United States: Federal Appeals Court Holds That Supplemental Unemployment Compensation Benefits Are Not ‘Wages’ Subject To FICA Taxation, Creating Circuit Split

Last Updated: April 19 2013
Article by Robert S. Hertzberg, Mike Reed and Lisa B. Petkun

Overview

In an important recent decision, United States v. Quality Stores, Inc., et al., Case No. 01-1563, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 18820 (6th Cir. Sept. 7, 2012), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit held that supplemental unemployment compensation benefits (SUB payments) paid by a bankrupt company to its former employees were not wages subject to taxation under the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA). Accordingly, the employer and its former employees were entitled to refunds of amounts paid to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) on account of FICA taxes from severance payments that had been made after the employer filed for bankruptcy. The Sixth Circuit declined to follow a contrary 2008 decision on the issue of the Federal Circuit, CSX Corp. v. United States, 518 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2008), the only other court of appeals decision to address the issue. The refund claim at issue in Quality Stores totals approximately $1 million (plus interest); it is estimated that similar pending refund claims total over $4 billion.

A reduction in federal tax liability is obviously beneficial to both employer and employee taxpayers. The Quality Stores decision could be especially beneficial to lower wage employees for whom FICA taxes constitute a major portion of their federal tax liability. Elimination of FICA tax liability would also increase the disposable income available to employees already suffering reduced earning prospects as a result of being laid off.

From the employer standpoint, the reduced FICA tax liability would free up money for deployment elsewhere in the enterprise at a time when funds may be tight. Employers who made severance payments to involuntarily terminated employees during the last few years could be affected by the decision. Thousands of companies are believed to have filed protective refund requests totaling $4 billion or more. Taxpayers should be aware of both a three-year statute of limitations to file a refund claim and a two-year statute of limitations for bringing a lawsuit after the denial of a refund request. It appears that many taxpayers have filed refund requests within the statute of limitations period to ensure that such requests were timely filed. It is believed that the IRS has been inundated with refund claims and, therefore, may not have processed the claims and communicated with taxpayers about the status of such claims in an orderly fashion. As a result, some taxpayers may be unaware that their refund requests have been denied because they may not have received notice of the denial. In such a case, the taxpayer may be unaware that the two-year period is running. Where lawsuits have been filed, the government reportedly has moved to stay the action pending the outcome of the Quality Stores litigation.

Quality Stores not only created a conflict among the federal courts of appeal on the applicability of FICA taxes to SUB payments, but it also raised a number of other important issues, including the level of deference to be afforded to IRS revenue rulings; the continued validity of the Supreme Court's decision in Rowan; Cos v. United States; the impact of the so-called "decoupling amendment" (discussed below) on Rowan; and the Treasury's ability to change the treatment of SUB payments under FICA through Treasury regulations.

Background

Quality Stores, Inc. was the largest agriculture-specialty retailer in the country. In October 2001, Quality Stores and its affiliates filed Chapter 11 petitions, closed all of its stores and distribution centers, and terminated all of its employees. In addition, Quality Stores made severance payments to those employees whose employment was involuntarily terminated pursuant to severance plans that did not tie the payments to the receipt of state unemployment compensation, nor were the payments attributable to the provision of any particular services by the employees.

Because the severance payments constituted gross income to the employees for federal income tax purposes, under a special statutory provision, Quality Stores reported the payments as wages on W-2 forms and withheld federal income tax. Quality Stores also paid the employer's share of FICA tax and withheld each employee's share of FICA tax. The IRS contended that most SUB payments constitute wages subject to FICA tax, except for SUB payments that satisfy an eight-factor test established in certain IRS revenue rulings—including a requirement that the payments be tied to the receipt of state unemployment compensation benefits. Although Quality Stores collected and paid the FICA tax, it did not agree with the IRS that the severance payments constituted wages for FICA purposes. Quality Stores took the position that the severance payments were not wages subject to FICA tax.

Therefore, in September 2002, Quality Stores timely filed with the IRS refund claims on behalf of itself and certain of the former employees seeking the refund of all of the amounts paid for FICA tax, totaling approximately $1 million. After the IRS failed to allow or deny the refund claim, Quality Stores commenced an adversary proceeding in the bankruptcy court to recover the refund in June 2005. The parties stipulated that, to the extent that the refund claim was allowed, Quality Stores would also be entitled to recover interest on the claim.

