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 Code Section 409A would be repealed (you thought that was good news, didn't you?)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.

Preparing the Higher Paid for Retirement

Retirement readiness is getting lots of press these days. With the decrease in the number of ongoing defined benefit (DB) retirement plan, many people are finding that they are not on a path to perhaps ever be ready to retire. While most of the focus has been on lower paid, nonhighly compensated (NHCE) workers, the discussion may be more relevant for the higher paid (HCEs) workers, especially those who are not among the very highest paid. When I was growing up, these people were often referred to as the upper middle class. Today, I don't hear that term as often.

Yesterday, I read an article that on its surface would seem to address this issue. It focused on the small employer, small plan world. It laid out a multi-step additive solution:

• Safe harbor 401(k)
• Cross-tested profit sharing
• Cash balance plan
• Nonqualified plan

There is nothing wrong with this solution. In fact, at companies that take this approach, it is likely that full career employees whether they are NHCEs or HCEs will have sufficient retirement benefits to be able to retire with a style of living similar to what they had when they were working. 

That's not bad.

But, as I said, the focus here is on small employers in which the management team (often one or two owners) are earning really substantial amounts of money. While the approach outlined above and in the article may be somewhat optimal, it's not unlikely that with a less optimal approach that these HCEs could retire comfortably.

Before we go on, however, why should we care about the rest of the HCEs -- those people who for the most part have annual incomes in the range of, say, $125,000 to $200,000. They are pretty well paid. What could possibly make it difficult for them?

They do pay more in taxes. It's not unlikely that they will have to fund college educations for their child(ren) as they may make a little too much for significant financial aid to be available. And, as most people aspire to a style of living in retirement at least similar to what they had when they were working, it's going to take a lot more savings for these people to make it to that retirement target. Further, in today's world, with so many employees having a 401(k) plan as their only retirement vehicle, those HCEs who would like to save as much as the financial gurus recommend are just not able to do that in a qualified plan.

Many of these same HCEs have jobs that are not physically stressful. As a result, if they choose to, and if an employer will have them, these people can work well past traditional retirement ages. One might question whether that is good for society. Is it a desirable result? (I'll leave the thinking on that to the reader.)

What can we do? 

Since most people reading this (likely all) will not be legislators, we can't change the law even if that might be a desirable result. As I have said many times, using the 401(k) as a core retirement plan prepares almost no one for retirement. To the extent that companies feel any obligation to their employees, they must do something different.

That different plan should have some particular characteristics:

• It should be affordable to the employer
• The cost of that plan should be relatively stable; that is, volatility should be limited
• The plan should offer annuity and lump sum options to participants when they reach retirement age
• The plan should be easy to understand
• The plan should be easy to administer
• The benefit should be portable since in today's modern workforce, an employee who stays with you for more than five years is the exception, not the norm
• It should benefit the rank and file well
• It should benefit the upper middle class well
• It should benefit the executive group well

Most of the retirement world doesn't seem to want you to know about it, but this plan exists today and it is specifically sanctioned by the Internal Revenue Code.

And, for all of you who are scrambling to learn more, there is plenty of information for the industry insider and the lay person alike. But, if you have more questions, you can always click here.

DOL Weighs in Again on Top-Hat Plans

ERISA contemplated so-called top-hat plans. In fact, it spelled out exactly what was contemplated in providing this opportunity for nonqualified deferred compensation so clearly that the legislative intent could never be misconstrued.

No, it didn't.

As is often the case when bills go from staffer to staffer and then to the floors of the houses of Congress, the bills tend to emerge with run-on sentences often punctuated by a myriad of commas making Congressional intent something upon which otherwise knowing people cannot agree.

Perhaps, some day they will learn.

No they won't, not in my lifetime anyway.

In any event, in a case (Bond v Marriott) concerning top-hat plans in front of the 4th Circuit Court of Appeals, the Department of Labor (DOL) wrote an amicus brief providing its opinion on the statutory wording around top-hat plans.

So, I know that those not familiar are just itching to find out. What does the statute say?

