The Big Surprise Gotcha in the Million Dollar Pay Cap

Even those of us who have been hiding under rocks know that late last year, the President signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And, as part of that Act, there was language that amended Code Section 162(m) also known as the million dollar pay cap. After Treasury gave us guidance on those changes in Notice 2018-68, some observers were surprised by a few of the interpretations that the regulators took. One in particular, however, that they didn't quite spell out, meets my criteria for a big surprise gotcha.

I'll come back to that and consider how an employer might get around it, but first some background. Under the old 162(m), deductions for reasonable compensation under Section 162 were limited to $1,000,000 per year for the CEO and the four other highest compensated employees of, generally speaking, publicly traded companies. However, most performance-based compensation was exempt from that calculation and was deductible as it would have been before the cap came into being.

Under the new 162(m), the definition of covered employee has been changed to be the CEO, CFO, and the three other highest paid employees. But, once you become a covered employee, you remain a covered employee. So, by 2030, for example, a company could easily have 25 covered employees. [Hats off to the cynics who know this is a silly example because no law stays in place unchanged for 13 years anymore.] Further, performance-based compensation is no longer exempt.

Like most law changes that affect compensation and benefits, this one, too, has a grandfather provision. Here, the new rules are not to apply to remuneration paid pursuant to a binding contract that was in effect on November 2, 2017, and which has not been materially modified after that date. The keys then relate to what is compensation for these purposes, what sort of modifications might be material, and what constitutes a binding contract.

Compensation is essentially any compensation that would be deductible were it not for the million dollar pay cap. Whether a modification is material remains a bit subjective, but the guidance does specify that cost-of-living increases in compensation are not material, but that those that meaningfully exceed cost-of-living are.

The binding contract issue is the really sneaky one. Your read and your counsel's read may be different, but my read is that if the employer has the ability to unilaterally change the contract, it's not binding. That is problematic.

Consider a nonqualified retirement plan be it a defined benefit (DB) SERP or a traditional nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plan. In my experience, it's fairly common (completely undefined term) to see language that gives an employer the unilateral right to amend said plan, subject to any employment agreements that may overrule. Well, if the company can amend the plan, there would seem to be no binding agreement. And, that means that when that nonqualified plan is paid out to the employee, perhaps none of a large payout will be deductible for the employer. I'm aware of some payouts well into nine figures.

When it's a nine-figure payout, there really aren't great solutions. But, for the typical nonqualified plan, whether it's DB or DC, qualifying some of the benefits changes the treatment. If the benefits can be qualified in a DB plan using a QSERP device, employer funding will be deductible if it is deductible under Section 404. That's far more forgiving and, in fact, it is not at all unlikely that the deductions will already have been taken before the covered employee retires.

Yes, it's still a big surprise gotcha, but don't you prefer a surprise gotcha when it has a surprise solution.

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.

Is IRS Stepping Up Nonqualified Audits?

Two weeks ago, the IRS released nonqualified deferred compensation audit techniques guide. While no one can be certain, this would seem to signal that the Service is showing more interest in auditing these plans, available almost exclusively to the highest paid of employees.

For years, many have thought that nonqualified (NQDC or NQ) plans to be a significant area of tax abuse and a potential source of tax revenue for the federal government. And, whether this is simply a much needed update or the beginning of a push, the language in the guide would seem to suggest where the IRS thinks there are problems.

Let's look at the paragraph headers in the guide as a means of determining where the focus is likely to be:

1. Examining Constructive Receipt and Economic Benefit Issues
2. Audit Techniques
3. Examining the Employer's Deduction
4. Employment Taxes
5. Important Note [related to 401(k) plans]
6. The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 [the law that brought us Code Section 409A]

Constructive Receipt and Economic Benefit Issues

Here, the guide instructs auditors to look for assets set aside free from creditors for the benefit of employees. It also instructs these auditors to look to see how executives can use the benefits in these nonqualified plans. For example, if a SERP might be pledged as collateral, then the employee has enough control to have constructively received the benefit and is subject to current taxation, or was when the benefit was first constructively received. 

For employers with any knowledge of NQDC plans or those who use counsel who work at all in this area, getting this right falls under the heading of basic blocking and tackling. So, while the IRS might be able to find some defects here, it would not seem to be a source of significant revenue.

