New Jersey challenges its residents (and their employers) by diverging in significant and meaningful ways from Federal definitions of income.  In these ways, New Jersey shares much in common  although not all in common) with its western neighbor, Pennsylvania. Fortunately, New Jersey has entered into a reciprocal agreement with its neighbor Pennsylvania so that a resident of one  state who works in the other pays state income tax generally only to his or her state of residence and avoids double taxation on his or her income.  There was no such luck for one Michelle G. Darcey, a resident of New Jersey who had the bad luck of being required to pay state income tax to both New Jersey and Pennsylvania on income from her employer’s nonqualified deferred compensation plan.   My recent article in Corporate Taxation provides an in-depth look at New Jersey’s approach to taxing nonqualified deferred compensation.  Employers may be surprised that the state’s approach to nonqualified deferred compensation may not follow Federal tax principles.

Read the full article.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of S. Michael Chittenden S. Michael Chittenden

Michael Chittenden practices in the areas of tax and employee benefits with a focus on withholding taxes, including state and federal employment taxes, Chapter 3, and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and information reporting (e.g., Forms 1095, 1096, 1098, 1099, W-2…

Michael Chittenden practices in the areas of tax and employee benefits with a focus on withholding taxes, including state and federal employment taxes, Chapter 3, and the Foreign Account Tax Compliance Act (FATCA) and information reporting (e.g., Forms 1095, 1096, 1098, 1099, W-2, 1042, and 1042-S.

Michael advises large employers on their employment tax compliance obligations, including the special FICA and FUTA rules for nonqualified deferred compensation, the successor employer rules, and executive perquisites, such as the taxation of company cars, corporate aircraft (including the use of SIFL valuations), and employer-provided housing. In addition, he has worked with clients to submit voluntary corrections of employment tax mistakes and seek abatement of late deposit and information reporting penalties. Michael has extensive controversy experience representing clients in IRS examinations and before the IRS Independent Office of Appeals in employment tax, late deposit, and information reporting penalty cases.

As part of Covington’s Global Workforce Solutions practice, Michael counsels clients on all aspects of mobile workforce issues including state income tax withholding for remote workers and mobile employees. He also advises on treaty claims and various tax issues related to expatriate and inpatriates.