Pennsylvania ends same-gender marriage ban – are you taxing benefits correctly?

On May 20, 2014, a US District Court judge overturned Pennsylvania’s 1996 ban on same-gender marriage ruling it unconstitutional. (Deb Whitewood, et al, vs. Michael Wolf, 1:13-cv-1861) Governor Tom Corbett chose not appeal the ruling making it the 18th state plus the District of Columbia that now allows the issuance of marriage licenses to same-gender couples. Pennsylvania has never recognized civil unions or registered domestic partnerships, and until now, was the only state in the northeast region that prohibited same-gender marriage.

The May 20th ruling ends a wave of legal challenges that began in September 2013. Guidance has not yet been issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue; however, it is assumed that fringe benefits provided to a same-gender spouse will receive the same state and local tax treatment that was extended to a lawful spouse under prior law.

State and local taxation of same-gender partner benefits isn’t as easy as it seems. That’s because a state’s civil laws governing marriage do not necessarily govern the income tax and unemployment insurance coverage rules. Take Missouri for instance. The state prohibits marriage between a couple of the same gender; however, a same-gender couple lawfully married in another state is treated as married for Missouri income and unemployment insurance tax purposes.

Speak to a trusted employment tax advisor about the payroll tax treatment of same-gender partner benefits.

President’s budget would accelerate W-2 filing due dates


On March 4, 2014, the Administration’s Fiscal Year 2015 Budget was released to Congress, less than a     week after the House Ways and Means Committee published a discussion draft on proposed tax reforms.

From an employer’s perspective, the 2015 budget is very similar to previous years except for the noteworthy additions of an accelerated due date for filing information returns (e.g., Forms W-2 and 1099-MISC), provisions that further eliminate the filing of paper tax returns, and an expansion of income subject to the self-employment tax.

 January 31 deadline for filing Forms W-2 and 1099  

In 2011, as a response to the increase in tax refund scams, the IRS unveiled its vision for a “Real Time Tax System” where Forms W-2 and 1099 are available at the start of the tax filing season.   Under the current system, individual taxpayers receive their information statements on January 31, but information returns aren’t due until as late as March 31. This filing regime forces the IRS to use a look back method for matching Forms W-2 to individual tax returns.

Throughout 2012, the IRS solicited commentary from stakeholders about the feasibility of accelerating the filing deadline for information returns to January 31.   Business groups, such as the National Payroll Reporting Consortium (NPRC) identified numerous challenges businesses would face in meeting this earlier fling deadline, including the likely increase in Forms W-2c because of eliminating the essential gap between when employees receive their information statements and when information returns are filed.

The 2015 budget proposal is the first since 2011 that the administration makes a formal proposal to change the due date for filing information returns. Specifically, Forms W-2 would be due to the Social Security Administration and Forms 1099 to the IRS no later January 31, whether filed on paper on electronically.

At the same time, it is also proposed that the Treasury and IRS be given latitude to lower the 250-return threshold at which electronic filing is mandatory.

For other budget provisions potentially affecting employers, click here

President flexes executive muscles to increase workers’ wages

Farrington Headshot 


by Brian Farrington, esq, Cowles & Thompson

President Obama has announced that as part of his effort to increase job protections for workers, he will ask the Department of Labor to propose revisions to the rules on who can be a salaried exempt employee, exempt from the payment of overtime. This follows an Executive Order the President issued in February 2014 directing the executive branch to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour for employees on new federal contracts starting in January 2015.

A little bit of background

The federal wage hour law is the Fair Labor Standards Act, 29 USC 201, et seq. (“FLSA”). The Act requires that employees who work more than 40 hours per week get time and a half for their overtime hours. There are a number of exemptions from the overtime requirements, however, and the most important is the exemption for certain classifications of (typically) salaried employees—executive, administrative, and professional employees, and outside salespeople.

Unlike the minimum wage, which cannot be raised for employees other than federal contractors except by an Act of Congress, the FLSA delegates to the Secretary of Labor the duty to define by regulation who is an executive, administrative, or professional employee, or outside salesperson. This means that it doesn’t take an Act of Congress to change the exemption rules. It only takes a regulatory change by the US Department of Labor.