Lower Court Decisions

In February 2008, the bankruptcy court ruled in favor of Quality Stores, holding that the claimants were not liable for FICA taxes and were entitled to a refund. In its opinion, the bankruptcy court relied, in part, upon the decision of the Court of Federal Claims in CSX Corp., Inc. v. United States, 52 Fed. Cl. 208 (Fed. Cl. 2002). However, subsequent to the bankruptcy court's decision, the Federal Circuit issued its decision in CSX, reversing the Court of Federal Claims. Based upon CSX, the government moved for reconsideration of the bankruptcy court's decision. In August 2008, the bankruptcy court granted the government's motion for reconsideration but declined to follow the Federal Circuit's decision in CSX and ratified its prior decision. The government appealed the bankruptcy court's decision to the district court. In February 2010, the district court also declined to follow CSX and affirmed the bankruptcy court. In April 2010, the government appealed to the Sixth Circuit.

Origin of SUB Payments

In its opinion affirming the lower courts, the Sixth Circuit noted that the concept of SUB payments first appeared during the 1950s, evolving from the demand by organized labor for a guaranteed annual wage. SUB plans were developed to assure workers of employment security regardless of the number of hours actually worked, rather than to provide employees with additional compensation for work performed. When employers began adopting plans under collective bargaining agreements to fund trusts for the purpose of making SUB payments to employees in the event of unexpected job layoff or termination, it was critical that SUB payments not be characterized as "wages." If SUB payments constituted wages, then unemployed workers could not qualify for unemployment benefits under most states' laws, and the unavailability of unemployment benefits would largely defeat the purpose of SUB payments.

Definitions of 'Wages' and 'SUB Payments'

Congress imposed the FICA tax on employee wages to fund the Social Security and Medicare programs. The employer collects the employee's share by deducting the tax from wages as they are paid. The employer also pays a matching tax on the wages paid to the employee. Congress defined "wages" for FICA tax purposes (with certain exceptions) as "all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration (including benefits) paid in any medium other than cash ...." "Employment," for purposes of FICA, means "any service, of whatever nature, performed ... by an employee for the person employing him." For purposes of income tax withholding, the Internal Revenue Code ("IRC") contains a nearly identical definition of "wages." In Rowan Cos. v. United States, 452 U.S. 247 (1981), the Supreme Court held that Congress intended the term "wages" to carry the same meaning for purposes of both FICA and federal income tax withholding.

The withholding tax provisions of the IRC contain the following definition of "SUB payments":

amounts which are paid to an employee, pursuant to a plan to which the employer is a party, because of an employee's involuntary separation from employment (whether or not such separation is temporary), resulting directly from a reduction in force, the discontinuance of a plant or operation, or other similar conditions, but only to the extent such benefits are includable in the employee's gross income. 26 U.S.C. §3402(o)(2)(A).

SUB Payments Are Not Wages

The parties had essentially stipulated that the severance payments made by Quality Stores satisfied this statutory definition. The Sixth Circuit noted that the IRC provides that a SUB payment "shall be treated as if it were a payment of wages" for purposes of the withholding tax provisions. The court found that the necessary implication arising from this phrase is that Congress did not consider SUB payments to be "wages," but allowed their treatment as wages to facilitate federal income tax withholding for taxpayers. The court further found that Congress's intention that SUB payments not constitute wages was supported by the legislative history. Thus, the Sixth Circuit concluded that, even though SUB payments are treated as wages for purposes of income tax withholding, all of such payments actually constitute non-wages. Moreover, because Rowan requires that the term "wages" be given the same meaning for purposes of FICA and income tax withholding, the court held that all SUB payments also constitute non-wages for purposes of FICA.

Sixth Circuit Rejects the Government's Other Arguments

The Sixth Circuit rejected the government's argument that Congress had legislatively superseded Rowan when it enacted the so-called "decoupling amendment" as part of the Social Security Amendments of 1983. That amendment, as written, authorized the Treasury Department to promulgate regulations to provide for different exclusions from "wages" under FICA than under the income tax withholding provisions. But, the court noted, the Secretary of the Treasury has never promulgated any regulations under the decoupling amendment.

The Sixth Circuit also rejected the government's argument that Rowan was eroded by the Supreme Court's decision in Environmental Defense Fund v. Duke Energy Corp., 549 U.S. 561 (2007). On this point, the Sixth Circuit agreed with the reasoning of the Federal Circuit, which in CSX held that Duke Energy did not affect the continuing validity of Rowan. The Sixth Circuit also rejected the government's argument that the Supreme Court's decision in Mayo Found. for Med. Educ. & Research v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 704 (2011), undercut the validity of Rowan. In Mayo Found., the Supreme Court concerned itself with Rowan's status as a case decided before Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984), which accorded less deference to a Treasury regulation than is now required under Chevron. However, the court held that Mayo Found. added nothing of significance to the legal analysis in the present case.

