• Home
  • Executive Benefits
    • Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans – SERP
    • Split Dollar Loans
    • Deferral Plans
    • Welfare Plans
  • Revenue Strategies
    • Bank/Business Owned Life Insurance – BOLI
    • Corporate Owned Life Insurance – COLI
    • Insurance Company Owned Life Insurance
    • Managed Accounts
    • Guaranteed Income Contracts
    • Fee Income Strategies
  • Asset Protection
    • Estate Planning
    • Business Succession Planning
    • Key Person Planning
  • About
    • R. Scott Richardson, JD
    • Brenda R. Haag
    • Bruce F. Barge
    • Chris A. Richardson
    • Debra Hardimon
    • Fannie Mae Pantaleon
    • Jeff Prescher
    • Joe Tripalin
    • Patrick J. Costello
    • Philip Aderton >
      • 2019 CBAI IZALE Sponsored Golf Outing
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events >
      • History – Calendars by Year >
        • 2019 Client Conference
        • 2017 Client Conference
        • 2015 Client Conference
    • Privacy Policy & Website Privacy Statement
    • Video Education
  • Contact
  • Home
  • Executive Benefits
    • Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans – SERP
    • Split Dollar Loans
    • Deferral Plans
    • Welfare Plans
  • Revenue Strategies
    • Bank/Business Owned Life Insurance – BOLI
    • Corporate Owned Life Insurance – COLI
    • Insurance Company Owned Life Insurance
    • Managed Accounts
    • Guaranteed Income Contracts
    • Fee Income Strategies
  • Asset Protection
    • Estate Planning
    • Business Succession Planning
    • Key Person Planning
  • About
    • R. Scott Richardson, JD
    • Brenda R. Haag
    • Bruce F. Barge
    • Chris A. Richardson
    • Debra Hardimon
    • Fannie Mae Pantaleon
    • Jeff Prescher
    • Joe Tripalin
    • Patrick J. Costello
    • Philip Aderton >
      • 2019 CBAI IZALE Sponsored Golf Outing
  • Resources
    • Blog
    • Events >
      • History – Calendars by Year >
        • 2019 Client Conference
        • 2017 Client Conference
        • 2015 Client Conference
    • Privacy Policy & Website Privacy Statement
    • Video Education
  • Contact
IZALE Financial Group

Blog

Constructive Receipt and Economic Benefit Principles in Deferred Compensation Arrangements Planning

10/12/2013

0 Comments

 
MARKET TREND:  With high-earning executives increasingly focused on income tax planning, deferring compensation often will be a primary objective.  Taxpayers and advisors will need to understand fundamental principles of income taxation to effectively implement deferred compensation arrangements as a part of the overall tax plan.

SYNOPSIS:  
Individuals pay taxes not only on amounts actually received, but also on amounts they constructively receive, as well as the value of any economic benefit conferred upon them.  This report provides an overview of how these principles of taxation are applied, particularly with regard to compensation deferral.

TAKE AWAYS:  
A fundamental understanding of the tax principles relating to constructive receipt and economic benefit will enable an advisor to better navigate the challenges of deferred compensation planning for his or her clients. PRIOR REPORTS: 12-32, 09-42, 09-12, 08-108, 07-44, 07-37, 04-135, 04-133.

MAJOR REFERENCES: 
IRC §409A, IRC §83, Treas. Reg. §1.415-2.

Scroll to read the full report or click here to download a printable PDF.
With recent increases in federal income taxes, including the raising of the highest marginal income tax rate to 39.6% and increased Medicare taxes on both earned and unearned income, individual taxpayers have increased their focus on income tax planning.  In particular, high-level executives and key employees will be particularly interested in methods to defer their compensation in order to better manager their increased income tax liability.  In analyzing the availability and benefits of any specific tax planning arrangement, including deferred compensation plans,  taxpayers and their advisers must understand two fundamental principles of federal income taxation that determine the timing of the recognition and taxation of income – “constructive receipt” and “economic benefit.”  ThisWashington Report provides an overview of the salient aspects of these two basic principles and is the first in a series of three reports that discuss key concepts relevant to the effective deferral of income and income taxation.

CONSTRUCTIVE RECEIPT


Generally.  IRC §451 provides that, generally, “the amount of any item of gross income shall be included in the gross income for the taxable year in which received by the taxpayer” (emphasis added).  Receiving income for this purpose, however, does not require that the taxpayer actually receive or take possession of the income.  A taxpayer can effectively (even if not actually) receive and be taxable on income within the meaning of the statute through the concept of “constructive receipt.”  Treasury regulation §1.451-2 defines “constructive receipt” as follows:

Income although not actually reduced to a taxpayer’s possession is constructively received by him in the taxable year during which it is credited to his account, set apart for him, or otherwise made available so that he may draw upon it at any time, or so that he could have drawn upon it during the taxable year if notice of intention to withdraw had been given.  However, income is not constructively received if the taxpayer’s control of its receipt is subject to substantial limitations or restrictions(emphasis added).