In order to be exempt under the terms of 29 CFR 541, employees generally have to be paid on a salary basis (there are some exceptions, such as outside salespeople, and doctors, lawyers, and teachers).  Exempt employees also have to meet some duties tests, which are laid out in the Regulation.

The current minimum salary for exemption is $455 per week, or $23,660 per year. (The current poverty threshold for a family of 4 is $23,550 per year). This rate has been in effect since 2004, and is 156% of the current minimum wage for 40 hours.

Since salaried exempt employees often work more than 40 hours, it’s clear that the current salary level is fairly minimal. This is particularly so in light of the fact that the President would like to increase the minimum wage to $10.10 per hour, which for a 40 hour week would be $404.

How exempt employee rules may change

  • The weekly salary test.  The simplest and most obvious change in the current rules is an increase in the minimum salary exempt employees are required to be paid. At least one progressive think tank has proposed $984 per week, which seems unlikely. But a significant increase is certainly possible.
  • The duties test.  Another area rankling employee groups is the duties tests under the current regulation. Until the Bush administration changed the Regulation in 2004, employees had to have exempt work as their “primary duty,” and the term “primary duty” generally meant that duty in which employees spent over half their time.  Under the Bush Administration, the definition of     “primary” was changed from the most consuming to the most important. As a result, courts have routinely allowed the exemption for employees who spend 60, 70, even 80% of their time in routine duties; as long as they can make a plausible argument that the exempt work they do is the most important.

For example, store managers who spend 75% of their time in stocking, waiting on customers, etc., have still been found to be exempt managers. This is an area where a return to the previous standard would be anticipated. That is, it’s likely that the Department of Labor will propose changing the regulations to require that employees spend over half their time in exempt work in order to be exempt from overtime pay.

  • Learned professionals’ definition.  Also possible is a change involving the definition of learned professional employees. Under the current regulation, a college degree is not required in meeting the learned professional exemption. Instead, an employee must merely show that the work requires that level of knowledge, and that he/she has achieved the ability to do that kind of work through a combination of education and experience. Employee groups would like to see the regulation changed to require formal academic credentials as a prerequisite for exemption as a learned professional.

 The wheels of change will be slow to turn

Any changes to 29 CFR 541 won’t happen overnight.  First, the Department of Labor must draft the changes and issue a notice of proposed rulemaking in the Federal Register. A public comment period would follow. Once the comment period is closed, the Department would have to review and take into consideration the public’s comments, and then issue a final rule.

In a nutshell, even if the President is able to make the changes he wants, there’s a long road ahead to implement them. Further, the oversight committees in Congress, particularly the relevant sub-committees of the Committee on Education and the Workforce in the Republican-controlled House of Representatives, are certain to be vehemently opposed.

About Brian Farrington

Brian Farrington is an experienced employment law attorney who previously served as Assistant District Director with the US Department Labor, Wage and Hour Division and is a contributing editor to EY’s Payroll Perspectives and EY’s Principles of Payroll Administration published by Thomson Reuters.  He is currently with the Dallas-based firm COWLES & THOMPSON, where he assists employers with employment law issues. Brian can be reached at

Additional Medicare Tax: 6 facts employers need to know

6 key factsApril 15 is just around the corner and employees are certain to raise numerous questions about the Additional Medicare Tax that first took effect in 2013.   Here’s 6 facts you will need at your finger tips in the weeks ahead.

For the complete article go to:


It’s time to check your payroll facts for year-end and 2014!

Employment tax rates and limits for 2014 rev. Jan. 1

Here’s some important federal and state payroll facts that you need to know for year-end and 2014, updated with the latest information.$FILE/EY-Payroll-Perspectives-November.pdf

Looking for more payroll resources like this?  Check out our year-end hub at:—Year-end-checklist

EY’s 2013 Payroll Year-End Check List is Here

EY's payroll year-end checklist brochure

This valuable year-end reference tool is expanded from previous years to include links to relevant EY white papers concerning Additional Medicare Tax, Form W-2 reporting of health insurance costs, 2014 rates and limits, same-sex spousal benefits, and much more.

As in prior years, you will also find full-state charts of the Form W-2 and unemployment insurance electronic filing requirements and due dates.

Here is a link to this year-end tool.’s_2013_payroll_year-end_checklist/$FILE/EY-payroll-year-end-checklist-brochure.pdf

Essential year-end payroll guidance is here

Payroll Compliance Handbook  2013-2014 front coverEssential year-end payroll guidance is here

Order by December 26 and get 15% off!