Audit Techniques

In this section, frankly, I think that the IRS is grasping at straws. It asks auditors to interview personnel most knowledgeable about the plans. Further, the auditors are encouraged to review Forms 10-K and to learn whether the company uses a consulting firm to assist with its NQDC plans. 

There seems to be little glue holding this section together. Instead, what I am seeing is that their may be a needle in a haystack and a fortunate auditor might find that needle. Other sections of the guide may prove more fruitful.

Examining the Employer's Deduction

Generally, the amount and timing of the employer's deduction must match the amount and timing of the executive's inclusion in income. Looking from the outside in, this would seem to be simple. But, corporate tax returns, especially for large corporations are quite complex. Similarly, a corporate executive is fairly likely to have a complex tax return. It's not unlikely that treatment of income from NQDC plans is nowhere near the top of the priority list for either the corporate tax department or for the executive's accountant. 

In fact, in my experience, some corporate tax departments do not have significant familiarity with this type of plan (some have exceptional knowledge). Similarly, and perhaps more glaring, many personal accountants, again in my experience, just don't know much about nonqualified plans. 

The Internal Revenue Code is a complex instrument. The instructions to government forms, especially if you include the various Publications that they reference, are quite confusing. If an accountant deals with particularly few NQDC plans, it would not be shocking to find that accountant confused by their tax treatment. Certainly, I would not expect them to confirm that the amount and timing of inclusion in income coincides with the corporate tax deduction.

Employment Taxes

This is the section that deals with FICA and FUTA taxes. Until the cap was removed from Medicare wages, this section would have been ignored. The reason is that although nonqualified deferred compensation is subject to these taxes when it is both vested and reasonably ascertainable (a technical term meaning that a knowledgeable person can figure out about how much it is worth), virtually all NQDC participants earned far more than the Social Security Wage Base each year. But, when the cap at the Wage Base was removed for Medicare taxes, new NQDC was necessarily subject to that tax. 

The regulations on this topic are, in a word, confusing. Specifically for what are known as non-account balance plans (generally defined benefit SERPs), the guidance on how to perform calculations was likely written by someone who did not know what they were prescribing and the guidance on the actuarial assumptions to be used in those calculations is virtually nonexistent.

However, in my experience with this topic, the IRS does have strong opinion on what the Treasury Regulations mean and intend. That said, when the regulations under Section 3121(v) were issued, I co-authored a research memo on the calculation of the amount of FICA wages from NQDC plans (the focus was on non-account balance plans). To say that the authors went back and forth many times before agreeing on the intended methodology is an understatement. To think that similar authors at other actuarial consulting firms would reach exactly the same conclusion is no plausible. Add to that the various accounting and tax firms who might have their own opinions and you would certainly have a lack of consistency. About 15 years ago, however, one IRS examiner that I spoke with off the record said that there was just one consistent method available under the regulations.

Said differently, while I don't know how much revenue is potentially available, the calculation of employment taxes with respect to NQDC plans, and specifically non-account balance plans would not all meet with the approval of that particular examiner.

Important Note [related to 401(k) plans]

The coordination of qualified 401(k) plans and NQDC plans that provide for deferrals in excess of those allowed in the qualified plan seems like it should be simple. It's not. In particular, it's not if the two plans (qualified and nonqualified) are administered by different providers (or if one is administered externally and the other internally). Generally, these plans allow participants to defer amounts where IRS limits would otherwise preclude such deferrals. In the simple situations where the 401(k) plan passes nondiscrimination testing, this is pretty easy. But, when the plan is forced to refund deferrals due to test failure or when deferrals are restricted in hopes of making the testing work, things can go horribly wrong. Do the two separate administrators communicate with each other? It's doubtful.

There is likely not a lot of revenue for the government to find here, but there are probably a large number of very small problems.

The American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 [the law that added Section 409A to the Internal Revenue Code]

I've written about 409A here many times. If you are interested, go the little search box at the top of the page and type 409A. I'd be surprised if you get fewer than 25 hits in this blog, but I've not counted. 

As is often said about relationships, it's complicated. 

The regulations are long and were written in a fashion similar to the regulations under Section 3121(v). Frankly, I don't think the people who worked on the project did a bad job writing the regulations. They're not perfect, but they wouldn't have been perfect if you or I had written them either, so we must be careful with our criticism.