Application to Deferred Compensation Planning.  Over the years, the IRS attempted to establish specific guidelines as to whether an arrangement to defer compensation would avoid constructive receipt of the income deferred. The enactment of IRC §409A in 2004 codified much of this constructive receipt guidance as part of an overall framework that severely restricts the deferral of compensation and the payment of deferred compensation. 

IRC §409A is complex and will be discussed in greater detail in a future Washington Report in this series.  For purposes of the constructive receipt doctrine, IRC §409A states that an election to defer compensation generally must be made before the beginning of the calendar year in which the services for which the compensation is earned are performed.  In addition, an election to defer compensation until a specific date generally cannot be amended unless the further-deferral election is made at least twelve months in advance of the date originally set for payment and defers payment by at least an additional five years.  Relatedly, the date originally established for payment cannot be accelerated except under a very limited number of circumstances specified in regulations.

Because IRC §409A imposes significant penalties for failure to comply, and because its requirements will, in most cases, cause an amount deferred to avoid being constructively received, there is typically less attention paid now to the concept of constructive receipt.  But there may be circumstances in which an IRC §409A-compliant arrangement will actually give rise to constructive receipt of amounts deferred, as determined under the constructive receipt regulations.  Thus, it remains important to keep this fundamental tax principle in mind when developing deferred compensation arrangements.  In that regard, the previous guidance of the IRS may be helpful, specifically their focus on the following aspects of the constructive receipt regulations: 

1.         Taxpayer Generally Must Make Deferral Election in Prior Year.  As the regulations provide that an amount is constructively received “in the taxable year during which” the taxpayer could access the money, the IRS has attempted to take the position that an amount would be constructively received, and therefore taxable, in the first year in which the taxpayer could get the money.  Therefore, the IRS generally took the position that an amount was not constructively received in a particular year if the deferral election was made before the beginning of the taxpayer’s taxable year (generally, the calendar year) in which the services were performed.  For instance, if a taxpayer wanted to defer an amount earned in 2014, the election to defer the income had to be made before the end of 2013 (limited exceptions were available for newly established plans and newly eligible plan participants).

2.         Taxpayer’s Ability to Accelerate or Defer Previously Scheduled Payment Date Is Limited.  Questions arose as to whether the ability of a taxpayer to change the date previously set for payment of his or her deferred compensation gave rise to constructive receipt.  The IRS refused to issue rulings on these questions, so it was left to practitioners to determine an approach that balanced the taxpayer’s needs against the risk that the deferred amounts would be considered constructively received and, therefore, taxable.  In making this assessment, many looked to the regulations providing that an amount is not constructively received if the taxpayer’s control of the receipt of it was subject to substantial limitations or restrictions.  Thus, one might decide that a further deferral election was permissible if it were made at least six months before the participant was scheduled to receive the distribution, or that a participant could accelerate the distribution of his or her deferred compensation if there was a “haircut” imposed on the distribution (i.e., a forfeiture of a portion of the balance of the participant’s deferred compensation account).

ECONOMIC BENEFIT

Generally.  Another tax principle that is relevant in connection with the effective deferral of compensation is the “economic benefit” doctrine.  Under this principle, even if an individual does not actually or constructively receive an item of income, he or she will have taxable income if an economic benefit is conferred upon him or her.  Examples of arrangements that gave rise to taxation under the economic benefit doctrine include the establishment of an escrow account or a trust funded with an amount intended to be used to make a payment to an individual in the future, and that cannot be accessed by the grantor’s creditors or used for any purpose other than the payment to the beneficiary of the trust or escrow account.  Similarly, the purchase of an annuity or insurance contract for the benefit of an employee but held by the employer in a manner that is insulated from claims of the employer’s creditors and prevents the contract from being used for any other purpose will be considered to confer an economic benefit on the employee, thereby subjecting him or her to current taxation.

Application to Deferred Compensation Planning.  Based on the economic benefit doctrine and its application through IRC §83, current taxation under a deferred compensation plan may be avoided in the following cases:

1.         There Is a “Substantial Risk of Forfeiture.”  IRC §83, which defines the tax treatment of the payment of compensation in the form of “property,” effectively reflects the “economic benefit” doctrine.  It states that an individual is taxable on the fair market value of property transferred to him or her as compensation when the property is transferred to him or her or, if later, when the individual’s rights to the property cease to be subject to asubstantial risk of forfeiture.  For this purpose, property ceases to be subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture when the property right transferred “vests,” which typically occurs when the person is not required to perform any more services for the transferor of the property.

