Today we have a fabulous installment in our Ask the Experts series of webcasts, “Tax Reporting for Stock Compensation.” I thought I’d shake things up and take a look at tax filing from the employee’s perspective.
Income and capital gains associated with equity compensation can be pretty daunting for the average employee. These are my top five reporting mistakes. Your personal top five may differ based on your company’s equity compensation program and the education you provide around taxation.
No Schedule D
Employees who do not understand capital gains at all could have this problem when it comes to reporting any sale. However, it’s much more common when there is a cashless exercise or sell-to-cover transaction, particularly if the company defines the FMV as the sale price. The employee may know that the income is reported and the associated taxes are withheld by the company, assume that the exercise (or vest) and the sale are the same transaction because they happened simultaneously and not even consider the need to report the sale. Alternatively, the employee may understand that the sale price and the FMV on the exercise or vest date is the same and assume that there is nothing to report.
Partial Sale Confusion
When an employee sells only some of the shares from an option exercise or restricted stock vest, it is surprisingly easy to misunderstand what should go on the Schedule D. This is more of a problem for employees doing a sell-to-cover transaction, but can happen even if the sale is from held shares. When referencing the exercise or vest statement, the employee reports all exercised/vested shares as being sold and/or reports the cost basis for the total shares acquired as the cost basis for the shares that were sold. The most likely result is a calculation on the Schedule D that shows a sizable capital loss on the sale. Hopefully, cost basis reporting will eventually help prevent this error.
ESPP – Qualifying Disposition
Qualifying dispositions of ESPP shares are confusing because there is still (in most cases) an income element if there was a discount at purchase. Unfortunately, the most common mistake for employees is not reporting that ordinary income when or if the company fails to do so. The income element of a qualifying disposition is the lesser of the discount as if the purchase took place at the beginning of the offering period (which should now be reported to employees on Form 3922) or the spread between the purchase and sale prices. Failure by the company to report that income doesn’t exempt the employee from reporting it.
The exception is that when the sale price is lower than the purchase price, there is no ordinary income on the qualifying disposition–and that means that employees in this unhappy situation are actually more likely to report it correctly.
Reporting Gain Twice
The most common reason for this error is a misunderstanding of restricted stock vests. The employee reports $0 as the cost basis, effectively reporting the spread at vest twice: once as income and once as capital gains. This can happen with options as well if the employee uses the exercise price as the cost basis for the shares when reporting the sale. Double reporting may also happen if an employee doesn’t realize that the income resulting from a disqualifying disposition of ISO or ESPP shares is already included in the Form W-2 (assuming your company is aware of the disposition and reports it correctly).
Failure to Report an ISO Cash Exercise
Employees with ISO grants have a host of tax concepts to familiarize themselves with, but none is quite as mysterious as the issue of AMT. AMT is such a nebulous issue for most people that it is often given only a brief explanation in equity compensation communications.
Many employees hear the words “no income” and assume that is synonymous with “no reporting obligation.” However, any exercise of ISOs (assuming the shares are held at least through the remainder of the tax year) means that the employee must complete and attach Form 6251 to their tax return, even if she or he is not subject to AMT. If the employee is subject to AMT and fails to report the exercise, this is (of course) potentially a much bigger issue than if the employee simply fails to prove she or he is not subject to AMT.
So, what’s the top five for your company? If you don’t know, start thinking about it now.
Here’s a better question: How do you figure out what mistakes your employees are making? First, anything that you don’t personally understand 100% is bound to be even more difficult for employees. Also, anything comes to you as a question is a potential for a reporting problem. Keep your ears open for horror stories–if it’s happened to one person, it could happen to your employees. Finally, if you’re really ambitious, you could survey a sample of your employees with example scenarios to see if they know how to report different transactions.