But, certain parts of the regulations that have lots of calculational elements where the calculations almost necessarily must be performed by actuaries were written by attorneys. I know some of those attorneys. They're smart people. And, they spent lots of time understanding the statute and developing regulations to enforce that statute. They could have done far worse.

The people that I know, however, who worked on the project are not actuaries. While they have some familiarity with actuarial calculations, they don't actually do them and I think they would tell you if you asked candidly that they have only a minimal understanding of them. Yet, for certain types of plans (mostly non-account balance plans), there is much in the way of actuarial calculations that determines potential tax liabilities. 

Frankly, we don't know what was intended. We tend to reference the FICA regulations, but even there as I noted above, the regulations are not prescriptive.

Section 409A is a mess. I don't think anyone intends to violate it, but there are lots of people who don't get it right. Finding the violations is difficult, but if examiners do find violations, with those violations will come some fairly meaningful tax revenue.

*           *          *          *          *           *             *              *             *            *            *           *          *

So, that's my take on where the IRS is headed and what value it has to them. Time will tell if I got it right for a change or not.

Populating Your Web Site

So, you're in a business related to benefits and or compensation. You have this really nice website. It's pretty glossy and glitzy, but you don't have enough substance on it. You need some technical or opinion articles, but either you don't have the time or you just don't like to write.

Have you ever considered specifying what you want on there and have someone else write it for you? You're here reading my blog. You know that I write on a wide variety of topics.

So, have me do it for you.  Contact me and we'll work out the details.

New Pay Limit for Covered Health Insurance Providers and Maybe a Way Around It

Perhaps you like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, ACA, or ObamaCare). Perhaps you don't. You are entitled to your opinion. I think we can all agree that it has its good provisions and it has those that perhaps could have been better thought through. One that falls into the latter category is the [relatively] new Code Section 162(m)(6) dealing with the limit on compensation for Covered Health Insurance Providers (I'll refer to them as CHIPs because it's much easier for me to type). In a nutshell, the section and its new proposed regulations limit the deduction for compensation that can be taken by a CHIP to $500,000 annually with respect to any person.

If you want to read the regulation like I did, you can find it here. If you want a good technical overview with the requisite cynicism, I direct you to Mike Melbinger's blog.

If you would like a solution, read on.

In a nutshell, you are a CHIP if 2% of the gross revenues received by your controlled group are from health insurance premiums. Yes, that means that if you happen to be part of a controlled group that contains a health insurer, you are likely a CHIP. Congratulations!

Most of Code Section 162(m) deals with deduction of compensation (as a reasonable business expense). The parts that limit it generally limit it to $1 million, except for CHIPs. And, for CHIPs, and only for CHIPs, the determination of whether an individual's compensation exceeds $500,000 includes deferred compensation earned, nonqualified plan benefits earned, equity compensation awarded, and severance benefits paid. The calculation is not easy, but this post is not about that. If you'd like to know more about the calculation, contact me and I'll be happy to charm you with its details.

I said I have a solution, and for many companies, I think I do. What was left out? Did you notice that qualified plan contributions and accruals were left out? And, for qualified plans, we have an objective set of nondiscrimination rules.

The solution involves a technique often referred to as a QSERP. What this technique does is to take nonqualified deferred compensation amounts and moves them from a nonqualified plan to a qualified plan. In this case, it has lots of advantages:

• Frequently immediate tax deductibility
• Tax-favored buildup
• More security
• Pooling with significant other obligations in a large trust

Most often, QSERPs are utilized in a defined benefit context. But, realizing that many companies no longer have defined benefit plans providing for current accruals, QSERPs can be utilized in a defined contribution context as well. 

Again, the explanation is long and has been covered elsewhere, so I'm not going to bore my readers here, but if you'd like a detailed explanation, contact me directly.

I know the cynics among you will say that this deduction limitation is the right thing to do. For you, I will say that you should have asked Congress to craft the law in a way that doesn't leave creative minds the opportunity to find loopholes.

If you're reading this today (it's a Friday) or even if you're not, have a great weekend whenever that may come for you.

To Defer or Not to Defer, That is the Question

Last week, I wrote about the American Taxpayer Relief Act more commonly referred to as the Fiscal Cliff deal. While it avoided reversion to the pre-Bush era marginal tax rates for most Americans, it certainly included a lot of tax increases. Here we will focus on nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC). Does it make more sens to defer or less sense to defer?