2.         There is an Unfunded or Unsecured Promise to Pay Compensation.  Perhaps the most significant IRC §83 concept to note in the deferred compensation context is that the applicable regulations define “property” as including “real and personal property other than either money or an unfunded and unsecured promise to pay money in the future….”  In other words, a “funded” or “secured” promise to pay money in the future is property. Because participants in most deferred compensation arrangements do not want to subject the amounts they defer to a substantial risk of forfeiture, the effective deferral of income taxation requires ensuring that the promise to pay the compensation in the future is not “funded” or “secured.”

The IRS has never given a clear definition of when a promise to pay money is “unfunded” or “unsecured.”  In creating a “model” rabbi trust, which is a vehicle used to set aside amounts ultimately to be used to pay deferred compensation obligations (and which will be the subject of a separate Washington Report in this series), the IRS issued a revenue procedure indicating they would treat a promise to pay money in the future as “unsecured” so long as the assets set aside in the trust remain subject to the claims of the general creditors of the employer that established the trust.  Accordingly, care must be taken in structuring any vehicle in which amounts may be set aside to pay or hedge an employer’s deferred compensation obligations to avoid shielding those amounts from the reach of the employer’s general creditors.

CONCLUSION

Executives are increasingly interested in income tax planning, particularly methods to defer compensation.  Accordingly, a fundamental understanding of how to structure deferred compensation arrangements to avoid constructive receipt and economic benefit is critical for an advisor to assist clients.  Key components in avoiding current taxation under these principles include compliance with IRC §409A requirements regarding the employee’s elections to defer compensation, and proper structuring of the deferred compensation plan so that it is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture or is unfunded and unsecured promise to pay (i.e., the plan assets are subject to the claims of the employer’s creditors). 

DISCLAIMER 
In order to comply with requirements imposed by the IRS which may apply to the Washington Report as distributed or as re-circulated by our members, please be advised of the following:


THE ABOVE ADVICE WAS NOT INTENDED OR WRITTEN TO BE USED, AND IT CANNOT BE USED, BY YOU FOR THE PURPOSES OF AVOIDING ANY PENALTY  THAT MAY BE IMPOSED BY THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE.

In the event that this Washington Report is also considered to be a “marketed  opinion” within the meaning of the IRS guidance, then, as required by the IRS,  please be further advised of the following:

THE ABOVE ADVICE WAS NOT WRITTEN TO SUPPORT THE PROMOTIONS OR  MARKETING OF THE TRANSACTIONS OR MATTERS ADDRESSED BY THE   WRITTEN ADVICE, AND, BASED ON THE PARTICULAR CIRCUMSTANCES, YOU SHOULD SEEK ADVICE FROM AN INDEPENDENT TAX ADVISOR.

 

0 Comments

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    IZALE Financial Group

    As an independent firm, we’re driven by close client relationships. For you, that means that our technical expertise is yours to rely on. 

    RSS Feed

    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    January 2021
    November 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    May 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    January 2020
    October 2019
    August 2019
    April 2019
    September 2018
    August 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    November 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    January 2017
    December 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    June 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    January 2016
    March 2015
    August 2014
    July 2014
    June 2014
    April 2014
    March 2014
    February 2014
    January 2014
    December 2013
    November 2013
    October 2013