The Payroll Compliance Handbook is a companion guide to Principles of Payroll Administration and offers an essential look at legislative and regulatory developments that impact currently quarterly and annual payroll and employment tax compliance requirements.  The publication is fully updated for 2013 and is now available to order.

SSA updates proposals for FICA tax increases

Each year the Social Security trustees provide proposals for ensuring solvency in the trust funds.  Some of these proposals include an increase the Social Security tax rate, the wage base, or both. This information is helpful in getting an idea of the future direction of employment tax costs.

For the full report go to

California gives new tax break on same-sex partner benefits

california_mapErnst & Young LLP issued a tax alert explaining that recently enacted legislation will temporarily exclude from California personal income tax (PIT) the amount of federal income tax that employers pay for health insurance benefits provided to employees who are a member of a registered domestic partnership.

The law is effective immediately and applies for taxable years beginning on or after January 1, 2013 and through December 31, 2018.  (AB 362, signed by the governor on October 1, 2013.)

 Under all other circumstances, federal income tax paid by employers on behalf of their employees generally is included in wages subject to California PIT.

For the definition of a registered domestic partner see:

Prior law

Since January 1, 2002, employer-provided accident and health insurance provided to the domestic partner of an employee (and that partner’s dependents), along with several other benefits, has been excluded from California gross income (Revenue and Taxation Code section 17021.7) 

Prior to the passage of AB 362, an amount reimbursed by an employer to the employee for the federal income tax incurred on these benefits was not excluded from California PIT.

Employer payment of federal income tax under the new law

Assembly Bill 362, the Same Sex Couple Tax Fairness Act, excludes from California gross income any amounts received by an employee from an employer to compensate for additional federal income taxes that are incurred by the employee on employer-provided health-care benefits because, for federal income tax purposes, the domestic partner of the employee is not considered the spouse of the employee.

The exclusion from gross income also applies to any amount of the employer-provided health-care compensation paid to an employee that represents the “grossed-up” amount that an employer includes to offset additional federal income taxes incurred on such compensation.

According to new Revenue and Taxation Code Section 17141:

“Gross income shall not include any amount received by an employee from an employer to compensate for the additional federal income tax liability incurred by the employee because, for federal income tax purposes, the same-sex spouse or domestic partner of the employee is not considered the spouse of the employee under Section 105(a) or Section 106(a) of the Internal Revenue Code, including any compensation for the additional federal income tax liability incurred with respect to those amounts.”

The Act was introduced to the California state legislature on February 14, 2013, months before the US Supreme Court Windsor decision that overturned section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) and allowed same sex married couples the same tax break on a federal level as opposite sex married couples. It was intended to cover both same sex married couples and those involved in a domestic partnership. As a result, the Act has a lesser impact than originally intended by the bill’s author.

Impact of the new law on California same-sex partner benefits

According to Forbes, (, as of the date of the Supreme Court decision, 38 US companies used the gross up calculation to cushion employees from the unequal federal income tax rules applicable to for employer provided same-sex partner benefits. The California senate summary for AB 362 states that 71 California companies use the gross up method for this purpose.

It’s been estimated that employees working for companies that provided same sex benefits, but did not gross up, incurred an average of $1,069 extra taxes per year—possibly more if the partner’s dependents were also included in coverage.

 Correcting 2013 wages and PIT for active employees

For active employees, employers should immediately adjust 2013 California PIT taxable wages using one of the methods below:

(1)   Refund or credit the overpaid PIT for the previous nine months to affected employees prior to December 31, 2013 and file adjusted quarterly tax returns with the Employment Development Department (EDD)

(2)   Don’t refund or credit overpaid PIT for the previous nine months, but inform employees that the law change may result in a California PIT refund on their personal income tax returns.

 Regardless of the approach an employer takes, the 2013 Form W-2, box 16 must reflect the correct amount of California taxable wages.

According to an EDD representative, employers must first credit or refund the overwithheld amount to the employee during the current 2013 calendar year. Then, the employer should file Form DE 9ADJ, Quarterly Contribution and Wage Adjustment for each affected quarter to claim a credit or refund of the overpaid amount.

