Never Make These 9 Mistakes with Exempt Employees

The federal Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) requires employers to pay most employees overtime pay for all hours worked in excess of 40 in a workweek (some states require overtime in additional situations). The FLSA allows for exemptions from the overtime requirement for certain employees who work in administrative, professional, and executive jobs (known as “exempt” employees). To be considered “exempt,” these employees must generally satisfy three tests:

Salary-level test. Employees must receive a salary of at least $684 per week. 
Salary-basis test. With very limited exceptions, the employer must pay employees their full salary in any week they perform work. 
Duties test. The employee’s primary duties must meet certain criteria. 

Even if an employee initially satisfies the tests for exempt status, you can later jeopardize this classification with improper pay practices. Here are 9 mistakes to avoid when paying your exempt employees: #1: Docking salary for poor performance, such as an employee who failed to deliver an important project on time. Exempt employees must generally receive their full salary regardless of the quality or quantity of work performed, provided they work any part of the workweek. You can’t make deductions to exempt employees’ salaries for performance issues. #2: Reducing their salary for misconduct without having a written policy. Under federal rules, you may make deductions from exempt employees’ salaries for unpaid disciplinary suspensions of one or more full days imposed in good faith for serious misconduct, such as sexual harassment, workplace violence, drug or alcohol use, or for violations of state or federal laws. However, the suspension must be imposed pursuant to a written policy applicable to all employees. #3: Making a deduction because they attend a two-hour parent-teacher conference. Under the FLSA, when an exempt employee is absent for personal reasons (other than sickness or disability), you may make deductions from their salaries for full-day absences but are prohibited from making partial-day deductions. #4: Requiring exempt employees to work the day before and after a company holiday in order to receive “holiday pay.” To help reduce absenteeism around holidays, some employers require non-exempt employees to work the day before and after the holiday to receive holiday pay for a day off, unless they scheduled the time off in advance. This type of policy can’t be applied to exempt employees. If you choose to close for a holiday, exempt employees must generally receive their full salary as long as they work any part of the workweek. #5: Reducing salaries for emergency closings. When the company closes for less than a full workweek for weather or other emergencies, exempt employees must still receive their full salary. #6: Violating limits on using bonuses to meet the salary requirement. Employers may satisfy up to 10 percent of the federal salary requirement ($68.40 per week) with nondiscretionary bonuses, incentive payments, and commissions. For each workweek, you must pay the exempt employee on a salary basis at least 90 percent ($615.60 per week) of the standard salary level. The remaining portion of the required salary level (up to 10 percent) may be fulfilled through payment of nondiscretionary bonuses or incentive payments as long as the payments are paid at least annually. #7: Paying part-time exempt employees less than $684/week. Part-time employees may be classified as exempt, but they must still receive a weekly salary of at least $684 (as well as meet the duties test for the exemption). #8: Reducing exempt employees’ compensation for sick days. You may reduce exempt employees’ salaries for full-day absences due to sickness but generally only if the employee receives paid sick leave. In this case, the employee wouldn’t generally see a reduction in actual compensation. Instead, any reduction in salary is offset by the paid sick leave received. Note: Under federal rules, deductions may be made for full-day absences due to sickness before the employee has qualified for the paid sick leave plan or after the employee has exhausted the leave allowance under the plan. For example, an employer’s sick leave plan provides each employee with 10 paid sick days per year. An employee must work for the employer 90 days before becoming eligible for paid sick leave. In this example, under federal rules, a deduction of one or more full days may be made from the salary of an exempt employee who is absent due to sickness:

• Before the employee becomes eligible to participate in the sick leave plan (such as, in the initial 90 days of employment); and 
• After the employee has exhausted the 10-day leave entitlement under the sick leave plan. 

#9: Failing to ensure compliance with state requirements. Many states have their own tests and rules for employees classified as exempt from overtime. For instance, some require higher salaries and/or prohibit employers from using bonuses to satisfy part of the salary requirement. Conclusion: Employers with exempt employees should ensure they comply with federal and state rules for classifying and paying exempt employees and avoid improper deductions and other practices that may jeopardize the employee’s exempt status. This story originally published on HR Tip of the Week – a blog providing practical information on hiring, benefits, pay, and more – by ADP®. Learn more about how ADP’s small business expertise and easy-to-use tools can simplify payroll & HR at adp.com.