The upcoming tax season is shaping up to be a confusing one for your plan participants. They will be receiving new bits of information regarding their equity transactions, all intended to be helpful. The problem with information is that it’s only helpful if you can understand it. As your company gears up for your Section 6039 reporting, don’t push cost basis reporting off as an issue that can wait until 2011 year end.
As Barbara pointed out in her June 2nd blog entry, requirements for cost basis reporting come in phases and 2011 marks the first phase. For regular stock sales, this will be very helpful. For equity compensation, however, this first phase actually provides misleading information. The cost basis that is required to be in Box 3 of the new Form 1099-B is only the purchase price of the shares, not the actual cost basis. While it is permissible for brokers to go above and beyond the requirement ahead of schedule, I doubt that it will be feasible for, especially for sales of ESPP shares, to put processes in place to capture and incorporate the necessary information to report the true cost basis for all sales in 2011.
Tower of Babel
What the communication quagmire boils down to is that employees are receiving an increasing number of communications with numbers that represent some piece of their tax puzzle, but not all the numbers will match or even be relevant. The message to your seasoned employees can be simple and clear: There is absolutely no change in the way you need to report your income or capital gains. This is true for both the Section 6039 information statements that employees may receive for this upcoming tax season as well as the changes to 2011 Forms 1099-B. Your new employees or those who still haven’t fully grasped the concepts behind tax reporting, on the other hand, will need to be given the resources to avoid making costly mistakes.
Double Trouble
Just to review, let’s talk about an NQSO exercise. At exercise, the employee realizes income on the difference between the exercise price and the FMV on the exercise date. For example, if 100 shares of an option were exercised for $10 per share when the FMV is $15 per share, the employee would pay an exercise price of $1,000 and realize ordinary income of $500. The new cost basis for these 100 shares is the exercise price plus the income, which is $1500 or $15 per share.
If the exercise in this example takes place in 2011 and the employee sells 11 shares to cover the taxes due, she or he will receive a Form 1099-B from the broker for the 11 shares showing a cost basis of $10 per share. Leaving the fees and commission on the sale out of the conversation, this means that the employee could easily misunderstand and pay capital gains taxes on that same $5 per share that is reported as income on his or her W-2–effectively paying taxes twice.
The Broker Connection
Brokers are making changes to their back-end systems and the user interfaces to accommodate lot ID for sales of shares. Some brokers already have electronic lot selection for some or all brokerage accounts, but the functionality may not yet apply to shares from employer equity plans. You will want to work closely with your broker(s) to understand what any changes will look like for employees, especially if there will be enhanced modeling features. Get educated on how the broker will determine which lot of shares is being sold through employee accounts and if or how employees can designate specific lot sales when selling online.
Now is also a perfect time to provide information to employees on the acceptable methods for determining cost basis of shares and how to plan for tax filing before they engage in a sale. Many brokers have information and FAQs already available that you can leverage to educate your employees.
Because cost basis reporting is only required for sales of shares that were acquired on or after January 1, 2011, you’ll also want to know what your broker is planning to do about reporting for shares purchased prior to 2011.
Break it Down
If possible, provide your employees with an FAQ that illustrates the cost basis of shares sold from each type of equity award that you offer this year so that next year’s conversation won’t mean starting from scratch. If you need a refresher in any of these, the Conference session, “IRS Cost-Basis Reporting: Are Your Stock Plans Ready?” includes a great list. By working to get employees familiar with the term “cost basis” right now, you help them with their tax reporting for this year, making next year’s conversation easier. If you issue ISOs or have an ESPP, any discussion of cost basis must include a refresher on qualifying vs. disqualifying dispositions, which works perfectly into any plans you have in place for educating employees on the Section 6039 information statements they’ll be receiving.
Last week while I was thinking about the ongoing issues for companies with equity compensation in India, the Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce & Industry (FICCI) was considering the ongoing issues for employees. This week, FICCI issued a letter to the finance ministry asking that the taxation of ESOPs (Employee Stock Option Plans) be amended (See the press release here.).
