Comptroller of the Currency (OCC)
• Federal Reserve System (Fed)
• Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC)
• Office of Thrift Supervision (OTS)
• National Credit Union Administration (NCUA)
• Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
• Federal Housing Finance Agency (FHFA)

Surely my eyes deceive me in reading this: http://www.fdic.gov/news/board/2011rule2.pdf

Not only are these agencies telling large banks (assets of $50 Billion US or more) how to pay their executives, they are telling the executives (and other individuals who could subject the banks to significant risks) that they must defer large chunks of their incentive payments.

Don't get me wrong. I'm in the line of people who would tell you that many of these banks overcompensated these same people while some of these banks were in danger of failing (or did fail) without government intervention. Some of these banks did not come close to failing. They already have policies and procedures in place. Who decided that they federal government should have this kind of control? Surely, they have overstepped their bounds.

Before describing the source of my indignation, I must pause to explain what is meant for purposes of this regulation by the term, executive officer. It is any person (without regard to title, salary or compensation) who holds the title or functions as the President, Chief Executive Officer, executive Chairman, Chief Operating Officer, Chief Financial Officer, Chief Investment Officer, Chief Lending Officer, Chief Legal Officer, Chief Risk Officer, or is head of a major business line (major business line appears to be undefined).

So, what's the buzz, tell me what's a happening (with apologies to Webber and Rice for pilfering from Jesus Christ Superstar)?

I summarize for these Large Covered Financial Institutions:

• at least 50% of the compensation of executive officers would need to be deferred for a period of at least three years
• deferred amounts paid must be adjusted for actual losses or other measures or aspects or performance that are realized or become better known over the deferral period
• the release of deferrals may be as rapid as pro rata over the three-year (or longer) period
• the agencies seek comment on many things, including whether the mandatory deferral period should be longer
• the Board (or a Board committee) of each of these organizations must similarly evaluate the incentive-based compensation of other individuals who could expose the organization to high levels of risk

These are too many rules. And, these rules punish the innocent equally with the guilty. Apparently, clawbacks and similar mechanisms are not sufficient. These rules are taking business judgment out of the rulebook for the financial institutions that already have appropriate controls in place.

This could have been done differently. If we had let the banks that had been mismanaged fail, the survivors would have been rewarded for their prudence and they could continue to compensate their key people prudently. But, more regulation leads to more regulation leads to more regulation leads to weakening (rather than strengthening) of the industry.

In case you weren't sure, I don't like it.

Make a New Year's Resolution: Get Your 409A Documents Cleaned Up

About a month ago, I wrote about a court case in which an incompletely worded 409A (nonqualified deferred compensation) plan document caused the court to award an executive more money than his previous employer thought he was entitled to. You can read my original piece on Graphic Packaging v Humphrey here: http://johnhlowell.blogspot.com/2010/12/its-extremely-important-to-have.html .

I've read more of these sorts of documents than most of you would prefer. And, the good news for employers is that most executives don't read those documents as carefully as I do. The bad news is that most that I have read do not satisfy (in some situations) the concept of definitely determinable (stealing the term from the qualified plan world).

What does that mean? The words speak for themselves ... I think the lawyers would call that res ipse locutur, although literally that means the thing speaks for itself (I see now why I took Latin in school about 40 years ago).  For a benefit to be definitely determinable, a person should be able to read the plan document and know what the amount of that benefit will be.

Let's return to 409A documents. If you've made it this far, there is a good chance that you know that "specified employees" (generally the highest-paid executives (not more than 10% of the company) making at least $150,000 as indexed, but it's actually far more complicated than that) may have a 6-month delay before than can receive certain benefits under a 409A plan.

Let's consider a simple situation. Suppose Ebby Scrooge is the CEO of No Holiday Corporation. Ebby retired just the other day on December 31, 2010. He had earlier made a bona fide initial deferral election in his SERP to take his benefit in a lump sum at termination (or 6 months later if he was a specified employee). Ebby's lump sum on December 31 would have been $10 million, but he was a specified employee.

Poor Bobby Cratchit needs to process the payment to dear old Ebby. He has a quandary -- how big should Ebby's check be? Does the $10 million get interest at some rate from December 31 until mid-2011? The plan document doesn't say. Does it get calculated using 12/2010 interest rates or 6/2011 interest rates, or some other rates? The plan document doesn't say. Does the annuity factor get calculated using Ebby's age as of 12/2010 or as of some other date? The plan document doesn't say.

Get the picture? In Humphrey, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (based in Atlanta and covering Alabama, Florida and Georgia) found that where the plan document (written by or under the control of the employer) is not clear, uncertainty should be decided in favor of the participant. Oops!

What do your plan documents say? Do you know?

I am about to be perhaps a little bit critical of some attorneys who write these plan documents. I'm sorry, some of you are my friends (but of course, my friends couldn't be the ones who are doing less than perfect work). Very few attorneys have ever worked in plan administration. They don't consider whether the language that they write is easy to administer, difficult to administer, or anywhere else on the spectrum. For many, it's just not in their DNA. Surely, you will see in the document that where found in the document, the male is to be considered the female and the singular the plural, but that inconsequential stuff about how much to pay the executive -- nowhere!

What's my suggestion? Attorneys are best at the legal mumbo jumbo, but where a plan must be administered, a company may save itself a lot of money by paying a little bit (relatively speaking) to have some non-attorney such as this author review the document to see if it can be accurately administered. Looking back to Ebby Scrooge, if it's an issue of a 5% annual rate of interest, then the increase in payment amount for the 6-month period would be $250,000. Of course, in some cases, the employer may not have the right to unilaterally amend this document, but that's an issue for another article on another day.

In the meantime, I'd love to take a look.

Unsure About Tax Rates Rising, Defer Anyway!

Where do you think your marginal tax rate will be in 2011? How about in 2012? 2013? You don't know? You're not sure? If you're a high earner, let's say $500,000 or more, are you concerned? Of course you are.

Should rising tax rates changes your deferral behavior? To the extent that you will have less take-home pay, perhaps it should. To the extent that you have a fear of deferring at a lower marginal rate and later being taxed at a higher marginal rate, the answer may surprise you.

Here is an article written by a few former colleagues of mine that I reviewed : http://tinyurl.com/24bfyhy 


To quote from the article, "As shown above, the advantage of deferred compensation is impacted by changing tax rates. Although it may seem counter-intuitive, a long-term increase in tax rates during the deferral period actually provides the greatest relative advantage for deferred compensation."


Let me re-phrase: when marginal tax rates are rising over time, there is more advantage to deferring compensation (assuming security of course) even on a nonqualified basis. In a qualified plan, there is even more advantage.


So, put your intuitive thinking aside, take a look at the article and consider deferring what you can,