BenefitsLink logo
EmployeeBenefitsJobs logo
Free Daily News and Jobs

“BenefitsLink continues to be the most valuable resource we have at the firm.”
-- An attorney subscriber
Featured Jobs

Retirement Plan Administrator (Fort Worth TX)
Retirement Plan Administrator (Colorado Springs CO / Telecommute)

Senior Defined Contribution Account Manager (Houston TX / Dallas TX / Austin TX / Scottsdale AZ / Telecommute)
Senior Retirement Plan Administrator (Philadelphia PA / Telecommute)

Plan Administrator (Lake Mary FL / Richmond VA / Dallas TX / Los Angeles CA)
Search all jobs
Get the BenefitsLink app LinkedIn
Jump to content
BenefitsLink Message Boards

NQDC to a non-Service Provider

Recommended Posts

Code Section 409A governs NQDC when granted to a service provider from a service recipient.  We want to grant NQDC -- specifically, phantom stock -- to a non-service provider.  Basically, the company owes money to a creditor and wants to grant the creditor phantom stock to cover the debt.  

First, can this be done?  I don't see why not.

But, second, what rules apply?  I assume if it is vested, constructive receipt somehow plays a role.  But say it's vested this year but is to be settled in year 3 -- what are the tax consequences there?  I assume we wouldn't be limited to 409A's payment triggers (fixed time, death, disability, etc.) since 409A wouldn't apply?  Any other issues?

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

ERISA-Bubs, I started out years ago (actually, decades) as an income tax lawyer, but now do employee benefits/exec comp. You are right that 409A and Section 83 are irrelevant. You need to talk to an tax lawyer. This sounds like an equity for debt exchange. You might Google that phrase, but you really need to talk to a tax lawyer.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is just "phantom" stock, it doesn't sound like a debt-for-equity exchange to me; rather, all they would be doing is changing the terms for debt repayment.  I don't see any tax consequences from this action unless there are cancellation of indebtedness issues, which doesn't seem likely.  Certainly no "constructive receipt" or "economic benefit" issues just because the interest in the phantom stock is "vested."  But I agree that (if the dollars are large enough) both parties should seek tax advice.  

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...