IRS Proposes Regulations on Compensation Deductions and NQDC Plan Effects

The regulations explain how grandfathered amounts are treated when a distribution is made from a nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plan.

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 (TCJA) included changes to the treatment of executive compensation and nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plans.

The IRS has issued proposed regulations implementing the amendments made to section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code by the TCJA. Section 162(m) disallows the deduction by any publicly held corporation of compensation paid in any taxable year to a covered employee that exceeds $1 million. The proposed regulations update the definitions of covered employee, publicly held corporation and applicable employee compensation.

For more stories like this, sign up for the PLANSPONSOR NEWSDash daily newsletter.

During a conference in 2018, R. Lee Nunn, a senior vice president at Aon Hewitt, said Section 162(m) of the Code started with the idea that executives are paid too much, so employers could pay someone $1 million and receive a tax deduction, but for earnings greater than that, there would be no deduction. The TCJA expanded the definition of compensation for purposes of the $1 million deduction limit to include all remuneration paid for services by eliminating the performance-based compensation and commission exceptions for compensation paid to top executives at publicly traded companies.

In addition, Nunn noted that the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) had previously changed the rules so that the chief financial officer (CFO) of a company was not a covered employee. However, under the TCJA, the definition of “covered employee” expanded to include anyone who is the chief executive officer (CEO) or the CFO at any time during the tax year, as well as the three highest paid officers during the year.

The TCJA also provided a transition, or “grandfather” rule, for certain outstanding compensatory arrangements. Specifically, the TCJA changes do not apply to compensation that is provided to a covered employee under a written binding contract that was in effect on November 2, 2017, and was not modified on or after that date. The proposed regulations further explain the grandfather rule, including when a contract will be considered materially modified so that it is no longer considered “grandfathered.”

The regulations also explain how grandfathered amounts are treated when a distribution is made from a nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plan.

The text of the proposed regulations gives notice of a public hearing and requests comments. However, the IRS says taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations for tax years before the final regulations are effective. Text of the proposed regulations may be downloaded from here.

TCJA and 457(f) plans

Though the proposed regulations say they impact publicly held corporations, it is notable that the TCJA also has some effect on tax-exempt entities and their nonqualified 457(f) plans.

Specifically, a new 21% percent excise tax will apply to the top-five highest-paid employees (or former employees) of a tax-exempt or governmental entity each year on any compensation that exceeds $1 million per employee. 457(f) deferred compensation that is vested (no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture) counts toward the $1 million threshold.

Warren Asks DOL Secretary Not to Mimic Reg BI

The Democratic presidential candidate fears the DOL is considering a fiduciary rule that would permit advisers providing advice on retirement savings to engage in conflicts of interest.

Senator Elizabeth Warren (D-Massachusetts), has written a letter to Department of Labor (DOL) Secretary Eugene Scalia stating how she fears that in rewriting the fiduciary rule, the DOL is “considering standards of conduct that would allow advisers providing advice regarding retirement investments to engage in conflicts of interest that would harm working families saving for retirement.”

Specifically, Warren expresses her concerns that the DOL will copy the Securities and Exchange Commission’s (SEC’s) Regulation Best Interest (Reg BI), which she calls “wholly inadequate.”

Get more!  Sign up for PLANSPONSOR newsletters.

She writes: “That would be a costly mistake—those standards not only allow broker/dealers to give clients advice that is not in their best interest, but significantly water down the longstanding fiduciary standards that has protected the clients of the investment advisers for decades.”

She cites a 2015 study by the Council of Economic Advisers that found American families lose $17 billion in retirement savings every year as a result of advisers’ conflicts of interest. She says her office conducted a study of the annuity industry in October 2015 and February 2017 that found “13 of the 15 leading annuity providers offer their agents lavish, secretive kickbacks for sales to often-unwitting purchases, including all-expenses-paid vacations, iPads, professional sports tickets and more.”

Following the DOL’s passage of the fiduciary rule in April 2016, which stood partially enforced for only a short time before a lawsuit vacated it, Warren says, investors saw positive results. “Firms eliminated their highest-fee products and cut prices on funds,” Warren writes. “Some firms eliminated commission-based sales practices entirely. A study conducted by Morningstar found that ‘flows into mutual funds paying unusually high excess loads declined after the DOL proposed its fiduciary rule in 2015,’ a shift that was statistically significant.”

Warren says that Reg BI is very vague about what constitutes a “best interest” standard and that it “is similar to the inadequate FINRA ‘suitability’ standard. Given this ambiguity, it is unlikely that Reg BI will make any significant difference in protecting investors. Reg BI imposes a limited requirement to disclose conflicts. In addition, Reg BI only suggests broker/dealers ‘should consider’ reasonable alternatives for high-priced products, and allows them to still recommend a higher-cost option that pays the broker/dealer more.”

«