First, the withholding rate on supplemental wages in excess of $1 million in the aggregate increased to 39.6%. For supplemental wages up to $1 million, the withholding rate remains at 25%, What are supplemental wages? Generally, they are pay to an employee that is not part of a regular wage. They include overtime, bonuses, and distribution of nonqualified deferred compensation among other things. Ultimately, the taxes that a taxpayer pays are determined based on a number of factors, but the amount that they will see in a check for supplemental wages will decrease for particularly high recipients of supplemental wages.

Second, the OASDI portion of Social Security tax returned to 6.2% after being at 4.2% for a few years. This is the percentage of your paycheck that goes to Social Security on earnings not in excess of the Social Security Wage Base ($113,700 for 2013). The employer portion of OASDI remains at 6.2% of pay. For participants on NQDC plans, this is may be important because Social Security taxes are paid on NQDC generally in the year that such compensation is both vested and reasonably ascertainable. For most plans, that is the date when vested. For certain more complex plans such as DB SERPs, the amount may not be reasonably ascertainable until the participant terminates employment.

Third, the Medicare or HI portion of Social Security taxes has increased largely to pay for the ACA or ObamaCare if you prefer. For single filers with wages in excess of $200,000 or those filing jointly with income in excess of $250,000, the amounts above those thresholds will see an increase in HI tax from 1.45% of excess wages to 2.35% of excess wages. Additionally, there is a new 3.8% surtax on investment income such as capital gains from the sale of stock.

So, how do you know whether to defer or not to defer? It's a difficult question and the math is not as easy as we might like. Generally, the higher the marginal tax rate that you are paying, the more useful tax deferral is. Of course, there are many other factors that may influence your decision including your view of future tax rates, your need for the money in the short term, the investment return you can achieve and other factors that may be particularly germane to you as an individual.

Best of all will likely be compensation deferred in qualified plans such as 401(k), other defined contribution, and defined benefit if you are fortunate enough to have those opportunities.

In any case, for high earners, the new tax rates are more confiscatory than were the old ones, but your guess is as good as mine with respect to where they will be in the future.

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.

Another Survey Says

The benefits community in the US loves surveys. Large consulting firms love to do surveys. Presumably, their clients like this information, or at least someone thinks they do. The benefits news consolidators (you know, the publications that scour the internet for benefits news for a daily newsletter) love to tell us about these survey results.

This is all good. Or, at least, this could all be good. These surveys, though, have their problems.

• Questions are often poorly worded
• Possible answers either cover too much territory or not enough territory
• Press releases summarizing survey results seem to disassociate cause and effect
• Survey populations may not be unbiased
• Surveys inevitably are constructed to produce the findings that the surveyors think should be produced

Questions are often poorly worded

This is a no-brainer, but the world at-large doesn't seem to mind. I saw a survey question recently (the group had not been bifurcated yet into people who liked versus those who disliked their consumer-driven health plan (CDHP)) that asked "What do you like best about your consumer-driven health plan?" The possible answers were something like:

     a. my quality of care is higher
     b. it costs me less
     c. I can choose my own physician
     d. it promotes a culture of wellness

My immediate reaction is to ask where is e: none of the above? Let's look at the possible answers. Anybody who says that their quality of care is higher under a CDHP must be hallucinating. What would make it higher? If you can choose your own physician, why would they provide better care when you are in a CDHP than they would under a traditional health plan?

If you say that it costs you less, I would ask you less than what. Yes, the premiums are lower than they would be in an HMO, for example. On the other hand, they are higher than they would be if you had no insurance at all. Isn't this like having a deductible on an automobile insurance policy? If you choose a higher deductible, your policy costs less. But, in the health care policy, you usually don't get to choose your deductible. And, in the case of high-deductible health plans (HDHP) which are typically the cornerstone of CDHPs, the deductible is typically higher than most people can effectively budget for.

If you say that you can choose your own physician under a CDHP, that is true, but can't you choose your own physician under any health plan? It's true that your care may not be covered by the plan, but for many people, if that is really the reason they are in a CDHP, I would say that they are quite misguided.

Do you really think that CDHPs promote a culture of wellness? If I were texting, I would reply "lol." According to a recent Aon Hewitt survey (oops, now I am citing a survey), 35% of participants in CDHPs are sacrificing medical care because they cannot afford their part of the cost under these plans and 28% are postponing it for financial reasons. FACT: that is not indicative of a culture of wellness.