Sixth Circuit Declines to Follow the Federal Circuit

The Sixth Circuit's holding that Rowan remains good law was consistent with the Federal Circuit's decision in CSX. However, the Sixth Circuit disagreed with one significant aspect of the Federal Circuit's decision in CSX. The Federal Circuit in CSX had confined the congressional definition of SUB pay in IRC § 3402(o) to federal income tax withholding only and did not rely on Rowan to conclude that the same statutory definition applies to FICA tax. The Sixth Circuit disagreed with this analysis, finding it to be inconsistent with other authority in the Federal Circuit. The Sixth Circuit relied on Rowan to reach the conclusion that if Congress decided that all SUB payments are non-wages for purposes of federal income tax withholding, then all SUB payments are also non-wages for purposes of FICA.

Revenue Rulings Did Not Control Decision

Finally, the Sixth Circuit found that the revenue rulings relied upon by the government did not alter its opinion. The court held that it would not accept the government's argument, which would have given greater significance to the IRS's revenue and private letter rulings than to congressional intent as expressed in the statutory language and legislative history.

Subsequent Developments

On October 18, 2012, the government filed a petition for rehearing en banc and on December 14, 2012, the appellees filed a response opposing the government's petition. If the petition is granted, the panel's decision will be reviewed by all of the judges in regular active service on the Sixth Circuit. If the petition is denied, many observers expect the government to ask the U.S. Supreme Court to review the decision and believe there is a good chance that the Court would accept the case for review. However, it is also possible that the government will not seek to have the Supreme Court review the case but rather will continue to litigate the issues in other circuits. In the meantime, Quality Stores will provide strong support to taxpayers seeking refunds of FICA taxes paid in connection with the many workforce reductions that have occurred during the Great Recession.

This article was published in Shopping Center Legal Update

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

Authors
Lisa B. Petkun
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
 
In association with
Related Topics
 
Similar Articles
Relevancy Powered by MondaqAI
Related Articles
 
Related Video
Up-coming Events Search
Tools
Print
Font Size:
Translation
Channels
Mondaq on Twitter
 
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
 
Email Address
Company Name
Password
Confirm Password
Position
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Accounting
 Anti-trust
 Commercial
 Compliance
 Consumer
 Criminal
 Employment
 Energy
 Environment
 Family
 Finance
 Government
 Healthcare
 Immigration
 Insolvency
 Insurance
 International
 IP
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Litigation
 Media & IT
 Privacy
 Real Estate
 Strategy
 Tax
 Technology
 Transport
 Wealth Mgt
Regions
Africa
Asia
Asia Pacific
Australasia
Canada
Caribbean
Europe
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
U.K.
United States
Worldwide Updates
Registration (you must scroll down to set your data preferences)

Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including your content preferences, for three primary purposes (full details of Mondaq’s use of your personal data can be found in our Privacy and Cookies Notice):

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting to show content ("Content") relevant to your interests.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, news alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our content providers ("Contributors") who contribute Content for free for your use.

Mondaq hopes that our registered users will support us in maintaining our free to view business model by consenting to our use of your personal data as described below.

Mondaq has a "free to view" business model. Our services are paid for by Contributors in exchange for Mondaq providing them with access to information about who accesses their content. Once personal data is transferred to our Contributors they become a data controller of this personal data. They use it to measure the response that their articles are receiving, as a form of market research. They may also use it to provide Mondaq users with information about their products and services.

Details of each Contributor to which your personal data will be transferred is clearly stated within the Content that you access. For full details of how this Contributor will use your personal data, you should review the Contributor’s own Privacy Notice.

Please indicate your preference below:

Yes, I am happy to support Mondaq in maintaining its free to view business model by agreeing to allow Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors whose Content I access
No, I do not want Mondaq to share my personal data with Contributors

Also please let us know whether you are happy to receive communications promoting products and services offered by Mondaq:

Yes, I am happy to received promotional communications from Mondaq
No, please do not send me promotional communications from Mondaq
Terms & Conditions

Mondaq.com (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd (Mondaq). Mondaq grants you a non-exclusive, revocable licence to access the Website and associated services, such as the Mondaq News Alerts (Services), subject to and in consideration of your compliance with the following terms and conditions of use (Terms). Your use of the Website and/or Services constitutes your agreement to the Terms. Mondaq may terminate your use of the Website and Services if you are in breach of these Terms or if Mondaq decides to terminate the licence granted hereunder for any reason whatsoever.

