Source: http://409adismay.blogspot.com/
Timestamp: 2015-02-28 19:15:30
Document Index: 231100930

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 409', '§ 409', '§ 409', '§ 409', '§ 409', '§ 409']

Article indicates that tax was not approved by Legislative Super Majority.
See Law Review Article Here
An explanation of the 409A Tracking Rule (and a suggestion that pre-wiring a plan under 409A may avoid the five-year limitation on tracking underlying equity payments): From xtreERISA Blog:
"...I'm suggesting, if you have an equity-based plan and it provides when implemented at the outset that distributions in respect of equity units will track third-party post-CiC payments for underlying equity, then the provision doesn't have to limit tracking to third-party payments made within five years. In that case, I believe, you can simply say that the payments will track the third-party payments, whenever made."
Exec Comp "Armegeddon" for Public Corps
From Melbinger Exec Comp Blog:
"Imagine a lawsuit brought in the weeks leading up to your company's annual shareholders' meeting, which seeks to postpone that meeting based on inadequate proxy disclosures on executive compensation matters up for a shareholder vote. Now imagine that the lawsuit is successful – and you are forced to decide between (a) paying the class action lawyers hundreds of thousands of dollars of attorneys' fees and issuing enhanced disclosures or (b) fighting the matter through a preliminary injunction hearing, which may have the effect of delaying your shareholder meeting (and create additional legal fees). Does that sound like Armageddon? Well, it happened earlier this year and the lawyers who brought the lawsuit are seeking to duplicate their success – or achieve a large attorneys' fees award – against other public companies in the current proxy season."
Firm says: "More 409A Headaches"
More 409A headaches: Existing arrangements containing employment release provisions may need to be amended before year-end for Section 409A compliance (and new arrangements with such provisions need to be carefully drafted). Carin C. Carithers, Christian Chandler, Margaret de Lisser, Kurt L.P. Lawson, Joseph R. Rackman, Martha N. Steinman Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code (“Section 409A”) generally provides rules governing nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements with the main focus of such rules being limiting the ability of both the plan participant and his or her employer to manipulate the timing of payments under such nonqualified plans (although an employee/employer relationship is not required for Section 409A to apply). In order to accomplish this goal, Section 409A is extremely broad in scope and can also apply to employment agreements, change of control agreements. verance plans as well as other similar agreements that provide for severance or other compensatory payments unless the agreement qualifies under some limited exemptions from Section 409A. HERE
IRS Not Enforcing Bad Options - Yet
From Teknos...
409A Changed the Way Business is Done in Hollywood
Causing "chaos." "
No more advances." No more "re-negotiations."
Article from Venable Law Firm, here.
A multiemployer pension plan, in an effort to permit employees to “retire” under an early retirement benefit before that benefit was eliminated, proposed to let eligible participants “retire” and then immediately return to work. In a private letter ruling, the IRS concluded these employees were not legitimately retired. In analyzing “retirement” for qualified pension plan purposes the IRS looked at Section 409A and other sources. IRS Private Letter Ruling HEREArticle HERE
New App Brings Code and Regs to your Smart Phone
At long last, here is the link for bringing the Code and the Regs to your smartphone or tablet.
Prof. Polsky: 409A "Legislative Calamity"
Gregg D. Polsky (North Carolina), Fixing Section 409A: Legislative and Administrative Options, 55 Vill. L. Rev. ___ (2012):This [article] ... describes the legislative calamity that is § 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Section 409A manages, all at once, to (i) fail to better neutralize the tax treatment of deferred compensation with that of current compensation, (ii) impose significant compliance costs on sophisticated taxpayers, and (iii) provide a dangerous trap for unsophisticated taxpayers.Ideally, Congress should repeal § 409A and replace it with a system that taxes deferred compensation more neutrally vis-a-vis current compensation. Failing that, Congress should either replace § 409A with a broad grant of authority to the Treasury and IRS to strengthen the constructive receipt and economic benefit doctrines or amend § 409A to limit its scope to employee compensation paid by public companies.If Congress fails to act, the Treasury should interpret the term “compensation” as used in § 409A to include only compensation paid by public companies to their employees or directors. This arguably counter-textual interpretation of the statute creates the potential for whipsaw of the IRS by nonpublic companies and their employees, but this problem is outweighed by the benefits from cleaning up § 409A.Article via Tax Prof Blog: Here Roth CPA says "kill it" - Here
Penalties for foot-faults insane; akin to shooting jaywalkers; ranked #2 on list of top tax policy scams.Article HERE