Author: Marianne O'Bara
Marianne works regularly with numerous non-U.S. companies and their local counsel to ensure that their compensation and benefit arrangements covering U.S. taxpayers comply with U.S. tax and employee benefit laws. She assists U.S. and non-U.S. companies in the design, formation, administration, merger and termination of employee benefit plans, including equity incentive plans, bonus and long term incentive arrangements, deferred compensation plans, and employment and separation agreements. Marianne is a Partner in Dorsey’s Benefits and Compensation practice group and past Chair of the firm’s Executive Compensation Practice Group.
View Full Bio on Dorsey
A Canadian company adopting a deferred share unit plan (DSU plan) for its directors must consider U.S. tax implications for U.S. taxpayers. It is important to remember that U.S. citizens and U.S. residents for tax purposes (including green card holders) are taxed on worldwide income, regardless of where they reside. As such, participation by a U.S. director, including an expat or holder of dual citizenship, could result in significant adverse tax consequences under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code, as a typical Canadian DSU plan often runs afoul of Section 409A. In a prior article, DSU Plans Require Careful Review to Avoid Adverse U.S. Tax Treatment, common payment timing violations of U.S....
We have written about this in the past [here], but the message bears repeating each year. It is easy to overlook that employment agreements, change-in-control agreements, and severance agreements with U.S. taxpayers frequently contain provisions that subject them to U.S. Internal Revenue Code Section 409A (“Section 409A”), and failure to comply can result in onerous tax penalties. However, to the extent that rights under such agreements are not yet vested, it may be possible to correct them before year-end without penalty. Even if rights under an agreement are vested, in some cases correction is available with payment of reduced penalties under IRS correction programs. It is important to remember that U.S. residents, and U.S....
While the recently enacted U.S. tax reform legislation did not overhaul executive compensation to the extent proposed in early forms of the bill, Section 162(m) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code was dramatically revised in a way that affects Canadian companies that file reports with the SEC and that employ, or may in the future employ, executives in the United States. Previously, Section 162(m) limited the amount of compensation that an SEC reporting company that was a “domestic issuer” for securities law purposes, or its subsidiaries, could deduct with respect to its most senior executives. Important for many of our Canadian clients, we believe that under the rule changes, U.S. tax deductions for...
A Canadian company (the employer) historically has not issued equity-based awards to employees of its U.S. subsidiaries, but it now is considering doing so. Past posts have addressed potential U.S. income tax pitfalls and the need for careful review of the plan and award agreements prior to the grant of restricted stock units (RSUs) and deferred share units (DSUs) to individuals who are subject to U.S. federal income tax on compensatory income. You can read the DSU blog entry here and the RSU blog entry here. Let’s assume careful review and drafting have addressed potential U.S. tax issues in terms of the written documents. What are common mistakes that can arise in administering...
Recently we blogged about pitfalls and potential adverse tax consequences for U.S. taxpayers with respect to deferred share unit awards that pay out following the participant’s termination of services. Read that blog entry here. But what about restricted share units (RSUs) that are subject to vesting based on continued service and that are settled/paid out immediately after the scheduled vesting date(s)? If you only have a handful of employees in the U.S. who would receive RSUs under your existing RSU Plan, you may wonder whether review by U.S. tax counsel really is necessary. Common sense would suggest that there is no way such RSUs could run afoul of the U.S. tax rules related...
A Canadian company is planning to adopt a deferred share unit plan (DSU plan) for its directors. Only one or two of its directors are U.S. citizens or U.S. residents (“U.S. Directors”). With only one or two U.S. Directors, you wonder whether it is important to consider U.S. tax implications. The answer is a resounding yes because the typical form of Canadian DSU plan will not comply with U.S. tax laws governing deferred compensation. Participation by a U.S. Director will result in significant adverse tax consequences for the U.S. Director under Section 409A of the Internal Revenue Code. Specifically, for U.S. federal income tax purposes, the value of the DSUs as of December...