In the proposal, FICCI asks that the discount value at grant, as opposed to the spread at exercise, be taxed as income. FICCI argues that only the discount provided by the company at grant represents the consideration given to the employee by the company; any increase in value after that is more like investment income. FICCI maintains that taxing the spread at exercise as a perquisite is counter to the SEBI guidelines for stock options.
The press release focuses on the section of the SEBI guidelines that stipulates the fair value of an option should not be adjusted for “changes in the price of the underlying stock, volatility, the life of the options, dividends on the underlying stock, or the risk-free interest rate.” Although the FICCI proposal does mention that SEBI guidelines define the FMV of an option as the market price prevalent on the grant date, it fails to mention that this “market price” referenced in the guidelines is actually the trading value of the option, or estimated trading value based on a valuation model (e.g., a Black-Scholes valuation). At any rate, this is merely a request to the finance ministry at this point. It remains to be seen whether or not the finance ministry will even entertain the idea. Because it would probably result in a decrease in tax revenue, my gut tells me no…but stranger things have happened!
Ads by Google: Or, “An ESOP by Any Other Name”
While reading an article on the FICCI proposal, Google ads saw a great acronym and gave me a targeted add for the ESOP Association. Because of that, I learned that October is Employee Ownership Month, which, I must admit, caught me by surprise. Although employee ownership is a foundation for most equity compensation, Employee Stock Ownership Programs (ESOPs) in the United States are specific programs under which shares of company stock are placed in a trust. Shares in the trust are allocated to employees based on whatever parameters have been set up by the company. The allocated shares typically vest over time, but vested shares are not actually issued to the employee until termination.
October has been Employee Ownership Month for more than 20 years; it’s a month set aside to educate the public (not just employees) about the benefits of employee ownership (i.e., ESOPs). According to the ESOP Association, “…companies celebrate with picnics to honor their employee owners, hold roundtable discussions with local public officials and organizations to spread the word about employee ownership, and some hold awards ceremonies to honor outstanding employees.”
So, I searched and searched, but I couldn’t find anyone that celebrates an “Equity Compensation Month.” With the cyclical nature of bad press on equity compensation, I certainly think we could benefit from one. Wouldn’t it be great if companies everywhere celebrated equity compensation at the same time?
We are about half-way through the first tax year in which employers have known the income reporting, tax withholding, and valuation requirements for employees in India. Last year (2009/2010) was quite a scramble, with retroactive updates and guidance being provided late into 2009.
Valuations
One issue that companies continue to work with is the calculation of FMV, as a Category 1 Merchant Banker valuation is still required for companies not listed on a recognized exchange (Neither NASDAQ nor NYSE are recognized exchanges.). There were several months where it was unclear whether or not Merchant Banker valuations would be required. If your company reported and withheld based on the market value of your stock during the 2009/2010 tax year, you should have adjusted your reporting at this point.
Frequency
When it comes to Merchant Banker valuations, frequency is still a key consideration (and one that will remain so long as these valuations are required). The regulations state that valuations are only required every 180 days, so it is possible to only value your company’s shares two times a year. However, this may not right for your company, especially if the trading value of the shares has decreased significantly since the most recent valuation.
Double Standard
The difference between the Merchant Banker valuation and the trading value of the stock will remain an ongoing issue regardless of how often your company has a valuation performed. If your stock plan administration software does not permit more than one FMV on a trading date, you may have to provide custom employee communications to accommodate the FMV that was used to calculate income.
Australia
Reporting Obligations
Generally speaking, most options and RSU grants in Australia awarded after July 1, 2009 are taxable at vest. There is no withholding obligation for employers, but there is a reporting obligation of Employee Share Scheme (ESS) statements to both the employee and the Australian Tax Office (ATO). They are not unlike the U.S. Section 6039 information statements in theory; presumably they will help employees better understand how to complete their own tax returns and will help the tax authorities determine if income is being properly reported on tax returns, which they will be auditing (See this alert from Deloitte.)