Congress gave us an exception to certain provisions of ERISA for a "[p]lan which is unfunded and is maintained by an employer primarily for the purpose of providing deferred compensation for a select group of management or highly compensated employees."

What is the primary purpose of a top-hat plan? Is it to be primarily for providing deferred compensation to a select group that is composed of management or highly compensated employees? Or, is it to be for providing deferred compensation to select group that is composed primarily of management or highly compensated employees?

It's one of those great questions that has confounded us through the ages. No, actually, it's a question that has confounded a select group of us since the passage of ERISA in 1974. To add to that confounding just a bit, everyone who practices in this field knows what a highly compensated employee is. The term is well defined in Code Section 414(q). But wait, Section 414(q), as written, has only been around since 1986 (added by Tax Reform) meaning that perhaps for these purposes, we don't even know what a highly compensated employee really is.

In its amicus brief, the DOL gives us its opinion, one that it claims to have held at least since 1985 and perhaps longer. The DOL tells the court that the primary purpose should be the provision of deferred compensation [for this select group] and that other purposes might include retaining top talent, allowing highly compensated individuals to defer taxation to years with lower marginal tax rates, or avoiding certain limitations applicable to qualified plans in the Internal Revenue Code. DOL further tells us that it does not mean that the select group may be composed primarily [emphasis added] of management or highly compensated employees or that the plan may have some other secondary purpose which is not consistent with its primary purpose.

The brief goes on to give us the judicial history around the provision and of course informs us which case law got it right and which did not. But, the DOL is clear in its claims and steadfastly denies that exceptions should be allowed.

I may be missing something here regarding the DOL. I think that the DOL has regulatory purview over ERISA. While the DOL has ceded that purview most of the time to the IRS where the Internal Revenue Code has a conforming section, that does not seem to be the case here. Could the DOL not have written regulations in 1975 or 1985 or 1995, or 2005 clarifying who, in fact, is eligible for participation in a top-hat plan? Or did they think it so clear that it was not worth their effort, despite being befuddled by decision after decision handed down by federal courts?

I know that when I got into this business, coincidentally in 1985, the more experienced people who taught me instructed that top-hat plans were to be for a group that was primarily management or highly compensated. In fact, it is difficult, in my experience to find practitioners who learned otherwise.

Perhaps that's wishful thinking. Perhaps, on the other hand, it's wishful thinking on the DOL's part. Perhaps the case will go to the US Supreme Court eventually so that nine wise jurists can put their own spin on it and settle this argument once and for all.

Until then, ...

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.

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.

MAP-21 and SERP Funding, Now May be the Time

If you work with US defined benefit (DB) pensions and you haven't been living under a rock, then you are probably familiar with MAP-21, the law passed this summer whose more formal name is Moving Ahead for Progress in the 21st Century. It was positioned as a highway bill, but you are too smart for all that and know all about positioning. Where building highways costs money, lowering corporate deductions for pension plans raises money (or gets scored that way by the Congressional Budget Office). So, MAP-21 included pension funding relief.

In a nutshell, MAP-21 allows plan sponsors to use significantly above-market discount rates in the determination of funding requirements for their qualified pension plans. The trade-off comes in increases in PBGC premiums. But, while the first of these items is optional, the second is required.

So, where am I going with this? If you read the title of this post, you may be wondering.

Flashback to late 2004. Congress passed and a different president signed into law another act supposedly designed to create jobs. This one had a much more in-your-face title, the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004. With that innocuous name, however, came a new section of the Internal Revenue Code, Section 409A that among other things removed distribution and funding flexibility for DB SERPs. Since that time, many executives have wondered how to get their benefits, or at least portions of them, out from under the dark veil of 409A.

For some companies, MAP-21 may have provided an answer.

WARNING: before considering an option such as what I am about to describe, plan sponsors should very carefully consider the underlying risks.

The time may be right to consider a QSERP. Briefly, a QSERP is a means to transfer certain nonqualified benefits to a qualified plan. You can read about them in more detail here.