Video Tips: Taxpayers' Bill of Rights

Did you know there is a taxpayers’ bill of rights? Watch this video to learn more about your privileges in the tax law.
.embed-container { position: relative; padding-bottom: 56.25%; height: 0; overflow: hidden; max-width: 100%; } .embed-container iframe, .embed-container object, .embed-container embed { position: absolute; top: 0; left: 0; width: 100%; height: 100%; }

Posted in Tax

Complications to the IRA-to-Charity Distribution Provision

Article Highlights

IRA Contribution Age Restrictions Removed 
Required Minimum Distributions 
Qualified Charitable Distribution 
Tax Trap 

Individuals are required to begin taking distributions from their IRA when they reach a certain age. That age was 70½ until Congress passed the SECURE Act in late 2019 which made significant changes to the retirement plan provisions of the tax code, one of which was to up the age for beginning required minimum distributions (RMD) to age 72. That change was supposed to occur with 2020 distributions, but due to the Covid-19 pandemic, Congress waived RMDs for 2020. So, 2021 is actually the first year that the age 72 rule is effective. Prior to the passage of the SECURE Act, the tax code also restricted contributions to IRAs by individuals once they reached age 70½, which coordinated with the prior requirement to begin RMDs. That restriction has been eliminated, and as of 2020, individuals may make IRA contributions at any age provided they have earned income. The tax code also includes another provision that allows taxpayers to transfer up to $100,000 from their IRA to qualified charities. The tax provision is called a Qualified Charitable Distribution (QCD), and has been a popular way for retirees to make charitable contributions that can provide significant tax benefits. Here is how this provision, if utilized, plays out on a tax return:
(1) The IRA distribution is excluded from income.(2) The distribution counts toward the taxpayer’s RMD for the year; and (3) The distribution does NOT count as a charitable contribution deduction.
At first glance, this may not appear to provide a tax benefit. However, by excluding the distribution, a taxpayer lowers his or her adjusted gross income (AGI), which helps for other tax breaks (or punishments) that are pegged at AGI levels, such as medical expenses if itemizing deductions, passive losses, taxable Social Security income, and so on. In addition, non-itemizers essentially receive the benefit of a charitable contribution to offset the IRA distribution. Whether intentional or an oversight by Congress, the SECURE Act did not change the age at which a taxpayer can begin making QCDs and left it at age 70½ – no longer in synchronization with the revised RMD age of 72. Tax Trap – Unfortunately, that has created a situation that can be detrimental for individuals who have earned income and wish to utilize the QCD provisions and also continue to contribute to an IRA after age 70½. The problem being that a QCD must be reduced by the sum of IRA deductions made after age 70½ even if they are not in the same year, causing unexpected tax results for taxpayers that are not aware of this complication. This is best explained by a couple of examples.
Example #1 – Jack makes a deductible IRA contribution of $7,000 when he is age 71 and another $7,000 contribution at the age of 72. He claims an IRA deduction of $7,000 on his tax return for each year. Then later when he is 74, he makes a QCD in the amount $10,000 to his church’s building fund. Since Jack had made the IRA contributions after age 70½, his QCD must be reduced by the post-70½ contributions that were deducted, and as a result, the $10,000 is a taxable IRA distribution ($10,000 – 14,000 = ). However, he can claim $10,000 to the church building fund as a charitable contribution on Schedule A if he itemizes his deductions. In the next year, Jack makes a $5,000 QCD to the university where he got his degree. The excludable amount of the QCD is $1,000 ($5,000 – $4,000 = $1,000). The $4,000 is the amount that remained from post-age 70½ IRA contributions that didn’t previously offset QCDs. Jack includes $4,000 as taxable IRA income and can deduct $4,000 as a charitable contribution if he itemizes. No amount of post-age 70½ IRA contributions remains to reduce the excludable amount of QCDs for subsequent taxable years. Example #2 – Bob makes a traditional IRA contribution of $7,000 when he is age 71 and another $7,000 contribution at the age of 72 and deducts the IRA contributions on his returns. Then later when he is 74, he makes a QCD in the amount $20,000 to his church’s building fund. Since Bob had made the deductible IRA contributions after age 70½, his QCD must be reduced by the $14,000. As a result, of the $20,000 QCD, $14,000 is a taxable distribution, $6,000 is nontaxable, and Bob can claim a $14,000 charitable contribution
All this can become quite complicated. If you are considering making a QCD and made IRA contributions after age 70½ and don’t understand the tax ramifications, you should consider consulting with this office before you make the distribution.

