Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Tax Bill Makes Major Changes To Deferred Compensation Rules
In early October, Congress passed the American Jobs Creation Act of 2004 (Bill). President Bush is expected to sign it shortly. The Bill includes a number of tax breaks and is primarily directed toward ending export subsidies that were declared illegal in 2002 and that caused the European Union to impose tariffs on certain imports from the U.S.
In addition, the Bill includes provisions affecting deferred compensation that have been described as a “sea change” by senior government officials. Prior to enactment of the Bill, there was substantial flexibility in designing deferred compensation plans and the IRS had a miserable record when it attempted to litigate cases involving deferred compensation; the taxpayer almost always won. The IRS attempted to tighten the deferred compensation rules by way of regulations it issued in 1978, but Congress overrode those regulations. The Bill includes the first changes in decades to the tax rules regarding deferred compensation.
Specifically, unless a number of detailed requirements set forth in new Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code are satisfied, employees will be taxed currently on deferred compensation rather than when they actually receive the compensation. In addition, interest penalties and IRS excise taxes could also apply. Finally, employers will be required to withhold income and trust fund taxes. Thus, there is a big incentive to comply with the rules, some of which include the following:
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Stranger to the Deed Rule
In 1987, a unanimous Court of Appeals reaffirmed the vitality of the "stranger to the deed" rule, which holds that if a grantor executes a deed to a grantee purporting to create an easement in a third party, the easement is invalid. Daniello v. Wagner, decided by the Second Department on November 29th, makes it clear that not all grantors (or their lawyers) have received the Court of Appeals' message, suggesting that the rule needs re-examination.