In the ongoing effort to help individuals impacted by COVID-19, Congress passed the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Securities Act (CARES Act) on March 27, 2020. The President signed the CARES Act into law the same day. The historic stimulus package provides wide-ranging relief for both employers and employees. This includes rules that impact health and welfare, retirement and executive compensation plans and programs.
For more information about the impact of the CARES Act on employer-provided benefits, access our On the Subject articles on the:
In addition, for information about the frequently asked questions regarding health and welfare, retirement and executive compensation issues in the COVID-19 era, access our FAQs.
The most significant issues in any employment or severance agreement are going to be personal to that situation, and will be driven in part by special issues and circumstances. For instance, succession planning issues may be incredibly important to the organization when the CEO is 65 years old and there is no clear successor, and may be far less important when the CEO is 45 and there are very able executives ready to assume the CEO role if necessary. With that said, there are certain considerations to keep in mind for all who are drafting these contracts.
McDermott’s Ralph E. DeJong contributes to an article in The Practical Lawyer that identifies and describes what frequently are the most important considerations in an employment or severance agreement between an exempt organization and its CEOs.
In-house counsel and human resources professionals at tax-exempt colleges and universities often face a variety of challenges when structuring, and determining obligations due under, severance arrangements. There are some key considerations to bear in mind, which are outlined in this article.
Michael Peregrine and Ralph DeJong wrote this bylined article about what they called the “enormous consequences” for tax-exempt hospital senior executive compensation due to the new Tax Cuts and Jobs Act provisions that place an excise tax on executive compensation and benefits. “From a corporate governance perspective, the significance of these new provisions carries the potential for recalibrating the relationship between the board and its executive compensation committee,” the authors wrote.
On June 21, 2016 the IRS issued proposed regulations to modify and clarify existing regulations under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Many of these changes resulted from practitioner comments and the IRS’ experience with Section 409A after issuing the final regulations. Overall, most of the proposed changes are favorable, and may provide some planning opportunities.
On June 21, the IRS issued long awaited proposed regulations under Section 457 of the Internal Revenue Code that affect a broad range of compensation arrangements at tax exempt organizations. If a compensation arrangement is subject to Section 457(f), the employee is immediately taxed upon earning a vested right to receive “deferred compensation” that might not be paid until years later. These regulations address important issues under Section 457(f) that were identified by the IRS back in 2007, including whether severance pay is subject to Section 457(f), if changes to a vesting schedule could delay when deferred compensation is taxable and if covenants not to compete would be respected as bona fide vesting conditions
A severance pay arrangement will be treated as deferred compensation under Section 457(f) under the proposed regulations unless (1) the total amount of severance pay is limited to two times total annual compensation; (2) payments are completed within two full calendar years following termination of employment; and (3) the events triggering the right to severance pay are limited to a bona fide involuntary termination, which may include certain types of “good reason” terminations of employment by an employee and failure to renew an employment agreement.
There have been questions as to whether vesting conditions imposed after a compensation arrangement has been established will be respected for tax purposes. In that event, the time for income taxation under Section 457(f) is delayed until the new vesting requirement is met. If certain requirements are met, the proposed regulations provide that additional vesting conditions will be taken into account when determining the time of taxation under Section 457. These conditions include that the deferred amount subject to a new vesting date has to be more than 25 percent greater than the old amount with the former vesting date, the delay in vesting has to be at least two years (except in the case of death, disability or a qualifying involuntary termination), and the change in vesting is entered into sufficiently in advance of the original vesting date under special timing rules.
The proposed regulations also allow for noncompetes to be used as vesting conditions under Section 457(f), but only if:
The right to payment is expressly conditioned on satisfying the noncompete;
The noncompete has to be evidenced by an enforceable written agreement between the employer and employee;
The employer has to make reasonable ongoing efforts to verify compliance with the noncompete;
When the noncompete agreement becomes binding, the facts and circumstances have to show that both the ability to compete and the harm of competition are genuine and substantial;
The noncompete must be enforceable under applicable law; and
The employer must show that the likelihood of enforcement of the noncompete is substantial.
There had been concern that the IRS might not allow any form of noncompete to be a substantial risk of forfeiture under Section 457(f).
These regulations are generally scheduled to go into effect as of January 1 of the calendar year after being finalized. These rule [...]
Subscribe