Business Success Stories > The explosive growth of Zoom.

Video conferencing in and of itself is certainly nothing new. It’s been around in some form or another for decades — businesses used it for remote meetings in the 1990s, and personal users have been “Skyping” with friends and family members since high-speed Internet connections found their way into just about every home. But at the same time, certain organizations have become virtually synonymous with the trend in much the same way that “Google it” became shorthand for “search for something online” all those years ago. Zoom Video Communications is one such company. Originally launched in 2013 by a former Cisco engineer and executive named Eric Yuan, Zoom has enjoyed an almost unprecedented level of growth over the last two years, thanks in large part to the still-ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. In March 2020 as the Coronavirus began to make its way around the world, people were sent to work from home indefinitely during lockdowns. Of course, they still needed a way to communicate and collaborate with one another. They had to suddenly figure out how to be just as productive at home as they could be in the office. For many, Zoom became that solution. Charting the Rise of Zoom From just about every angle, it’s clear that COVID-19 has contributed enormously to Zoom’s current success. In January of 2020, for example, it was estimated that the service saw approximately 56,000 daily downloads. By February, that number had already climbed to 1.7 million. Just a month later, when the worldwide lockdowns and other social distancing restrictions began, it had risen again to 2.13 million — a trend that shows no signs of slowing down anytime soon. Likewise, the platform has also seen a dramatic surge in the number of people participating in meetings every day. After all, Zoom is a free download from both the service’s website and in various app stores — downloads don’t amount to much if people aren’t actively using the software. Thankfully for Zoom, they are. In December of 2019, there were approximately 10 million daily meeting participants as per the same research outlined above. In March of 2020, that number had climbed to 200 million. A month later and it had hit more than 300 million — pointing to a trend that was somehow still only getting stronger. The idea for Zoom was born from Eric Yuan, an immigrant from China who first arrived in the United States in the 1990s. Even back then, he was passionate about finding a way to make video calls not only easy but portable — and this was before the advent of the smartphone. His career began at WebEx, where he worked as an engineer. After WebEx was acquired by Cisco a decade later, he became that company’s Corporate Vice President of Engineering. He enjoyed a tremendous amount of success during that time… but he still had visions of something far bigger. While he was at Cisco, he listened carefully to customers who would express various complaints about how WebEx operated. They were constantly dealing with unreliable connections, with a disconnect between the audio and video and more. They even found the installation process frustrating — particularly in IT departments that were working with a large number of users. They wanted something faster, more reliable, more efficient and more straightforward. Yuan was more than happy to oblige. In 2011, he left Cisco and began to work on the solution that would become Zoom. It would officially launch in January of 2013, and by all accounts, it was a major hit right out of the gate. Not only did it hit one million active participants just a few months later in May, but Yuan was also able to secure funding of $10 million to continue his work. But even without the pandemic, Zoom still found a way to differentiate itself from so many other competitors in the marketplace. For starters, Yuan prioritized very low data usage — meaning that calls would still function on slower Internet connections and on mobile devices. Not only that, but Zoom was based in the cloud — virtually eliminating the irritating installation procedure that so many WebEx customers had complained about in the past. This also made it available on any device or platform, no exceptions. But even the “Pro” package cost just $9.99 per month at that time — far cheaper than just about anything out there. Even still, Zoom was offered to K-12 schools free of charge in many of the countries it had entered. All of this combined to form a perfect storm in the best possible way. Zoom had slowly begun to increase its market share, and then the COVID-19 pandemic acted as an accelerant that solidified what many in the industry already knew. Video conferencing was here to stay, and Zoom was now permanently tied to it. Sharing business success stories will help inspire you to stay focused and determined. If you need any assistance with your start-up or are scaling your business, feel free to give us a call.