Suppose I think the CDHP that I have been forced into just plain sucks. How do I answer this question?

Answers cover too much or not enough territory


In the last section, I managed to deal with answers that don't cover enough territory. Sometimes, they go the other way and cover too much.

I took a survey recently about automobiles. The survey asked me a series of questions. For each question, I was supposed to answer on a scale of 1-13, with 1 meaning I strongly disagreed and 13 meaning I strongly agreed. Come on, people, 1-13? Do they really think that ten minutes into a survey, I can rate things on that fine a scale. They asked me if I would consider buying a Lexus when I next purchase a vehicle. So, perhaps I went through a train of thought like this. Lexus makes a very good car. They are stylish, safe, high-performing, and dependable. They are also expensive. Would I consider buying one? Yes, I would probably consider it, but I really don't want to spend that much money on a car, so how strongly would I consider it? Hmm, is that a 5 or a 6 or a 7 or an 8 or a 9 or a 10? I don't know. If it was on a 1-5 scale, I could probably happily fill in the little button for a 3. But on a 1-13 scale, that would be equivalent to a 7 and I just don't know if I'm a 7 or not.

Press releases ignore cause and effect


I saw another survey (if I could find the actual survey again, I would cite it here) recently that said that fewer companies were funding (informally) their nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plans. The headline said something about recent guidance on corporate-owned life insurance (COLI) being the reason for this. Hmm, the survey had no questions in it about why fewer companies were funding their NQDCs. And, further, I'm not sure what recent is, but I can't find any recent COLI guidance that would affect funding of NQDC plans. Perhaps the authors of the surevy had a bias?

Survey populations may not be unbiased


Suppose a large consulting firm does a survey. In my experience, they send the survey to a nice cross-section of large companies. Perhaps it looks something like the Fortune 200 plus all of that firms clients not in the Fortune 200 that generate at least $1 million in annual revenue for the firm. Of the companies surveyed, who do you think are the most likely to answer the survey? Could it be the consulting firm's large clients? Aren't they the ones most likely to actually open the survey? Who are least likely to answer the survey? Could it be the companies that have recently fired that large consulting firm?

Do you think that the results of this survey might be a little bit skewed? Do you care? I do.

Surveys inevitably are constructed to produce the findings that the surveyors think should be produced


Suppose you ran the health care consulting practice at a large consulting firm. Further suppose that you are a big proponent of consumerism. In fact, you have built your consulting firms health care consulting practice around CDHPs. You ask your survey group to do a survey around health care plans. You want to be able to make a bold statement in a press release that shows how wonderful CDHPs are and for all the reasons that you have been touting.

Do you think you will make sure that the questions have at least a small bias that will lead to your desired result? If the findings come back differently than you had hoped, do you think you will publish the results as is, or will you find a way to tweak the results? Will you tout the portion of the results that support your practice or will you be unbiased in how you release the survey results?

I don't need to answer those questions for you. You don't need to answer them either. We all know the reality.

These surveys ... they do have their problems.

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.

Risk Management Isn't Just for Qualified Retirement Plans

Do you work for a company that has an active risk management policy? Do you consult with companies that manage risks or should? Are you in a benefit plan that may or may not manage risks? Then, perhaps this is for you.

Much has been made of risk management in recent years. During the economic downturn that started sometime during Bush (43)'s second term (I'm not going to argue about specifically when it started) and that is still continuing (or is not depending on which "expert" you believe), every company that I am aware of talked about risk management in earnest. Some actively did something about, some just talked about it, but it became a buzzword (I'm sorry, but a buzzword can be more than one word in my blog).

Let's focus on employee benefit programs, both broad-based and executive. Most everyone out there does some sort of risk management in most of their welfare benefit plans. Their health care plans are often fully insured, or if not, they at least have some sort of stop-loss insurance in place. And, they know that they can increase the employee portion of cost-sharing next year. With regard to other welfare benefits, LTD plans are often fully insured, life insurance plans as well. Think about them, in virtually all of these plans, employers are pooling their risks.

