Skip to main content

Global Tax Blog

Go Search
Home
  

Other Blogs
There are no items in this list.
Links
There are no items in this list.
Global Tax Blog > Categories
Proactive Steps to Assure Your Executive Compensation is “Reasonable”

February 21, 2012

I’m sure you have noticed all the recent media attention being paid to the compensation of nonprofit CEOs. In some parts of the country we are seeing proposals for a hard salary cap for CEOs of institutions that receive government funding. Some state officials are proposing  a state-law system more like the present IRS rules, so that enforcement priorities can be decided at the state level. The direction of these proposals is clear, even though the new end result is still uncertain in many jurisdictions.

Our tax group is offering a service that may be of interest to nonprofit boards that want to properly position themselves for whatever changes are coming in state law. For a fixed fee, we will review the PROCESS a nonprofit has used to set the compensation level of its top-paid employee, and report on whether the organization is properly protected by being within the IRS “rebuttable presumption” of reasonable compensation. We don’t know yet if this is where the law will settle, but it puts the board in the safest possible position to defend against any fiduciary liability claims.

Click here for a helpful brochure on the topic. For further information, contact your Nixon Peabody attorney or:

Changes coming for New York nonprofits

February 16, 2012

Prediction: There will be new rules coming this year limiting executive compensation for NY nonprofits. Based on today’s events, the new rules may be even more far-reaching than originally expected. Board members and top management need to be properly positioned.

Click here to read the full article on nixonpeabody.com.

For further information, contact your Nixon Peabody attorney or:

IRS offers amnesty for employee/independent contractor errors—but beware of the legal consequences

October 06, 2011

In September the IRS announced an employment tax “amnesty” program that offers employers an opportunity to resolve, at minimal cost, an age-old vexing problem. The question of whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor has long been a problem for many employers, and many of them have latent payroll tax liabilities because they have mistakenly treated employees as independent contractors. This amnesty may provide a very good tax result, but employers should consider the big picture before taking the IRS deal. There are numerous nontax consequences.

Click here to read the full article on nixonpeabody.com.

For further information, contact your Nixon Peabody attorney or:

Are bigger stop signs really needed?

New York State Governor Andrew Cuomo has questioned the levels of compensation of certain nonprofit executives. Organizations can protect themselves—and their executives—by following a set of simple rules.

Click here to read the full article on nixonpeabody.com.

For further information, contact your Nixon Peabody attorney or:

IRS issues Notice and request for comments on the community health needs assessment requirements for certain tax-exempt hospitals

The IRS gives a preview of how it will require tax-exempt hospitals to demonstrate they will meet their communities’ health needs.

Click here to read the full article on nixonpeabody.com.

 

CA and NY Withholding Tax on Distributions to Nonresident Governmental Entities

By Christian McBurney and Charles Jacobs

 

A recent development in the state and local tax area has been the increasing number of states that impose withholding tax on partnerships with respect to state-sourced income that is allocated to, or distributions that are made to, partners who are not residents of the state.  Such states include California, New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts.  Typically, these states have certificates that a tax-exempt corporation qualifying under IRC Section 501(c) can submit to the partnership to avoid withholding (even if the tax-exempt partner is allocated UBTI income).  But, typically, these exemption certificates do not expressly address government pension entities and other state and local entities, which are tax-exempt under the U.S. Constitution, but not under Section 501(c).  The question has arisen as to what government entities should do in this case, focusing on California and New York.

 

California.  California Form 590, Withholding Exemption Certificate, is used by partners to certify to the partnership that the partner is a non-resident and is exempt from California withholding tax on distributions.  The block for tax-exempt entities only has the following:  "The above-named entity is exempt from tax under California R&TC Section 23701___ (insert letter) or Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)___ (insert number)."  Since government pension entities are exempt under the U.S. Constitution and not under Section 501(c), this form is not helpful.

 

There is also California Form 588, Nonresident Withholding Waiver Request, which is an application form for a California nonresident to apply to the Franchise Tax Board for a determination letter that the partner is exempt from withholding.  The partner can then provide the determination letter to the partnership to avoid withholding.  In the Reason for Waiver Request, there is "E.  Other - Attach specific reason and include substantiation that would justify a waiver of withholding."  Thus, the best course is for a government pension entity to make this application for an exemption.  The instructions indicate that the FTB should issue a determination letter within twenty-one days of filing.  This approach was confirmed in a recent telephone conference we had with an FTB official.

 

New York.  New York technically does not have nonresident withholding tax.  Instead, it imposes on partnerships operating in New York nonresident partner estimated tax on New York source income.  By their terms, the estimated tax provisions apply only to nonresident individuals and corporations.  NY Tax Law Section 658(c)(3)(A).  Accordingly, if the government public pension entity is a trust or other non-corporate entity, this estimated tax provision does not apply.

 

If the government entity is a corporation, which is infrequent, New York State Form CT-2658-E provides that the exemption only applies if the corporation "is exempt from any taxes imposed by the New York State Tax Law, Articles 9, 9-A, 32 and 33."  It may be that a government entity that is organized as a corporation qualifies under this standard, since New York State starts its taxable income calculations with federal taxable income, and government entities organized as corporations may be excluded from having federal income under either the U.S. Constitution or IRC Section 115(1).

 

If you have any questions, please contact:

 

Christian McBurney at (202) 585-8358 or cmcburney@nixonpeabody.com or

Charles Jacobs at (212)940-3170 or cjacobs@nixonpeabody.com.

 

Copyright © 2008 Nixon Peabody LLP. All rights reserved.   Terms of Use