In This Presentation:
- Davidson v. Henkel Corp.
- The Parties
- NQ Plan
- The Plan’s Tax Clauses
- Davidson’s Pre-Retirement Counseling
- 2011 Compliance Review and Letter
- Henkel’s Tax Adjustments
- Davidson’s Qs & Henkel’s As
- Davidson’s Arguments
- Davidson’s Claims
- Henkel’s Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction Defense
- Henkel’s “Impermissible Restraint Against Future Tax Collection” Defense
- Henkel’s ERISA Preemption Defense
- Henkel’s “Failure to State a Claim” Defense
- Davidson’s MSJ
- The Court’s Holding
- FICA: The Basics
- General Timing Rule
- Special Timing Rule
- Special Timing Rule—Amount Deferred
- Reasonably Ascertainable (For Non-account Balance Plans Only)
- Nonduplication Rule
- Non-Duplication Rule: Earnings (Account Balance Plans)
- Is the Special Timing Rule Mandatory?
- Balestra v. U.S., 115 AFTR2d 2015-313 (Ct Fed. Cl. December 30, 2014)
- Special Timing Rule is Not Optional
- Extra: A Few Wise Tax Savings To Share With Your Clients
- Sample Tax Clause
- Take Aways
- Excerpt from Special Timing Rule—Amount Deferred:
Account Balance Plans: The amount deferred for a period is the principal amount credited to the employee’s account for the period, increased or decreased by income attributable to the principal amount through the date it is required to be taken into account as wages.
Please see full publication below for more information.