Suppose we turn to retirement plans. I am going to look at them in four baskets:

• qualified defined benefit
• qualified defined contribution
• nonqualified defined contribution
• nonqualified defined benefit

Qualified DB

What a trendy topic to write about: risk. The word has been out for nearly 25 years now. Get out of defined benefit plans. Diligent readers (I'm sure I have at least one) will recall that I wrote several weeks back that certain DB plans (specifically cash balance) managed appropriately are less risky than 401(k) plans from the plan sponsor standpoint. Since nobody commented on this, can I presume that everyone who read it agreed with me? I;m not that foolish, but ...

In any event, anyone who deals with qualified plans has heard about risk management, LDI, and lots of other trendy terms. When I got into this business, more large companies than not sponsored DB plans, and extremely few did anything to manage their inherent risks. Now, only those who think that they are omniscient with regard to both interest rate movement and equity and fixed income prices do nothing.

Qualified DC

In my experience, very few companies even evaluate their risks here, but most companies have them. Consider these:

• Suppose an employer provides a matching contribution in their 401(k) plan and all of their communications to employees are successful. Then, employees will contribute more and employers will be on the hook for more matching contributions. Isn't this a risk? I think it is. How many companies forecast this under any, let alone many scenarios? Shouldn't they?
• Many private or closely held companies sponsor ESOPs. When a private company sponsors an ESOP, isn't there really only one way to pay out plan participants when they terminate with a vested benefit? And, isn't that to repurchase the shares? I know that there are some companies out there that perform (or have done for them) an assessment of their repurchase liability. For the ones, who don't, in my opinion, they are just rolling the dice.
• I've seen a lot of companies scrap their defined benefit plans in favor of a profit sharing plan. In doing so, they make an implicit promise to their employees (not all companies do this, but there are enough that do), that they will contribute at least some minimum percentage of pay to the plan on behalf of each employee. Suppose business is bad. Suppose there are no profits to support these profit sharing contributions. That's pretty risky. The old way of sponsoring a profit sharing plan, basing contributions on and sharing profits, is probably more prudent. 

Nonqualified plans

Why don't employers (as a group) manage their risks in these plans? Are the obligations too small to worry about? Is it because they are just executive plans and since they may not get ERISA protection, they are not worthy of risk management? Is it because they don't know how? Is it because they have never thought about it?

Let's go back a few years, say to some point before 1986 (there were sweeping changes to tax laws including the treatment of certain life insurance products). Nonqualified plans were much smaller than they are now. But the promises made in many of them were just plain silly. 

I'm aware of one former Fortune 100 company (the company no longer exists due to acquisitions, but its particular identity is irrelevant) that promised a return in excess of 20% annually in its NQDC plan. They funded the plan using COLI, and they could point to broker illustrations that showed that all was taken care of. [pause for me to laugh out loud] I'm sure that there were other companies out there that did similar things. Remember that whoever it was that designed the plan (internally) was going to benefit from that large rate of return. If they were at the level that they were involved in the design, they were probably at least 40 years old at the time and they were smart enough to know that it doesn't take too many years at a guaranteed 20+% rate of return to build up a pretty good nest egg. And, they also knew if they thought about it that the risks that they created for the company wouldn't become really apparent until after they had become a wealthy retiree.

Why didn't this company manage this risk better? They were using the same mentality that many others have used in a retirement plan investment context -- that of total return. And, their assumptions were overly optimistic.

I'm going to make a bold statement (it's not really so bold, but teeing it up this way gets your attention better). Whether it be on a micro basis (at the plan level) or on a macro basis (at the enterprise level), it is critical that companies manage their nonqualified risks. This means that it is incumbent upon them to set aside assets to appropriately manage those risks (whatever that means to the particular company). While it may seem prudent to make the play that, on average, minimizes financial accounting costs, this is often wrong. While it may seem prudent to take the position that managing cash flow, in a way that on average, minimizes that cash flow, this is often wrong.

I'm going to attempt something drastic here. I'm going to try to insert a graphic in this blog (people over the age of 50 should generally not resort to such technological indulgences).

Tell me, in this matrix, which risk do you really want to take additional steps to actively manage? If I ask people (limited to ones that I consider to pretty intelligent), they assume that this is a trick question. Of course, they want to focus on the northeast corner -- the one with high risk and high likelihood. Think about it. Aren't these the risks that they are already very actively managing? With regard to these risks, companies tend to be fully insured, fully hedged, or at least fully something. They don't let these risks go unwatched. They know that they could bring down the company.