The EDD also recommends that employers require employees to sign a statement indicating that the overwithheld PIT has been credited or refunded. The employer must complete box 2 of the Form DE 9ADJ indicating that the overpaid amount has been refunded to the employee and that the amount to be credited will not be reflected on the Form W-2.

Form DE 9ADJ can be found at

Correcting 2013 wages and PIT for terminated employees  

According to the Form DE 9ADJ instructions, an employer may claim a credit or refund of PIT overwithheld from an employee’s wages when the excess amount is credited or refunded to the employee during the same calendar year and the excess amount is not shown on the Form W-2 issued to the employee.

An employer that has already issued the 2013 Form W-2 to employees should not refund the PIT overwithholding nor change the PIT withholding amount on the Form W-2.

The employee will receive a credit when the California Resident Income Tax Return (Form 540) is filed with the California Franchise Tax Board.

Employers must adjust the California state wages for calendar year 2013 on Form W-2 (box 16).

Ernst & Young LLP insights

Employers should be aware that the law applies only to California gross income, and does not affect the rules applicable to taxes imposed under other laws, or in other jurisdictions.

Employers that gross up domestic partner benefits and reimburse employees for the additional federal income tax incurred due to coverage of a domestic partner must still include these amounts as federal taxable wages on Form W-2.

Federal legislation has been introduced for consideration that would extend the definition of marriage to include individuals and their dependents who are a member of a registered domestic partnership, civil union, or similar arrangement recognized under state law.  (SB 729/HR 2499, the Tax Parity for Health Plan Beneficiaries Act of 2013)

Same-sex partner benefits | Do you have a plan?

The Supreme Court’s ruling, in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage of Act (DOMA) is unconstitutional has triggered guidance from Treasury, Internal Revenue Service,  US Department of Labor and state taxing authorities changing the manner in which employers retroactively and prospectively administer, tax and report same-sex spousal benefits.

Integrating the new rules into multiple business practices means analyzing, implementing and communicating with employees in a short time frame.

To start you off in the process, Ernst & Young LLP has  prepared a handy check list and sample work plan.

You can download the check list and sample work plan at

Mandatory Pay Cards? Oh no you don’t says the feds

The API published a story on September 13, 2013 stating that under federal law employers cannot force employees to take plastic pay and that withdrawal fees also cannot be imposed on them.

For the full story go to

For a great read that debunks some pay cards myths, go to our previous post at

Remember the 2010 HIRE Act Payroll Tax Exemption? The IRS Does…

In the grand days of economic stimulus, specifically, tax year 2010, employers were allowed a one-year exemption from paying Social Security tax on wages paid to qualified new hires.  It was a great way to encourage the employment of the long-term jobless.  We mention this bit of history because the period for claiming this 2010 Social Security tax exemption expires April 15, 2014, a deadline of significance to employers as well as the IRS.

Ernst & Young LLP reports that some employers began receiving notices under the IRS/SSA Combined Annual Wage Reporting (CAWR) program notifying them that the Social Security wages shown as exempt under the HIRE Act on Forms 941/941-X was higher than the HIRE Act exempt wages reported on Forms W-2, box 12, code CC.

If, by April 15, 2014,  employers do not file Forms W-2c (Box 12, code CC)  that reconcile to Forms 941/941-X, or file Forms 941-X to correct the overstatement, the IRS will reclaim Social Security tax of 6.2% of the wage difference, plus interest and penalty.

What employers need to do now

1.  Verify that the wages reported on the 2010 Forms 941 as excluded from Social Security tax under the HIRE Act agree with the HIRE Act wages reported on the 2010 Forms W-2, box 12, code CC.  Similarly, timely respond to IRS/SSA CAWR notices promptly, and file necessary adjustments. These steps should be taken before April 15, 2014.

2. If employers failed to file for the HIRE Act payroll tax exemption, they have until April 15, 2014 to file Forms 941-X (and Forms W-2c) to claim the credit.   Keep in mind that Forms W-11 must be obtained from qualified employees before claiming the credit.

Payroll outsourcing is still an inside job

The movement to electronic filing and the increased complexity in the rules governing payroll have resulted in an understandable trend of outsourcing payroll and employment tax.  But, when it comes to outsourcing, out of sight does not mean out of mind.

