May 23, 2012

Executive Compensation is Biggest Area of Noncompliance for Exempt Organizations, Says IRS

The area of establishing and overseeing executive compensation is the biggest area of noncompliance—and IRS audit concentration—for tax-exempt organizations, according to the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) director of exempt organizations.  Generally, a tax-exempt organization’s net profits may not inure to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.  However, an individual who provides services for an exempt organization may receive compensation for his or her efforts as long as the compensation is both reasonable and not excessive.  Problems with excessive compensation commonly arise in the area of executive compensation.  If an executive receives excessive compensation, the IRS may assess intermediate sanctions against the exempt organization, the executive and the board members who improperly set the executive’s compensation.  Board members could face personal liability, jointly and severally, up to $10,000 for each excess compensation transaction.

Executive Compensation

Whether an executive’s compensation is reasonable depends on the particular employment situation, including the executive’s duties, training, and position.  The exempt organization’s board of directors is responsible for setting an executive’s compensation and ensuring that he or she does not receive excess compensation.  If the board of directors creates a committee to set and review executive compensation, the committee should present compensation packages to the board for review and the board should analyze the compensation package carefully.  An IRS representative has noted that if a board of directors makes an uninformed decision regarding executive compensation and the executive compensation is unreasonable, such board members may also face adverse tax consequences.

Fringe Benefits

In calculating whether executive compensation is reasonable, the board of directors must take into account all compensation, including fringe benefits.  Peter Lorenzetti, the IRS tax-exempt manager for the Northeast, recently stated that fringe benefits are the most common area in which exempt organizations receive intermediate sanctions because such organizations often fail to include fringe benefits in the calculation of the executive’s total compensation.  According to Lorenzetti, if an exempt organization fails to treat fringe benefits as compensation to an executive, such failure will be considered an automatic excess benefit, which triggers an automatic imposition of taxes.

In addition, the IRS is currently engaged in the National Research Program, a comprehensive audit of 6,000 U.S. companies, including tax-exempt organizations, that focuses on uncollected employment taxes.  Such audits are specifically focused on fringe benefits, according to the chief of employment tax operations at the IRS.  The IRS Fringe Benefits Audit Techniques Guide lists the following as a few of the most common fringe benefits provided to executives:

  • Qualified Employee Discounts
  • Spousal/Dependent Life Insurance
  • Transportation (including Chauffeurs, Employer-paid Parking and Non-commercial Air Travel)
  • Relocation Expenses
  • Wealth Management (including Qualified Retirement Planning)
  • Payment of the Employee’s Share of Employment Taxes
  • Athletic Skyboxes/Cultural Entertainment Suites

To ensure compliance with executive compensation rules, the board of directors of an exempt organization should regularly review executive compensation packages. The board should also maintain active involvement in and oversight of all executive compensation.

©2012 von Briesen & Roper, s.c

About the Author

Attorney

Alyssa Dowse is a member of the Business Practice Group and the Compensation and Benefits Section of von Briesen & Roper, s.c. She focuses her practice on employee benefits and tax matters, assisting administrators and fiduciaries of employee benefits plans in complying with the standards of ERISA, the Internal Revenue Code, and related regulations.

414-287-1273

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.