TAXS Management

Obviously, nobody asked the marketing guys before coming up with this one. Who in the world thought up the name “non-qualified deferred compensation?” Oh, it’s descriptive alright. But who wants anything “non-qualified?” Do you want a “non-qualified” doctor, lawyer, or accountant? What’s worse is deferring compensation. How many people want to work today and get paid in five years? The problem is, non-qualified deferred compensation is a great idea; it just has a lousy name.

Non-qualified deferred compensation (NQDC) is a powerful retirement planning tool, particularly for owners of closely held corporations (for purposes of this article, I’m only going to deal with “C” corporations). NQDC plans are not qualified for two things; some of the income tax benefits afforded qualified retirement plans and the employee protection provisions of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). What NQDC plans do offer is flexibility. Great gobs of flexibility. Flexibility is something qualified plans, after decades of Congressional tinkering, lack. The loss of some tax benefits and ERISA provisions may seem a very small price to pay when you consider the many benefits of NQDC plans.

A NQDC plan is a written contract between the corporate employer and the employee. The contract covers employment and compensation that will be provided in the future. The NQDC agreement gives to the employee the employer’s unsecured promise to pay some future benefit in exchange for services today. The promised future benefit may be in one of three general forms. Some NQDC plans resemble defined benefit plans in that they promise to pay the employee a fixed dollar amount or fixed percentage of salary for a period of time after retirement. Another type of NQDC resembles a defined contribution plan. A fixed amount goes into the employee’s “account” each year, sometimes through voluntary salary deferrals, and the employee is entitled to the balance of the account at retirement. The final type of NQDC plan provides a death benefit to the employee’s designated beneficiary.

The key benefit with NQDC is flexibility. With NQDC plans, the employer can discriminate freely. The employer can pick and choose from among employees, including him/herself, and benefit only a select few. The employer can treat those chosen differently. The benefit promised need not follow any of the rules associated with qualified plans (e.g. the $44,000 for 2006) annual limit on contributions to defined contribution plans). The vesting schedule can be whatever the employer would like it to be. By using life insurance products, the tax deferral feature of qualified plans can be simulated. Properly drafted, NQDC plans do not result in taxable income to the employee until payments are made.

To obtain this flexibility both the employer and employee must give something up. The employer loses the up-front tax deduction for the contribution to the plan. However, the employer will get a deduction when benefits are paid. The employee loses the security provided under ERISA. However, frequently the employee involved is the business owner which mitigates this concern. Also there are techniques available to provide the non-owner employee with a measure of security. By the way, the marketing guys have gotten hold of NQDC plans, so you’ll see them called Supplemental Executive Retirement Plans or Excess Benefit Plans among other names.

Mr. Morris, a fee based Investment Advisor Representative with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., helps 401k participants get the most out of their corporate plans.

Share This

When people plan and invest for retirement, the decision of when to begin taking Social Security benefits eventually comes up. Social Security is an important source of retirement income for many individuals and, therefore, the decision of when to take these benefits can make a big impact on retirement income.

A retired worker who is fully insured can elect to start receiving benefits at any time between age 62 and 65 (or even later). Benefits can start as early as 62, but if you so elect they are permanently reduced by 20%. Here is where the question arises. Is it better to start taking checks at a reduced amount or wait until Normal Retirement Age and receive full benefits? Before addressing the inherent problems with this empirical question, let’s look at some of the factors and considerations.

The early bird who decides to get the worm first gets three years’ worth of checks -36 payments- that the sleeping bird will never see. Thus, it will take some time for the total benefits of the person who waits until age 65 to catch up to those of the early collector. Further, for those born after 1937, Normal Retirement Age is being extended. Normal Retirement Age is currently age 65, yet due to the Social Security amendments, full benefit age will be raised gradually in two stages until eventually reaching 67 in 2027. Thus, the early bird will receive even more checks than the retiree who bides his time for full benefits.

If the early bird also did not need the benefit income and chose to invest instead of spending the checks, the investment income would partially offset the reduced yearly benefit as well as extend the catch-up period for the age 65 collector. Sounds like most people would opt to be an early bird.

There are other factors to consider (as always). Working an extra three years will probably increase the patient retiree’s benefits. This is so because more earnings will be credited toward the Social Security account. Chances are that old low-earning years will be replaced in the benefit equation with a current high credit year. These higher benefits will then shrink the catch-up period.