Handing your payroll and employment tax processing to a third party is no different from hiring employees to do the work. The company’s executives continue to be liable for compliance, meaning, oversight of the work is still an inside job.

When it comes to payroll outsouring, out of sight should not be "out of mind"

When it comes to payroll outsouring, out of sight should not be “out of mind”

Occasionally, a big story hits the news about a less than upstanding payroll company absconding with their clients’ tax deposits. When this sort of new breaks, the importance of third-party oversight gets some focus. Recently, for instance, the IRS added a web page ( explaining the steps employers should take to confirm and review third-party returns and tax payments.

Invest in your internal resources

The job of supervising payroll/employment tax vendors requires substantial internal expertise.

Take earnings and deduction codes for instance.  The task of reviewing the plan or policy and choosing a preconfigured template requires an understanding of the federal, state and local employment tax rules.  Vendors are not responsible for choosing the wrong configuration templates, or correctly identifying exceptions that may apply.  (See the post, the ABC’s of FSA, HSA and HRA at

Payroll vendors are frequently tasked with creating a general ledger interface; however, there are numerous transactions outside of regular pay data that must also be correctly recorded.  Analysis of general ledger codes and their balances are required too if there are changes in the company’s organization structure that reach to where and how  payroll transactions are booked. Accuracy of general ledger entries is not only important for financial statements–they may also come under close scrutiny for purposes of tax enforcement, workers’ compensation, and other employment related audits.

Having individuals within the organization who have cross-functional knowledge of accounting, payroll and employment tax is key to the effective and efficient management of human resources.   The rules governing payroll and employment are routinely evolving, as are the technologies necessary to comply with them.  That’s why investing in payroll training and informational resources is also important.

Falling into complacency is tempting when trusted payroll vendors are relied on for the heavy lifting.  That’s why the supervisory role should be carefully defined with  performance monitored and rewarded.

Do you outsource payroll/employment tax? 

Tell us what steps you take to supervise your vendors, and how your performance is measured. 

To Have and To Hold | Employment Tax Considerations in Same-Sex Partner Benefits

This summer, the Supreme Court ruled in United States v. Windsor, that Section 3 of the Defence Defense of Marriage of Act (DOMA) (P.L. 104-199) is unconstitutional, meaning that lawfully married same-sex spouses may be treated as married for federal tax purposes. The ruling has broad implications and raised myriad questions about how federal tax laws should be applied to same-sex spouses retroactively and going forward.

Just before Labor Day Weekend, the Treasury and the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) issued much-anticipated guidance addressing how the federal definition of marriage is  amended as it pertains to same-sex partners. At the same time, the IRS posted Frequently Asked Questions to its website.

Revenue Ruling 2013-17 is located here:

FAQS are found here:]

and here:]

State and Country of Celebration is Federal Standard

In a nutshell, for federal tax puproses, a couple is considered married if their marriage is valid under the laws of a state or foreign country.  Sensitive to the administrative hardship of applying a jurisdiction of residence rule, the IRS will look instead to the jurisdiction where the marriage was granted (i.e., the jursidiction of celebration.)

Treasury /IRS clarify that it will not deem as married a same-sex couple given only civil union or domestic partnership standing in the jurisdiction, even if such jursidcition grants these individuals the rights and responsiblities of married persons for purposes of that jurisdiction’s income tax.

So, Who’s Married Now?

It seems on the surface that it should be clear which couples now meet the federal marriage definition.  For instance, as of September 1, 2013, same-sex marriages were  recognized under the laws of 13 states and the District of Columbia.

End of story?  Not necessarily.

Individuals may assert, and correctly so, that they hold marriage licenses outside of these 14 U.S. jurisdictions.   For instance, certain counties have been issuing marriage licenses in states  (e.g., New Mexico and Pennsylvania) whose laws do not specifcally recognize same-sex marriages.

Additionally, same-sex marriage laws are rapidly evolving.  The courts are weighing in on the validity of same-sex marriage bans in some states (e.g., New Jersey, Ohio, Virginia), and some legislators have expressed support to legalize it in others (e.g., Hawaii).   Like the U.S., 2013 saw an increase in the number of countries recognizing same-sex marriages (e.g., France, Uruguay).

Without question, state and international same-sex marriage practices are quickly changing, in some instances resulting in temporary confusion as to the validity of a jurisdiction’s marriage license.

