February 22, 2012

Cash Out of Paid Time Off May Be Tax Trap

A new year often brings renewed focus on paid time off (PTO) plans.  PTO plan designs run the spectrum from strict use-it-or-lose-it plans to plans that allow employees to accumulate days, months or even years of PTO over their careers.  Unfortunately employers often overlook laws that prohibit or restrict certain plan designs or that create unintended tax consequences.

Allowing employees to sell unused PTO back to the company at the end of the year is one common practice that can be a tax trap for the employer and employee.  If an employee is given the option to either cashout the PTO or roll it over to the next year, the IRS has ruled that the employee must be taxed immediately on the entire amount that could be cashed out even if the employee actually elects to roll over the unused PTO.  Under the federal income tax ‘constructive receipt’ doctrine, amounts available for receipt by a taxpayer are treated as received, and taxable, even if the taxpayer elects to defer actual receipt of the amount.

Employers have several options for avoiding this tax trap.  The safest plan design is one that does not give the employee a choice.  The IRS has indicated in several rulings that mandatory cash outs do not create a constructive receipt problem.  For employers wanting to provide employees with more flexibility, it is possible to avoid this tax trap with a properly structured plan design.  For many employers this may involve offering elective PTO through their Code Section 125 “cafeteria” plan. 

To avoid these unintended tax consequences and ensure that PTO plan design satisfies the requirements of applicable law, employers should discuss the design of their PTO plans with their employment law and employee benefits counsel.

© 2012 Poyner Spruill LLP. All rights reserved.

About the Author

Partner

Gene has practiced in the employee benefits and executive compensation area for over 20 years advising public and private employers with regional, national and international operations, bank trustees and third-party administrators. His expertise covers the full range of qualified and non-qualified plans, welfare benefit plans, fringe benefit plans, non-qualified deferred compensation plans and executive compensation plans.

Representative Experience

  • Extensive experience in the design and drafting of qualified retirement plans, including preparation...
704-342-5320

About the Author

Partner

David practices in the area of employment litigation.  He regularly advises and defends clients in race, age, disability and sex discrimination and harassment cases; reviews handbooks and termination issues; and provides compliance advice on matters of employment law.

Representative Experience

McNeil v. Scotland County - Obtained summary judgment for employer where plaintiff alleged race discrimination and retaliation in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act as well as violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Successfully...

919-783-2854

Boost: AJAX core statistics

Legal Disclaimer

You are responsible for reading, understanding and agreeing to the National Law Review's (NLR’s) and the National Law Forum LLC's  Terms of Use and Privacy Policy before using the National Law Review website. The National Law Review is a free to use, no-log in database of legal and business articles. The content and links on www.NatLawReview.com are intended for general information purposes only. Any legal analysis, legislative updates or other content and links should not be construed as legal or professional advice or a substitute for such advice. No attorney-client or confidential relationship is formed by the transmission of information between you and the National Law Review website or any of the law firms, attorneys or other professionals or organizations who include content on the National Law Review website. If you require legal or professional advice, kindly contact an attorney or other suitable professional advisor.  

Some states have laws and ethical rules regarding solicitation and advertisement practices by attorneys and/or other professionals. NLR does not accept advertising from attorneys or law firms. The National Law Review is not a law firm nor is www.NatLawReview.com  intended to be an advertisement or a referral service for attorneys and/or other professionals. The NLR does not wish, nor does it intend, to solicit the business of anyone or to refer anyone to an attorney or other professional.  NLR does not answer legal questions nor will we refer you to an attorney or other professional if you request such information from us. 

Under certain state laws the following statements may be required on this website and we have included them in order to be in full compliance with these rules. The choice of a lawyer or other professional is an important decision and should not be based solely upon advertisements. Attorney Advertising Notice: Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Statement in compliance with Texas Rules of Professional Conduct. Unless otherwise noted, attorneys are not certified by the Texas Board of Legal Specialization, nor can NLR attest to the accuracy of any notation of Legal Specialization or other Professional Credentials.