For today’s blog entry, I cover yet another challenge in the ongoing saga of awards that provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement.
A recent Chief Counsel Advice memorandum casts doubt on the treatment of dividend equivalents paid on vested but unpaid RSUs. This comes up when dividend equivalents are paid on RSUs that allow for deferred payout on either a mandatory basis or at the election of the award holder. This arrangement is relatively rare, however, and probably only impacts a few of my readers. More commonly, however, this is also an issue where dividend equivalents are paid on awards that provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement and the award holder is eligible to retire.
Background
In either of the above situations, the RSU is subject to FICA when no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. For traditional deferral arrangements, risk of forfeiture lapses when the award vests. In the case of awards that provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement, the risk of forfeiture substantively lapses when the award holder is eligible to retire.
Any dividend equivalents accrued on the award prior to when the award is subject to FICA will be subject to FICA at the time paid (if they are paid out to award holders at the same time they are paid to shareholders) or when the award is subject to FICA (if they will be paid out with the underlying award). But what about the dividend equivalents paid after the award has been subject to FICA? Does the company need to collect FICA on those equivalents when they are accrued/paid?
The Non-Duplication Rule
Under, Treas. Reg. §31.3121(v)(2)-1(a)(2)(iii), referred to as the “non-duplication rule,” once an RSU has been taken into income for FICA purposes, any future earnings on the underlying stock are not subject to FICA. So the answer to FICA treatment of the dividends depends on whether the dividends paid after this point are considered a form of earnings, akin to appreciation in value in the underlying stock (in which case, they would not be subject to FICA), or additional compensation (in which case, they would still be subject to FICA).
I’ve spoken with a number of practitioners about this. Most believe that an argument can be made that the dividend equivalent payments are a form of earnings and, thus, are not subject to FICA.
The CCA
In Chief Counsel Advice 201414018, issued earlier this year, the IRS argued that dividends paid after the award is subject to FICA are still subject to FICA. The situation the memorandum addresses, however, involved a number of facts not typically characteristic of RSUs that receive dividend equivalents:
- The RSUs were granted by a private company
- The awards were paid out only in cash
- The dividend equivalents were paid out to award holders at the same time dividends were paid to shareholders, rather than with the underlying award
While concerning, the memorandum doesn’t necessary dictate a change in practice with respect to the FICA treatment of dividend equivalents, especially if your company is public, your RSUs are paid out in stock, and your dividend equivalents are paid out with the underlying award. It may, however, be worth reviewing the ruling with your tax advisors to ensure they are comfortable with your procedures (especially if any of the conditions in the memorandum also apply to your RSUs and dividend equivalents).
– Barbara
Tags: Chief Counsel Advice, dividends, employment taxes, FICA, IRS memorandum, retirement, Retirement Eligibility, RSU, RSUs
In a flurry of acronyms, the DOL (Department of Labor) and the IRS (I’m sure you all know what this acronym stands for) signed an MOU (Memorandum of Understanding) to improve agency coordination to address worker misclassification. A number of states are also participating in the agreement.
DOL and IRS Sign MOU
The agreement provides that the DOL will share information with the IRS and the participating states to address workers classified as contractors that should really be treated as employees. Worker misclassification is a target of the IRS’s current employment tax research study, which I’ve blogged about before (“IRS Auditing Stock Compensation,” June 7, 2011). This MOU will give the IRS additional information to use in its audits.
At the same time, the IRS also announced a voluntary worker classification settlement program, further demonstrating their focus on this issue.
Misclassifying a worker that should be an employee as a consultant can result in a host of legal issues, from benefits that the individual should have been accorded (such as the right to medical benefits and vacation time), tax withholding considerations, overtime pay, and unemployment benefits, to name just a few.
This probably seems like a topic that doesn’t impact stock plan administration that much. Worker classification is determined by HR and/or payroll; the stock plan administration group most likely just assumes their determination is correct and treats each individual’s options and awards accordingly. And, I can’t think of any reason why stock plan administration should question the classification made by HR/payroll; it’s unlikely you have sufficient information to determine an individual’s employment status.
But, while stock plan administration may not be involved in classifying workers as employees or consultants, you should be aware of the impact misclassification can have on stock compensation awarded to the individuals in question.
Tax Withholding on Options and Awards
Of course, the first issue that comes to mind is tax withholding. Individuals classified as consultants aren’t subject to tax withholding. If these individuals should have been treated as employees, however, then taxes should have been withheld on all of their compensation, including their NQSOs and stock awards. Failure to withhold the appropriate taxes can result in penalties to the company up to the amount of the taxes that should have been withheld, as well as interest and administrative penalties.
In addition, the company should have made matching FICA payments on all of the individual’s compensation, also including NQSOs and stock awards. This is even more of a mess because consultants don’t pay FICA, they pay self-employment tax, which is equal to both the individual and company portion of FICA. The misclassified workers will have overpaid their taxes because, as employees, they would only have been responsible for the employee portion of FICA.
ESPP
The company’s Section 423 ESPP is a significant concern. By law, substantially all employees of the company have to be allowed to participate in the ESPP, but, of course, also by law, consultants aren’t permitted to participate. Where consultants should have been treated as a employees, however, it is likely that they should have been permitted to participate in the ESPP. Where an individual that should have been allowed to participate is excluded from the ESPP, the entire offering(s) that the individual should have been allowed to participate in can be disqualified. A mistake here could impact not just the misclassified individual but all other employees participating in the ESPP. When assessing your company’s risk with regards to worker misclassification, this is an important consideration.
Thanks to McGuireWoods for the alert that gave me the idea for this blog entry.
Conference Hotel Almost Sold Out
The 19th Annual NASPP Conference is quickly approaching and the Conference hotel is nearly sold out. The Conference will be held from November 1-4 in San Francisco. The last Conference in San Francisco sold out a month in advance–and that was without the reality of Dodd-Frank and mandatory Say-on-Pay hanging over our heads. With Conference registrations going strong–on track to reach nearly 2,000 attendees–this year’s event promises to be just as exciting; register today to ensure you don’t miss out.
NASPP “To Do” List
We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
– Barbara
Tags: audit, consultants, Department of Labor, DOL, Employee Stock Purchase Plan, employment taxes, ESPP, FICA, IRS, IRS audits, nonemployees, Section 423