It is uncertain if Treasury or the IRS will issue updates as to those jurisdictions where marriage licenses have valid standing for federal purposes.

Same Sex Partner Benefits Post Windsor 8-28-2013

Retirement plans must adopt new standards by September 16, 2013

Tax-qualified retirement plans are required to recognize the validity of a same-sex marriage (as Revenue Ruling 2013-17 defines the term) prospectively as of September 16, 2013.   Plans are given more time to make plan amendments, and the IRS expects to issue further guidance on this topic.

Payroll must respond quickly, but not so fast

IRS FAQs tell affected taxpayers that they may immediately file for income tax refunds for prior years, which the IRS has clarified is only tax years 2010, 2011 and 2012, unless the statute of limitations is open (e.g., a protective refund as filed).  At the same time, the IRS announced that it will, sometime in the future,  issue streamlined procedures that employers may follow for employee and employer Social Security/Medicare (FICA) refunds for prior years.

There are a few important steps that payroll departments can take while awaiting the official word from IRS.

  1. Identify prior Forms W-2 that are implicated by the retroactive effect of same-sex spousal benefits
  2. Quantify adjustments that will need to be made to wages previously reported in boxes 1, 3 and 5.  Part of this analysis should also include 2013 wage and tax overstatements pursuant to same-sex partner benefits and how federal income tax and FICA withholding adjustments will be made.

For retroactive refund purposes, what fringe benefits are affected?

 The IRS has stated that only the fringe benefits shown in the chart below are implicated in prior-year refund requests; however, future guidance will include information as to other benefits that also may be involved. 

IRC Section   Fringe Benefit
106 Health and accident benefits including employee pre-tax contributions under a Section 125 plan, health savings accounts, health reimbursement arrangements and long-term care
117(d) Qualified scholarships
119 Meals and lodging for employer’s convenience
129 Dependent care assistance
132 No-additional cost services and qualified employee discounts

Affordable Care Act Information Reporting | Payroll get ready!

ACA health insurance reporting 8-6-2014_Page_1

Under the Affordable Care Act (ACA) and starting next year (for filing in 2016), large employers are required to provide information statements to employees and information returns to the IRS that contain details about employees’ health coverage benefits.

This new information reporting effort is substantial in scope and requires a coordinated effort between payroll departments, benefits enrollment and insurance plan administrators. On the other hand, the reporting infrastructure necessary to produce employee statements and IRS returns is similar to the annual filing of federal Forms W-2. Consequently, while payroll departments will be dependent on data from other internal and external systems to meet the reporting requirements, they will likely be integral in the compliance effort.

In this publication we explain the returns that will be required and the data they will contain.$FILE/EY-affordable-care-act-health-insurance-information-reporting-are-you-ready.pdf

August 20 – Learn about payroll tax onboarding and earn RCH or CPE credit

tape measure and hard hat

Ernst & Young LLP and the Institute for Professionals in Taxation (IPT) are pleased to present an affordable webcast on August 20, 2014 that explains the payroll tax considerations when hiring a new employee.

Participants are eligible for 1.0 RCH or CPE credits

Registration is available with IPT at:

IPT registration fee:

$50 for IPT members
$65 for individuals who personally do not hold IPT membership
Details concerning the program is included below.

So you hired an employee? Let’s talk employment tax
August 20, 2014: 1:00 –2:00 p.m. E.S.T.
Once a worker is hired a number of essential employment tax decisions and processes are triggered. Gaps in this critical component of the employment life cycle can present a personal risk to owners and officers and to the business as a whole. In this session we will provide participants with information about the critical tax steps in the employee onboarding process and shine an important light on where oversights and errors frequently occur.

Learning Objectives:

  •  Recognize the key differences between employees and independent contractors and how their onboarding requirements differ
  • Know the differences in the onboarding requirements for US and nonresident alien employees
  •  Identify the federal and state tax forms employees must submit and how to implement them
  • Know what steps to take to head off notices about invalid Social Security Numbers
  • Reduce employment tax risk through proactive identification of state and local taxing jurisdictions and compliance with their registration and tax filing requirements
  •  Avoid common employment tax pitfalls in employee hiring agreements that provide for fringe benefits such as cars, cell phones, sign on bonuses, relocation reimbursement, loans, etc.
  • Consider some leading practices in managing employment tax