Does anyone remember what happened to BP in the Gulf of Mexico a few months ago? The likelihood of that event was small, but the downside risk was immense. Similarly, does anyone remember the performance of assets and liabilities together during the 10-year period that just recently ended? We had about 4 years of "left  tail events during that 10 year period (the left tail in a normal distribution is where you usually find the low probability, but very poor outcome events). In other words, 40% of the time, we had an outcome that models said would occur less than 5% of the time. What went wrong?

I could go on and on about what went wrong in terms of bad models, bad laws, bad accounting rules and the like, but that's not the point. The point is that not enough companies prepared for this low-probability event. Now, risk management in pension plans is all the rage (at least for companies that still sponsor pension plans). As time goes by and the rich get richer (they do, don't they?) nonqualified liabilities grow rapidly. And, as those liabilities grow, companies are actively managing the risks attendant to those plans, right?

WRONG!

Some have looked at this carefully, but you can probably count that list of some pretty darn quickly. Am I suggesting that companies formally fund their nonqualified obligations in a secular trust? Probably not, the tax rules usually don't work. Am I suggesting that they fund in a rabbi trust? Maybe, perhaps more than maybe. Am I suggesting that they somehow evaluate their low probability, high magnitude risks in their nonqualified plans and then quickly take reasonable steps to ensure that those risks will not get in the way of the successful operation of their company?

With due credit to Rowan and Martin's Laugh-In, you bet your bippy I am.

Do it now, and do it right, and if you're not sure how, let me help you do it.

It's Extremely Important to Have Complete and Accurate 409A Documents -- So Says the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals

On November 16, the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals rendered its decision in Graphic Packaging Holding Corporation v Humphrey. You can read the decision here: http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7196368006507516478&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Despite their growing numbers, most of us are not attorneys (I'm not) and don't revel in the reading of court decisions, so I'm going to try to save your eyes (and your brain) some serious pain. Rather than going through all of the court's legal reasoning, we'll look at this one from the proverbial 30,000 feet. In other words, we'll hit the high points and give you a VERY key lesson to be learned.

Mr. Humphrey was the President and CEO of Graphic Packaging (GPC) (or one of its predecessors) from 1997 through 2006 and served as its Vice Chairman in 2007. He retired from GPC on December 31, 2007 as a   specified employee (a term of art under Code Section 409A that usually requires that the employee experience a 6-month delay in payments from a nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plan). Mr. Humphrey was a participant in such a plan, the"2004 Stock and Incentive Compensation Plan" under which he received a number of restricted stock units (RSUs).

Because the GPC stock declined in price over the period from December 31, 2007 until June 30, 2008, Mr. Humphrey's RSUs were worth less at the end of the 6-month period. When GPC paid him out his RSUs, they paid him the smaller amount.

Mr. Humphrey sued and the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals ruled in his favor.

Without going through all of the legal mumbo-jumbo, the court reasoned the following:

• Code Section 409A does not specify how the amount of  a payment should be calculated at the end of the 6-month waiting period for specified employees. It does not mention a valuation method or valuation date and does not mention the accrual of interest.
• The plan document did not specify how the amount of the payment should be calculated either.
• The company (or their counsel/advisers) wrote the plan document and the onus was on them to get it right.

So, the lesson is that an NQDC plan should answer these questions and answer them clearly and unambiguously. Do your plans do that? Many that I have seen do not.

Suppose they don't. Notice 2010-6 as amended by Notice 2010-80 (you can read about it here: http://johnhlowell.blogspot.com/2010/12/your-eyes-are-not-failing-you-we-have.html ) generally allows plan sponsors to amend their 409A plans by the end of 2010 without penalty (this is a generality and you should not assume that you have no penalty without a specific understanding of your facts and circumstances). A complication might occur if this was a material modification to the plan document, but as it will not uniformly improve the benefit for employees, my non-legal take on this is that it will not be a material modification. In either case, get your plan amended to say what it should say. Make sure that it is reflective of past practices and that future practices will follow the plan.

If I were in an employer's shoes, I would look to an expert for assistance with this, and not necessarily the attorney who drafted the plan. Attorneys are experts in legal issues, but often are not in plan administration and this particular issue has implications for administration. I would look to a consultant with knowledge of the law, knowledge of the administrative issues, and the ability to understand the issues.

As always, this author does not provide legal, tax or accounting advice.