Valuation
For RSUs, the trading value of the shares at vest may be the FMV for income calculation. However, options are considered an “unlisted right” and might require a valuation method (e.g.; Black Scholes) to determine the market value of the shares on date of the taxable event.
30 Day Rule
One tricky piece of determining the FMV on the taxable date in Australia is the 30 day rule. If an employee sells shares from an RSU vest or option exercise within 30 days of the original taxable event date, then the sale date might be considered the taxable event, provided the company is aware of the sale.
Employees
Individual tax returns for the 2009/2010 tax year are due by October 31, 2010. Employees may still be trying to understand the ESS statements provided to them by the company.
Taking Action
Many companies appear to have moved away from granting options in Australia as a result of the reporting obligations. We completed a Quick Survey on this in September; only 20% of respondents were continuing to grant options in Australia, 38% were not granting options to begin with, and a significant 42% were moving to share grants (like RSUs) or some type of cash compensation.
Restricted stock units and awards carry a unique risk when it comes to grant acceptance. It’s easiest to understand this risk in contrast to stock options. In most countries and situations, the taxable event on a stock option is the exercise. Employees must personally take action in order to exercise a stock option, which gives companies the opportunity to have their undivided attention when it comes to grant acceptance and simply prevent exercise until the grant has been signed. Restricted stock awards and units, on the other hand, are taxed on either the vest date or even at grant (depending on the country and circumstances). For the purpose of simplification, I’m going to focus on RSUs granted in the U.S. that do not have accelerated or continued vesting after retirement.
Policy #1: Time’s Up!
Some companies take a conservative approach to this issue by actually enforcing a grant acceptance requirement with a policy under which employees forfeit their grants if acceptance isn’t completed within a specific timeframe. In this approach, the highest risk is in ensuring adequate communication regarding the timeframe and consequences of not accepting the grants. In addition to including a warning in all communications leading up to the grant, it’s a good idea to also send out reminders to employees as they approach the deadline for acceptance.
Policy #2: It’s Yours Whether You Know it or Not
Some companies default to the philosophy that grants will continue to vest regardless of the grant acceptance status, even if they have a policy that theoretically requires grant acceptance without actually enforcing it. Hopefully, this is a well thought-out policy and not just a head-in-the-sand reaction to the issue of grant acceptance. For example, it could be that the comany’s legal team concluded that allowing shares to vest before the terms and conditions have been accepted poses less risk to the company than cancelling unaccepted grants. Regardless of the reason behind adopting this policy, the best way to make it effective is to make sure that grant documents, communications, and company policy accommodate how tax withholding is executed. The smart approach is to have a default tax withholding method which does not require action by the employee such as share withholding. Another advantage of share withholding over other methods is that, in the event the employee ultimately wants to decline the grant, the odds of being able to “unravel” the vest are much higher.
Policy #3: What?!
The riskiest approach of all is to ignore the issue until it’s too late. Of course, it’s entirely tongue-in-cheek to call this a policy at all. A company might fall into this situation because of poor planning, inadequate documentation, or a sudden increase in the number of RSU recipients. This could lead to a situation where taxes are due, but the company has no way to collect them because there either isn’t a default tax withholding method, or the default isn’t possible without action from the employee. Companies that find themselves in this position must scramble to get grant acceptance and/or collect taxes, possibly delaying the tax remittance or actual delivery of shares. Because it’s likely not possible to consider a late delivery of shares as a delay in constructive receipt of the shares in, delayed tax remittance could result in penalties incurred by the company.
Last month I wrote about divorce and stock plan management, and today I’m going to tackle the other big “d”…death. Although (thankfully) the death of an employee is a relatively unlikely scenario, it’s one that warrants preparation. None of the issues surrounding the death of an employee can be addressed without an underlying consideration for what the decedent’s family will coping with. Not only is the death of a family member an emotional period, there is also a pretty intense amount of paperwork to be completed.
