Posted on December 9th, 2008 by Chad De Groot | No Comments »
Filed under: Employee Benefits | 
If you’ve been tuning in to CE lately, you may remember a post a couple weeks ago mentioning the fact that the IRS had yet to publish the income inclusion regulations under 1.409A-4 of the Treasury Regulations that had allegedly been complete for some time. On Friday, December 5th, the proposed regulations were finally published.
Essentially, the proposed regulations, over the span of 90 pages, explain how to determine the amount of deferred compensation that must be included in income if the requirements of Code section 409A are not satisfied. Simply put, this calculation goes as follows: [(1) the total amount deferred] minus [(2) the portion of deferred compensation that is non-vested or has been included in the previous year] = (3) Currently Includible Income. In addition to being subject to income taxes, the includible income is also subject to the Draconian excise tax provided for under the statute of 20%. The IRS has scheduled a public hearing regarding the proposed regulations and requests comments be received by March 9.
Please note, however, that as the proposed regulations provide, “taxpayers may rely on these proposed regulations only to the extent provided in further guidance.” In other words, stay tuned…
A few hours after the proposed regulations were published on Friday, the IRS dropped Notice 2008-113, which succeeds the previous 409A correction guidance provided under Notice 2007-100. This successor Notice sets forth guidelines for an updated 409A corrections program. This program provides methods to be used to correct inadvertant 409A operational failures, and to avoid the full application of the income inclusion rules referenced above. The program does not provide relief for documentation failures, so employers must continue to be diligent in ensuring that all nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements subject to 409A are in writing by the end of 2008, and that those written plans comply with the requirements of 409A.
Posted on December 30th, 2007 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized |
It’s that inevitable time of year in fake journalism land where everybody decides to rank the stuff that happened in the past 12 months, and employment reports are (sadly? thankfully?) not immune.
The thing is, the CE staff is in this beautiful space between the end of finals and the beginning of BarBri (PMBR notwithstanding) that we presume will be our last respite before bar exams, babies, and long 1st-year associate hours, so we’re not exactly poring over our posts.
I will attempt some kind of roundup between now and 1/1/8, but in the meantime, Current Employment would like to present it’s list of:
THE BEST EMPLOYMENT-RELATED BEST-OF LISTS OF 2007!!
Yeah, that’s right. We’ve taken all the very best very best lists and put them in order, given them numbers with dots and a closed parenth, and added some witty commentary. You say lazy, I say resourceful.
So, without further ado, let’s get started:
5. 13 Most Overrated Careers [U.S. News]
- What is it with USN? Why do they have to rank everything? Jerks. Anyway, the publication we love to hate has come up with its difinitive list of the 13 crappiest jobs. Adding to my neuroses that the World Report hates me personally, it includes not only my chosen profession (attorney) but those of my wife (advertising executive) and both our mothers (teacher) as well. Surely each profession will release a statement about how it’s tightening its admissions policies in an effort to improve.
4. AARP’s Best Employers 2007 [AARP]
- Ok. It’s the American Association of Retired Persons. Remember? Personally, the best list AARP could come up with would be the best reasons to stay home and make way for the new kids, but such is life. And such are the boomers. With their ridiculous standards and work ethic, sticking it out to get those kids through college, or going to work at the Gap or something, it’s good that the AARP is telling them where to go. Now if only someone could tell them who to vote for…
For #’s 3-1, click the jump.
3. The Sound Opinions 2007 Mixtapes [Sound Opinions - NPR]
- Hey, not everying can be about employment law, ok? Live a little.
2. Worst Employees of 2007 [CNN]
- One lady who left a little girl in a day care (not funny at all) and Amy Jacobson, the Chicago reporter who lost her job after hanging out with the Stebic guy (ditto). Combined with a horrifying graphic, this is a little questionable. The guy with the obvious pot business is pretty funny, though. Plus, where’s the 10 worst employers? Let’s be fair, huh?
1. Stupidest Footnotes of 2007 [footnoted.org]
- Michelle Leder at Footnoted.org pores through SEC filings to find executive perks that don’t make the corporate press release. Last year, she ranked them at the end of the year, and it was awesome. This year, she’s democratized the process, polling readers on what the biggest boneheaded corporate concession was in ’07. Leading the way by far? Qwest’s contract with its CEO included use of the corporate jet to get his high school daughter to and from school. For real. Nothing on any list could possibly top that.
There you have it. The best of the Best Of’s. We’ll have a little something for you OCD-laden rank-obsessed attorneys before 1/1, I promise. For now, though, I’m off to write another letter to U.S. News.
Posted on October 31st, 2007 by Tim Eavenson | No Comments »
Filed under: Uncategorized |
By now we’re sure you know all about E. Stanley O’Neil’s “resignation” as CEO of Merill Lynch. The MSM has taken their normal tack of squeezing the story to death in a “this is horrible – let’s move on” kind of way.
Our MSM saturation line for a story is when the Today Show picks up on it. When Jim Cramer suggested Merill not pay the parachute and just wait to get sued, I spit out my cereal.
Maybe he wasn’t too far off, though. According to the NYT blog Dealbook, the first institutional investor is challenging the firm’s financial honesty, based on O’Neil’s “mismanagement” and the resulting $8 billion loss.
The plaintiff, which is seeking class status, is not challenging the parachute right now, but we’re interested to see if the case gets its class status and proceeds to the discovery phase. The Dealbook commenters seem to want to challenge the Board’s Business Judgment (see, we paid attention in other classes, too). With the right proof, O’Neill could be accused of an Ovitz-like lazy-day approach to his job.
Matt Lauer did say he played a lot of golf last month…