Use of www.mondaq.com

To Use Mondaq.com you must be: eighteen (18) years old or over; legally capable of entering into binding contracts; and not in any way prohibited by the applicable law to enter into these Terms in the jurisdiction which you are currently located.

You may use the Website as an unregistered user, however, you are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the Content or to receive the Services.

You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these Terms or with the prior written consent of Mondaq. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information from the Content. Nor shall you extract information about users or Contributors in order to offer them any services or products.

In your use of the Website and/or Services you shall: comply with all applicable laws, regulations, directives and legislations which apply to your Use of the Website and/or Services in whatever country you are physically located including without limitation any and all consumer law, export control laws and regulations; provide to us true, correct and accurate information and promptly inform us in the event that any information that you have provided to us changes or becomes inaccurate; notify Mondaq immediately of any circumstances where you have reason to believe that any Intellectual Property Rights or any other rights of any third party may have been infringed; co-operate with reasonable security or other checks or requests for information made by Mondaq from time to time; and at all times be fully liable for the breach of any of these Terms by a third party using your login details to access the Website and/or Services

however, you shall not: do anything likely to impair, interfere with or damage or cause harm or distress to any persons, or the network; do anything that will infringe any Intellectual Property Rights or other rights of Mondaq or any third party; or use the Website, Services and/or Content otherwise than in accordance with these Terms; use any trade marks or service marks of Mondaq or the Contributors, or do anything which may be seen to take unfair advantage of the reputation and goodwill of Mondaq or the Contributors, or the Website, Services and/or Content.

Mondaq reserves the right, in its sole discretion, to take any action that it deems necessary and appropriate in the event it considers that there is a breach or threatened breach of the Terms.

Mondaq’s Rights and Obligations

Unless otherwise expressly set out to the contrary, nothing in these Terms shall serve to transfer from Mondaq to you, any Intellectual Property Rights owned by and/or licensed to Mondaq and all rights, title and interest in and to such Intellectual Property Rights will remain exclusively with Mondaq and/or its licensors.

Mondaq shall use its reasonable endeavours to make the Website and Services available to you at all times, but we cannot guarantee an uninterrupted and fault free service.

Mondaq reserves the right to make changes to the services and/or the Website or part thereof, from time to time, and we may add, remove, modify and/or vary any elements of features and functionalities of the Website or the services.

Mondaq also reserves the right from time to time to monitor your Use of the Website and/or services.

Disclaimer

The Content is general information only. It is not intended to constitute legal advice or seek to be the complete and comprehensive statement of the law, nor is it intended to address your specific requirements or provide advice on which reliance should be placed. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the Content for any purpose. All Content provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq and/or its Contributors and other suppliers hereby exclude and disclaim all representations, warranties or guarantees with regard to the Content, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. To the maximum extent permitted by law, Mondaq expressly excludes all representations, warranties, obligations, and liabilities arising out of or in connection with all Content. In no event shall Mondaq and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use of the Content or performance of Mondaq’s Services.

General

Mondaq may alter or amend these Terms by amending them on the Website. By continuing to Use the Services and/or the Website after such amendment, you will be deemed to have accepted any amendment to these Terms.

These Terms shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of England and Wales and you irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of England and Wales to settle any dispute which may arise out of or in connection with these Terms. If you live outside the United Kingdom, English law shall apply only to the extent that English law shall not deprive you of any legal protection accorded in accordance with the law of the place where you are habitually resident ("Local Law"). In the event English law deprives you of any legal protection which is accorded to you under Local Law, then these terms shall be governed by Local Law and any dispute or claim arising out of or in connection with these Terms shall be subject to the non-exclusive jurisdiction of the courts where you are habitually resident.

You may print and keep a copy of these Terms, which form the entire agreement between you and Mondaq and supersede any other communications or advertising in respect of the Service and/or the Website.

No delay in exercising or non-exercise by you and/or Mondaq of any of its rights under or in connection with these Terms shall operate as a waiver or release of each of your or Mondaq’s right. Rather, any such waiver or release must be specifically granted in writing signed by the party granting it.

If any part of these Terms is held unenforceable, that part shall be enforced to the maximum extent permissible so as to give effect to the intent of the parties, and the Terms shall continue in full force and effect.

Mondaq shall not incur any liability to you on account of any loss or damage resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of these Terms if such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control of Mondaq. Such events, occurrences or causes will include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, server and network failure, riots, acts of war, earthquakes, fire and explosions.

By clicking Register you state you have read and agree to our Terms and Conditions