When it comes to handling equity compensation after the death of an employee, there are issues that are straightforward and those that are subject to interpretation and company policy. This week, I’m only going to cover the tax withholding and reporting since the IRS has made this relatively clear.
ISO and ESPP
For both ISOs and 423 ESPP shares transferred to the estate or beneficiary upon the death of an employee, the statutory holding periods for preferential tax treatment no longer apply. When it comes to tax withholding, this means the company is off the hook. However, there remains a reporting obligation both to comply with Section 6039 and to report ordinary income on discounted ESPP. The transfer of ESPP shares is considered a qualifying disposition. The compensation income, which is the lesser of the discount at purchase or the actual gain at the disposition, is reported on the employee’s final Form W-2. For ISOs, because any sale of shares by the estate or beneficiary is treated as a qualified disposition, the company generally has no income reporting or tax withholding obligation.
Section 6039 Considerations
The exercise of an ISO triggers the 6039 reporting obligations regardless of whether the exercise is made by the employee or by the employee’s estate or beneficiary. This means that the company should still furnish an information statement. In addition, for any exercises beginning in 2010, the company must file Form 3921 with the IRS. (Catch up on the latest regarding Forms 3921 and 3922 in Barbara’s post from Tuesday.)
For ESPP, however, the 6039 considerations hinge on how the company issues ESPP shares at purchase as well as the company’s policy regarding the current offering period both come into play. According to the final regulations, if the purchased shares are immediately deposited into the employee’s brokerage account, this is considered the “first transfer of legal title”. Since this is the prevalent practice for ESPP shares, many companies will provide 6039 information statements to employees and file a Form 3022 (for purchase beginning in 2010) to the IRS subsequent to each purchase. In addition, most companies do not permit the estate or beneficiary to purchase shares in the current offering period, refunding accumulated contributions instead.
This means that for most situations involving the death of an employee, the event that triggers 6039 reporting obligations on ESPP shares has already taken place. If, however, the ESPP shares are issued in certificate form or otherwise held in the employee’s name, or if the employee is not automatically withdrawn from the current offering upon death, the company may still have outstanding 6039 reporting obligations when it comes to ESPP shares.
NQSOs
For NQSOs, the company’s withholding and reporting obligations differ depending on whether the exercise by the estate or beneficiary takes place in the same year as the death of the participant or not. In either case, the company’s obligation to withhold income tax no longer applies. If the exercise takes place in a subsequent year, the company generally has no withholding obligation and reports the income on a Form 1099-MISC issued to the employee’s estate or beneficiary. However, if the exercise takes place in the year of the employee’s death, then the company withholds FICA taxes (but no FIT) on the exercise and reports the income and FICA withholding on the employee’s final Form W-2.
If diving into the latest updates on tax withholding and reporting is on your list, then you won’t want to miss the session, “The IRS and Treasury Speak: Hot Tax Topics and Updates” . In fact, we’ve got all the hottest topics lined up for you this year. If you haven’t already, register today! If you’re already registered, don’t forget to let us know which sessions you’ll be attending.
-Rachel
When all or a portion of a nonstatutory stock options is transferred to the former spouse of one of your employees subsequent to a divorce, there are no income reporting or tax withholding obligations on the transfer. However, the exercise of those option shares requires special handling by the company.
When an incentive stock option is transferred in a divorce settlement, it no longer qualifies for preferential tax treatment. Once the ISO has been transferred, the income reporting and tax withholding obligations are the same as for NSOs. However, if the transfer of the shares happens only at exercise, then the ISO shares maintain their preferential tax treatment. The transfer of the shares at exercise does not constitute a disqualifying disposition. The transferred shares are then subject to the same holding requirements from the date of grant and exercise to determine if the sale is a qualified or disqualified disposition.
Revenue Rulings
There are two important revenue rulings that govern the income reporting and tax withholding on options transferred pursuant to a divorce.