    Categories

    All
    1035 Tax Deferred Exchange
    2018
    401K
    457f Plans
    AALU
    A. M. Ratings
    Articles
    Asset Man
    Asset Management
    Asset Protection
    BalancedComp
    Bank
    Banking
    Bank Owned Life Insurance
    Bankruptcy
    Banks
    Basel III
    Bear Market
    Beneficiary
    Benefit Plans
    Benefits
    Board Of Directors
    BOL
    BOLI
    Brian Smedley
    Bruce Barge
    Buisness Owned Life Insurance
    Business Owned Life Insurance
    Butterfly Effect
    Capital Conservation Buffer
    Capital Management
    Capital Requirements
    Cap Rates
    CBAI
    CDC
    CDI
    Center For Disease Control
    CEO
    CFO
    Chris
    Chris Richardson
    Clawback
    COI
    Cole Frago
    COLI
    Common Equity
    Commuity Bank Of Trenton
    Community Banking
    Community Banks
    Compensation
    Compliance
    Connecticut Court
    Consumer Protection Act
    Consumer Protection Act Of 2010
    Coronavirus
    Corporate Owned Life Insurance
    Corporate Taxation
    CPA
    Credit Rates
    Credit Union
    Credit Union Magazine
    Credit Union National Association
    Credit Unions
    CUES
    CUNA
    Daniel Kahneman
    DBO
    DCUC
    DCUC Alert Magazine
    Death Benefits
    Defense Credit Union Council
    Divorce
    Dodd Frank Wall Street Reform
    Dodd-Frank Wall Street Reform
    Econocheck
    Economic Forecast
    Employee Benefits
    ERISA
    Estate Planning
    Estate Tax
    Estate Trust
    Executive Benefits
    Executive Compensation
    Executive Retirement Plans
    Family Legacy
    FDIC
    Federal Reserve Bank
    Fee-based Checking
    Fee Checking
    Fee Income Strategies
    FICA
    Finance Industry
    Financial Education
    Financial Executives
    Financial Forecast
    Financial Managers Society
    Financial Planning
    Finanical Reporting
    Fintect
    Fiscal Year 2015
    Fixed Income
    FL
    FMS
    Fmstv
    FRS
    GAMA
    Gary Wilberg
    Gerald H. Sherman
    Gift Tax
    Global Markets
    Greenberg Traurig
    Greene V. Commissioner
    Guggenheim Partners
    House Ways And Means
    IDProtect
    Incentive Based Compensation
    Incentive-based Compensation
    Income Tax
    Indexed BOLI
    Indexed Universal Life
    Inherit
    Inheritance
    In-Laws
    Insurance
    Insurance Premium
    Insurance Tax Liability
    Interest Rates
    Investment Portfolio
    Investments
    IRA
    IRC
    Irrevocable Trust
    IRS
    IUL
    IZALE
    IZALE Financial Group
    IZALE Testimonial
    JB Barnes
    Jim Patterson
    Jobs Act 2017
    Joe Tripalin
    Jonathan Barnes
    Jonathan M. Forster
    Ken Kies
    Key Person Life Policy
    Las Vegas
    Leadership
    Legacy Planning
    Life Insurance
    Life Policy
    Liquidity Risks
    LLP
    Long Term Disability
    Martin Kalb
    Matt Bush
    May Disability Month
    Media
    National Credit Union Administration
    NCUA
    Non-interest Income
    Non-profit
    Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
    Nonqualified Plans
    NQDC
    Obama Administration
    Orlando
    Pay Ratio Rule
    Phil
    Phil Aderton
    Philip Aderton
    Ponzi Market
    Premarital Planning
    President Obama
    President's Budget
    Press
    Press Releases
    Profit Sharing
    PRS
    Rebecca Manicone
    Recession
    Regulationry Issues
    Regulatory Capital Calculation
    Regulatory Environments
    Resources
    Retirement
    Retirement Plan
    Revenue Strategies
    Richard A. Sirus
    Risk Management
    Roth
    R. Scott Richardson
    SBLI Term Life Insurance
    Scott MInard
    Scott Minerd
    Scott Richardson
    SEC
    Secure Checking
    SERP
    Sherman & Patterson
    Small Business Resale
    Social Security Tax
    Split Dollar Loans
    Split Dollar Plans
    Steve Brown
    Steve Fichtenbaum
    Steven B. Lapidus
    Stock Exchange
    Stock Market
    Stuart Lewis
    Tax Benefit
    Tax Code
    Tax Court
    Tax Cuts
    Tax Cuts And Jobs Act Of 2017
    Tax Deductions
    Tax Deferred Assets
    Tax Implications
    Tax Incentives
    Tax Law
    Tax Liabilities
    Tax Planning
    Tax Refor
    Tax Reform
    Taylor Advisors
    TCJA 2017
    The Forum
    Todd Taylor
    Top Hat Plans
    Treasury Bonds
    Trust
    Trustee
    Trusts
    US Supreme Court
    Washington Report
    Webinars
    Webinar W.O.W.S.
    Whole Life Insurance
    World Economic Forum
    World Economy
    WRMarketplace
    WRNewswire

Client Log-In

Log in to Pangburn
Log in to RBOLI.com

Contact

 855-492-5334 | Contact
Join Our Mailing List
© 2011 - 2019 IZALE Financial Group. All rights reserved. Login.
​Effective June 9, 2017, all individuals who provide advice to retirement plans, including Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs), must abide by the fiduciary standard.  What does the fiduciary standard mean?  This means that your advisor must put your interests first before their own or that of the firm, make prudent recommendations, charge reasonable compensation and make no misrepresentations to you regarding recommended investments.  The recommendations made by your advisor must be based upon your specific investment needs and objectives.  The fiduciary standard is applicable to any recommendations that your advisor makes to you, the client, for your retirement account.
IZALE Website Privacy Policy
Please note the firm does have policies and procedures in place to monitor this level of fiduciary responsibility for our clients.
IZALE Financial Group does insurance business in California as IZALE LLC Insurance Agency
This site is published for residents of the United States only. Representatives may only conduct business with residents of the states and jurisdictions in which they are properly registered. Therefore, a response to a request for information may be delayed until appropriate registration is obtained or exemption from registration is determined. Not all of services referenced on this site are available in every state and through every advisor listed. For additional information, please contact Scott Richardson at 855-492-5334 .