HomeProductsPress CenterAuthors/AdvisorsTraining & Support
 
 

Recent Developments
Federal Tax Highlights
State Tax Highlights
Transfer Pricing
 
Selected Recent Legislation
and IRS Guidance
Pension Protection Act of 2006
Hurricane-Related Tax Relief
Tax Relief and Healthcare Act of 2006
 
Journals & Commentary
Insights and Commentary
International Tax Forum
Journal/Reports Highlights
International
Compensation Planning
Real Estate
Estates, Gifts & Trusts
 
Products
Request for Free Trial
Accounting Policy & Practice Series
BNA Tax & Accounting Center
News, Journals, Reports
BNA Software Products
2008 Catalog of Products & Services (PDF)
 
Productivity Tools
Quick Tax Reference
Tax Calendar
Useful Links
 
About BNA Tax & Accounting
About Us
Contact Us
 
 
Insights & Commentary

Recent Additions

Does Your Puerto Rico Qualified Retirement Plan Allow for Installment Payments? It Should!

By Carlos Gonzalez-Padro, Esq. The Home Depot, Atlanta, GA

For a host of tax and administrative reasons, most of the U.S. and international companies operating in Puerto Rico offer retirement benefits to their Puerto Rico employees by including those employees as participants in one or more retirement plans qualified only in Puerto Rico (commonly referred to as “P.R.-only qualified plans”), rather than as participants in the company's U.S. retirement plans. These P.R.-only qualified plans are generally designed as mirror plans of the equivalent U.S. plans. Except for certain provisions that reflect the technical differences between the U.S. and P.R. tax rules governing retirement plans (e.g., different limits on elective deferrals, different definitions of highly and non-highly compensated employee, and some qualification requirements that apply in one jurisdiction but not the other), the equivalent P.R. and U.S. plans are essentially alike. There is nothing inherently wrong with such approach, as it facilitates plan administration and it may even result in savings in recordkeeping and benefits communication costs. There is one area, however, where oftentimes U.S. and international companies simply replicate the U.S. plan terms when designing their P.R.-only qualified plans without realizing that it would be better to use different terms: the plan's alternatives for distribution.

Except for some limited rules regarding distributions in the form of employer stock and lump-sums to individuals born prior to 1936, the U.S. tax code no longer awards favorable tax treatment to particular forms of distribution. Whether a participant receives his or her benefits through a lump-sum payment or installments, the tax treatment is essentially the same; the taxable portion of the amount received is ordinary income and is taxed at the regular tax rates. Since lump-sums are easier and less expensive to administer than installments, and from a tax standpoint both are treated alike, many U.S. retirement plans, particularly 401(k) plans, have lump-sums as their only form of distribution. Participants who want to spread out the distribution of their retirement benefits over a series of years may do so by rolling their benefits over to an IRA and then selecting some other form of distribution within the IRA. Many U.S. and international companies follow that same approach when designing their P.R. retirement plans. The problem with that approach is that under the P.R. tax code the taxation of lump-sums is quite different from the taxation of installments, and in most cases participants of P.R.-only qualified plans would be better off receiving their retirement benefits through installments rather than lump-sums.

Under P.R. law there is one set of tax rules for lump-sums and another for installments. Lump-sums are taxed at a flat rate of 20%, or, if at least 10% of the participant's account (or for defined benefit plans, the plan assets) have been invested in P.R. assets during the two years prior to distribution, a flat rate of 12.5%. [It should be noted that at present few P.R.-only qualified plans are eligible to take advantage of the 12.5% rate, so in reality most lump-sum distributions are taxed at a 20% tax rate.] Lump-sums are likewise subject to an income tax withholding at source of 20% or 12.5%, as applicable (generally, 20%).

On the other hand, installments are taxed as ordinary income and are not subject to any income tax withholding at source. The key difference, however, is that installments are subject to an annual income exclusion that does not apply to lump-sums. Specifically, if on the last day of the taxable year of distribution the participant is younger than age 60, the first $10,000 that he or she receives in the form of installments from a P.R.-qualified plan is tax exempt, and if the participant is age 60 or older, the annual income exclusion increases to $14,000. For taxable years 2008 and beyond, this annual income exclusion is set to increase to $11,000 for participants younger than 60 and $15,000 for participants 60 or older. This annual income exclusion also applies to distributions to beneficiaries.

It should be noted that this is not a once-in-a-lifetime income exclusion, but an annual income exclusion. Participants get to exclude the relevant amount of retirement income each taxable year. The tax savings opportunity that this annual income exclusion offers is considerable and should not be overlooked. For example, if a participant has an account balance of $100,000, a lump-sum distribution would result in a tax liability of $20,000. In contrast if this participant were allowed to receive his or her benefits in the form of equal annual installments over a 10 year period, he or she will most likely not have to pay any taxes on the retirement benefits. Not even a cent. That is a $20,000 tax savings, and it is entirely legal. Since the average plan account for the majority of P.R.-only qualified plans is well below $100,000, it is possible that most participants will be able to shield their retirement benefits from local taxation by taking advantage of the annual income exclusion on installments. Only those participants with account balances above the $150,000 to $200,000 range are likely to be better off with lump-sum payments rather than 10-year installments. To accommodate both groups of participants, a P.R.-only qualified plan may be designed to offer both lump-sums and installments.

While installments are not subject to income tax withholding at source, the payor still has to report them to the P.R. Treasury Department (commonly known by its Spanish name as “Hacienda”). Specifically, the payor needs to prepare Hacienda Form 480.6A, officially known as “Informative Return for Income Not Subject to Withholding,” and send a copy thereof to Hacienda and the payee by February 28 of the year following the year of distribution. The mechanics of incorporating installments into a P.R.-only qualified plan are the same as for an equivalent U.S. retirement plan, i.e., the plan is formally amended, the recordkeeping system is setup for processing installments, the change is communicated to participants via a SMM or SPD, etc.

In conclusion, offering installments to participants and beneficiaries in P.R.-only qualified plans is a rather simple and inexpensive proposition which should significantly enhance the participants' retirement benefits, thus increase their level of satisfaction with the plan. For those U.S. and international companies whose P.R.-only qualified plans do not offer installments, this is a text book example of an easy opportunity to improve employee benefits at almost no cost or effort.

For more information, in the Tax Management Portfolios, see Gonzalez-Padro, 324 T.M., International Pension Planning -- Puerto Rico.