So, why might now be the right time. MAP-21 has given companies the ability to use higher discount rates in funding their pension plans. This means that any restrictions that might have arisen due to low funded statuses have likely disappeared. So, companies have the opportunity to fund this obligation in a qualified plan without having to fund it all at once.

Risk managers might tell you not to do this and there are good reasons. Paramount among them is that temporary use of above-market discount rates does not change the "true" funded status of a plan.

Other risk managers might tell you that you should do this and you should do it now. Why? Let's consider a simple example. Suppose you have agreed to pay your CEO an additional $100,000 per year (for life starting at age 65) from the SERP. This is over and above what he will get from the qualified DB plan. The present value of that obligation is the same whether that benefit is in the qualified plan or in the SERP. But, in the qualified plan, you get these advantages and many others:

• The benefit will not be subject to 409A
• You could efficiently fund the benefit immediately and generally get an immediate tax deduction for that funding
• That tax deduction may be taken at a higher corporate tax rate than it will be in the future
• When the CEO retires, his benefit can be paid out of a large pool of assets rather than creating a cash flow crunch

This is a complex process and there is much to consider. But, for the right company, now is the time. You'll only know if you are the right company after careful analysis. Ask an expert.

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.

Distribution Dilemma in Times of Tax Uncertainty

Recently, I was speaking with a top executive at a decent-sized company. The discussion had much to do with his total compensation, but paramount in his mind was his distribution from his nonqualified defined benefit plan (SERP). You see, due to Code Section 409A and its ties that bind, executives with meaningful amounts of deferred compensation are stuck in a guessing game (more about that later).

409A was added to the Code by the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (a misnomer if there has ever been one). It came to be in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals and was put in place to ensure that plans typically limited to management and executives would provide participants with treatment that was no better than that available to participants in qualified plans. For purposes of this discussion, paramount among the restrictions on nonqualified deferred compensation intended to achieve these goals were these (simplifying somewhat):

• Prior to the year in which compensation is deferred, participants must elect both the timing and form of their distribution.
• To the extent that participant wishes to changes his distribution option(s) with respect to money already deferred, he must make that change at least one year prior to the date that distribution would have occurred, AND postpone that distribution by at least 5 years.
• Failure to comply results in significant penalties.

Consider this scenario. You were fortunate enough to be a participant in a SERP. Then, 409A came along and you had to make your "initial deferral election" in that SERP. You didn't know what to do, but you sure liked the idea of the security and favorable conditions underlying a lump sum distribution. Your fellow executives did as well.

That was prior to late 2007. The economy was booming. Smart money was saying that Bush Era tax cuts (put in place by EGTRRA in 2001, but set to expire by the end of 2012) would certainly be extended.

Oops, wrong guess.

There's no way to be sure what's going to happen to the tax rates for the highest earners. But, there is certainly a good possibility that they are going to increase. And, there might be surtaxes for those with
ultra-high (undefined term, but you know what I am talking about) income in any given year. And, you as this executive expecting a lump sum distribution from your SERP would no doubt realize how hard you were going to get hit by this.

What's going through your mind if you remember having made your initial deferral election is that perhaps you should have made a different one. Who knew? Did you think about it that carefully?

I took a highly unscientific poll of people currently in plans subject to 409A. I asked them about their initial deferral elections. Had we been in person rather than over the phone, I expect that I would have gotten funny looks had I used that specific term. But, over the phone, I was able to explain and not see the looks in their eyes. In any event, here are the results of that poll:

• 11 of the 15 had no say in their initial deferral election; it was foist upon them by HR who said that they had made their decision for them based on legal and or accounting advice.
• 9 of the 15 didn't know what the rules were around changes.
• 13 of the 15 have a DB and or DC SERP in which they are scheduled to take a lump sum distribution.
• Given the current economic and tax climate, of those 13, 12 would like to take a different form of distribution.
• Of those 12, 11 said that back when they made their 409A initial deferral election, had they truly understood what they were doing, they would have made a different initial deferral election.

Choosing that distribution option well in advance sure does create a dilemma. There are certainly options, but more people than not don't seem to understand this.

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.

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.

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.