Revenue Ruling 2002-22 establishes that a transfer of nonstatutory stock options as part of a divorce settlement does not constitute an income event. For stock plan managers, this means that there is no need to establish the fair value of the option, report any income, or withhold any taxes on the date of transfer. It also establishes that the former spouse realizes income on the exercise of those option shares.
Revenue Ruling 2004-60 clarifies the withholding and reporting obligations for an exercise made by the non-employee former spouse of options that were transferred in a divorce settlement.
Withholding and Reporting at Exercise
So, we know from Revenue Ruling 2004-60 that the former spouse realizes income at the exercise of options transferred pursuant to a divorce. What’s more, FICA and FUTA are both applied to the income at exercise. But, don’t worry; you won’t need to collect a Form W-4 from the former spouse. The income and FICA tax rates are applied based on the employee’s supplemental income and the Social Security tax she or he paid in that tax year as of the exercise date.
When the former spouse exercises the option, the company withholds income, Social Security, and Medicare from the exercise proceeds based on the employee’s withholding rates. The income tax withholding is attributed to the former spouse, but the FICA taxes are attributed to the employee even though they are paid by the former spouse. The income (i.e.; spread at exercise) and the income taxes withheld are reported on a Form 1099-MISC to the former spouse. That same income amount is reported to the employee as Social Security and Medicare wages on Form W-2. Additionally, the Social Security (if applicable) and Medicare withheld are reported on the employee’s Form W-2. For a great example of this, see our Tax Withholding on Option Exercises Subsequent to Divorce alert. You can also find more information in these recorded webcasts: Death and Divorce: The Lighter Side of Equity Compensation and The 2nd Annual NASPP Webcast on Tax Reporting.
Last Chance for Special Conference Rates
Registrations for our 18th Annual NASPP Conference are pouring in! If you haven’t already registered, don’t miss out on the special $200 discount on registration fees. This special rate is only available through tomorrow, May 14th!
April 15th is looming and many of your employees will be scrambling to get their taxes filed. Since crunch time exaggerates confusion, this last push will really highlight the top issues your employees face when it comes to reporting their equity compensation.
Keep a Tally
It’s a busy time of year. I know you have a lot going on, and fielding tax questions from employees only makes it busier. But, give this a try, anyway. Keep a tally of the types of questions that you get from employees who are trying to file their tax returns. Better yet, see if you can bring your HR teams in on the count (or at least get feedback from them). This is the best feedback on your communications efforts that you can get from your employees. They may love your seminars, you may have high participation rates, you may even have 100% grant acceptance. But, when it comes down to actually getting the right numbers onto the right tax forms, employees absolutely must have absorbed what you’ve been telling them. If you see a particular type of question come up more often than any other, then you know what information to tackle in the coming year. If you get too many questions to even begin to keep track, then tax time is telling you to step up your game and get communicating.
More Choices Mean More Issues
If you have multiple equity compensation vehicles (say, an ESPP, NQ options, and RSUs), employees have a lot to sort through when tackling their tax returns. If they sold shares during the year, they need to understand how to find the cost basis of those shares and whether they are reporting income or capital gains. If you find that a significant number of questions center around employees’ inability to distinguish between their different pieces of equity compensation, then maybe tax time is telling you to reconsider the mix as well as the choices. Even just limiting tax payment methods can reduce the confusion.
Walk the Line
A difficult issue that stock plan management teams deal with is exactly how to help an employee understand their equity compensation well enough to file a correct tax return without actually offering tax advice. I think the best way to avoid the two extremes of either giving out too much information or frustrating employees by just sending them away unassisted is to have standard communications and samples ready. You can get buy-off from your legal department on the communications, desiminate them to HR locations, and make them available on your intranet. This helps to control the message that’s going out to employees and will save you time when you can direct an employee to a resource instead of walk them through the information personally.