Delaying retirement benefits beyond 65 until age 70 will also increase the size of the benefit due to a credit provided by the Social Security Administration for such patience. Further, for those born after 1937 who choose to begin receiving benefits at age 62, the reduction-in-benefits penalty is further stiffened from 20% to an eventual 30% in 2022. The hare will feel the tortoise closing even quicker.

Taxation of benefits may also enter the picture. Poor timing of Social Security and other income may result in a good portion of early benefits being subject to inclusion in income and painfully taxed. On the other hand, a lower age 62 benefit may mean that the taxpayer will not meet the “combined income” threshold for benefits inclusion.

Empirical studies have been done which generally arrive at the same conclusion. Early bird collectors are ahead of the game for about 12 to 15 years and then are left behind the higher benefit collector. Thus, where a person is in good health and foresees another 10 + years of retirement life, it is probably better to defer taking benefits until normal retirement age.

Of course, a universal rule for when to take benefits is impractical. Depending upon an individual’s circumstances, it might make more sense to begin taking benefits as soon as possible regardless of the net economic benefit in the future. This brief article is no substitute for a careful consideration of your unique personal situation. Before making any significant retirement planning or tax strategy, consult your financial planner, attorney or tax advisor, as appropriate.

Mr. Morris, a fee based Investment Advisor Representative with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., helps

Share This

Despite the new tax rate reductions of the Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003, the top marginal tax bracket for many retirees is a whopping 46.3%. Why? Because Social Security benefits are subject to income tax. Those affected are Social Security recipients who have the good fortune (misfortune?) to be subject to both the 25% income tax bracket and the 85% inclusion rate for Social Security benefits.

Here’s how it works. First, you must understand how Social Security benefits are taxed. The income tax formula begins with the calculation of combined income. For all practical purposes, combined income equals adjusted gross income (not including Social Security), plus municipal income, plus one half of the taxpayer’s Social Security benefit.

So far, so good. If a married couple’s income is under $32,000 ($25,000 for a single taxpayer), Social Security benefits are not taxable. If combined income is between $32,000 and $44,000 (or $25,000 and $34,000 for a single person), the taxable amount of Social Security equals the lesser of one half of Social Security benefits or one half of the difference between combined income and $32,000 ($25,000 if single). Up until now, it’s not too complicated.

Here’s where the real fun begins. If the taxpayers’ combined income is over $44,000 ($34,000 if single), the taxable amount of Social Security equals: the lesser of (1) 85% of the benefit, or (2) the sum of 85% of combined income over $44,000 ($34,000 if single) plus the lesser of $6,000 ($4,500 if single) or the amount of Social Security taxable under the old rules. Nobody ever said new tax laws created tax simplification.

Here’s how we come up with that 46.3% bracket. In order to illustrate an increase in the marginal tax, you have to compute taxable income. Taxable income, as we all know, is net of allowable deductions and exemptions. The standard deduction (that many retired people claim), personal exemptions and the tax brackets are all adjusted annually for inflation.

Assume Hank is over 65, files single, utilizes the standard deduction, and has total 2006 adjusted gross income (exclusive of Social Security benefits) of $39,000 and receives $21,900 in Social Security benefits. That makes his income $49,950 (39,000 + (21,900 x .5)). He exceeds the threshold, so taxable Social Security equals the lesser of (1) $18,615 (85% of $21,900), or (2) the sum of $13,558 (($49,950 - $34,000) x 85%) and $4,500. Since $18,058 is less than $18,615 the taxable amount of his Social Security benefits equals $18,058.

That makes his final adjusted gross income $57,058 ($39,000 plus $18,058). After he takes his 2006 standard deduction of $6,400 ($5,150 + $1,250 for age 65 or over) and a personal exemption of $3,300, his taxable income is $47,358. That puts him in the 25% marginal tax bracket. If Hank’s income goes up by $10 of taxable income he will pay $2.50 in taxes on that $10 plus $2.13 in tax on the additional $8.50 of Social Security benefits that will become taxable. Combine $2.50 and $2.13 and you get $4.63 or a 46.5% tax on a $10 swing in taxable income. Bingo…a 46.3% marginal bracket.

Check with your financial planner or tax advisor about how changes in your investments and income can affect your overall tax picture.

Mr. Morris, a fee based Investment Advisor Representative with Raymond James Financial Services, Inc., helps 401k participants get the most out of their corporate plans.

Share This