If you find that you are getting a significant number of employees begging for tax help beyond what is in your standard communications, tax time may be telling you that employees need tax advice resources. Check with your legal team and your current service providers to see if you can direct employees to a list of financial advisors that understand equity compensation.
NASPP Resources – Be a Part of the Solution!
We now have an Employee Communications portal on the NASPP site. Included in the content are samples of how other companies are helping employees understand their equity compensation. This is a great place to share and learn, so don’t be shy about submitting your own communications. You can submit via the Employee Communications portal, or by contacting me directly. You can find my contact information in the NASPP On-line Member Directory.
If you signed up to participate in the 2010 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey, but haven’t completed it, yet, don’t forget that the deadline for completion is Friday, April 9th! Remember, anyone who completes the survey will get an additional 10% discount on 2010 Conference registration fee.
Based on a recent IRS announcement and alerts we’ve received from law firms, the IRS is stepping up audit activity on executive compensation and employee benefit plans.
Employment Tax Audits On November 9, the IRS announced an employment tax research study that will include audits of 6,000 companies over the next three years. The study is expected to help the IRS determine areas of greatest compliance risk, which will aid in selecting and auditing future employment tax returns. Companies file employment tax returns to report taxes that have been withheld on employee wages.
According to an alert issued by Pillsbury, the audits will focus on worker classifications (i.e., employee vs. non-employee), fringe benefits, executive compensation, and qualified employee benefit plans. Levine & Baker also mention the impending audits in their January 2010 client newsletter, warning that companies would be ahead to review their tax practices now, before they get an audit notice and still may have an opportunity to address inadvertent errors.
409A Audits Started Already According to a Jones Day alert that we posted on Naspp.com, the IRS has already started auditing deferred compensation arrangements for compliance with Section 409A. Recent Information Document Requests issued to companies undergoing audits have included items related to §409A compliance.
As described by Jones Day, the information requested by the IDRs includes:
Identification of arrangements that the company does not consider to be subject to §409A, but that create a legally binding right to compensation that won’t be paid until a later year. Stock options and restricted stock, of course, are prime examples of these types of arrangements. They also include plans that are exempted from §409A under the short-term deferral rule.
Terms and deadlines for making deferral elections, re-deferrals, and any payment accelerations.
The names of “specified employees” and payments made to them upon separation of service.
Certain information on stock options and SARs that may be subject to §409A.
Any §409A violations and whether the company participated in the §409A corrections program.
Technical Corrections to Section 423 Regs Turns out the IRS makes typos just like the rest of us. Technical corrections to the final regulations under Section 423 were issued on December 22, 2009. Nothing substantive, though, just a couple of minor textual errors. Just because I thought it would be cool, I’ve annotated the PDF of the final regs that we have posted here on Naspp.com with the corrections; see §1.423-2(a)(1) (pg 15), §1.423-2(d)(3) (pg 24), and §1.423-2(i)(5) Example 5 (pg 39). The full text of the corrections is on pg 46.
ShareComp 2010 The NASPP is happy to announce its support of ShareComp 2010, a fully virtual conference on stock compensation. NASPP members can attend the event for free using the sponsor pass “naspp”; feel free to share this sponsor code with others at your company.
ShareComp 2010 will be held live on February 23, 2010 and all presentations, documents, and booths will be available on-demand for a year afterwards. Presentations, solutions, and providers will focus on the needs of professionals in executive roles, finance, human resources, compensation, accounting and stock administration positions. Benefits of attending include:
16 hours of live global interactive learning and networking
Best practices for designing, implementing and managing stock compensation programs
Instructional sessions that will share real-world examples, tactics and lessons learned
Facilitated discussion forums with experts and practitioners
A searchable library, including presentations, Q&A sessions and booth materials
A year of access to the conference center and the materials
To find out more about, visit www.sharecomp2010.com. Register today for this no-risk, high-impact event (be sure to enter sponsor pass “naspp” for free registration). While you are attending the event, we hope you’ll stop by the NASPP booth.
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.
Don’t miss Alan Dye’s webcast on Thursday January 28, on Section 16 developments.
This is the third and final installment in my short mobile employee glossary. I’m going to include the same disclaimer as with the other two: This short glossary is intended only to help you understand what you are hearing or reading when it comes to global mobility. Always consult your company’s tax advisor when making decisions about tax withholding and reporting.
In this entry, I am going to touch on some definitions that are specific to the United Kingdom. First, however, there are a few general terms that I missed in my first blog.
Certificate of Coverage: This is a document issued by the home country social security administration authority under the Totalization agreement (see below) that serves as proof that the employee and employer are exempt from Social Security taxes in the host country.
Hypothetical Tax: This is the aproximate income tax that an employee would have incurred assuming continued employment in the home country. It is used for calculations in situations where cross-border employees are tax equalized (see below).
Long-Term Assignment: Generally an assignment period greater than one year.
Short-Term Assignment: Generally an assignment period of one year or less.
Tax Equalized: Some companies implement a tax equalization policy for employees who are sent overseas on assignment. A tax equalization policy is based on the premise that an employee accepting an overseas assignment may incur additional home and host country taxes because of the international assignment. A tax equalization policy works to ensure that an employee will neither suffer a financial hardship nor realize a financial windfall as a result of the tax consequences of an overseas assignment. Tax equalized employees typically pay only the hypothetical tax (see above), while the company covers any additional required income tax withholding (grossed-up so that it does not result in additional income tax payable by the employee).
Totalization Agreement: To help address the issue of double taxation for social tax purposes, many countries have entered into bilateral Social Security (or Totalization) agreements. These agreements coordinate the payment of social taxes as well as the receipt of benefits for cross-border employees. Although the details of each Totalization agreement are unique, they all assign social taxes to one country and exempt both the cross-border employee and the employer from paying social taxes in the other country. For a list of countries with which the United States has Totalization agreements, along with links to each agreement, visit the Social Security Administration site HERE.
The following terms are specific to the United Kingdom:
HMRC: Her Majesty’s Revenue & Customs (HMRC) is similar to the IRS in the United States. The HMRC collects direct and indirect taxes as well as pays and administers certain income tax benefits and credits in the UK. You can find more at http://www.hmrc.gov.uk/index.htm.
Resident: Unlike the IRS, the HMRC does not provide a specific definition for resident. The issue of “intent” is important when determining residency in the UK. Very generally speaking, a resident is someone who is present in the UK during the tax year (which is April 6 to April 5) and intends to remain in the UK for some time. Although it does not cover all the ways in which an individual may be considered a resident in the UK, the general rule is that employees are tax resident in the U.K. if they:
spend 183 days or more in the UK during any tax year, or,
spend or intend to spend an average of 91 or more days per tax year in the UK over a period of three years, or,
arrive in the UK intending to spend two years or more in the UK.
Ordinarily Resident: Employees who are resident in the UK “year after year” are ordinarily resident. The HMRC does not provide a specific definition for individuals who will be treated as ordinarily resident. Employees who leave the UK to work abroad may lose their status as ordinarily resident after one full tax year (from April 6 to April 5), providing their return visits do not exceed the maximum allowable days. Employees who move to the UK may be considered ordinarily resident from the day they arrive if they intend to remain a minimum of three years in the UK. Otherwise, they may be considered ordinarily resident after a period of time. Employees who stay in the UK for four years will most likely be considered ordinarily resident regardless of their intentions.
Not Ordinarily Resident: Employees who are resident in the UK, but do not fall in the category of ordinarily resident are resident, not ordinarily resident.
Domicile: Employees may be resident of multiple countries, but may only be domiciled in one country. There are many parameters that come together to determine where an employee is domiciled. But, generally speaking, domicile is the country of permanent residence. UK employees who work in another country are “domiciled abroad”.