Henry (Hank) Roth
Senior Counsel
SIRVA Relocation

Hank Roth, Senior Counsel for SIRVA Relocation LLC has been involved in the relocation industry since 1988. Recently, Mr. Roth has devoted his time to sales, management and training of SIRVA’s products and services as well as the negotiation of new client contracts.  He is currently an appointed member of the Employee Relocation Council (ERC) Public Policy Committee dealing with industry-wide tax and legal issues. He has been invited to speak at numerous ERC local and national meetings including the Minnesota ERC, Wisconsin ERC, New England Relocation Association, Heart of America Relocation Council, Mid-West Regional ERC and the ERC National Relocation Conference. In 2006, he was awarded the prestigious ERC President’s Award for his work in obtaining the new Revenue Ruling 2005-74 from the Internal Revenue Service as well as the Meritorious Service Award for other contributions to the relocation industry.



Employers who reimburse brokers’ commissions and closing costs on the sale of their employees’ homes, as part of a relocation, create taxable income for those employees. Since the Tax Reform Act of 1993, no deductions for such relocation expenses are available to employees, and, therefore, all such payments create fully taxable income. As an example, the average sales commission and closing costs on a $300,000 home are approximately $24,000 or about 8% of the home’s value. Reimbursing these fees creates a tax liability for the transferee of approximately $8,400 in state, local and federal taxes. For transferees in high-income brackets, this tax liability can run as high as $11,400 (slightly under 50% of the estimated closing costs).

Many employers, attempting to relieve the tax liability for their employees, reimburse their employees for these taxes. In the relocation industry, this is commonly referred to as “gross up.” On a $8,400 tax liability, however, the initial reimbursement creates $3,300 in additional taxes for the transferee. Most companies also gross up this amount. If $8,400 is fully grossed up, so that the employee has no net-tax liability, total tax reimbursements come to an average of $16,080 (about 67% of the broker’s commissions and closing costs reimbursed) and can reach over $21,230 (about 88.5% of the reimbursement) for employees in the highest tax bracket.

To eliminate the creation of taxable income these reimbursements create, certain employers have used home purchase programs – also called “buyouts” – designed to utilize the tax effect of the 1972 IRS Revenue Ruling 72-339.  In November of 2005, the IRS finally issued an updated and very detailed new Revenue Ruling (Rev Rul 2005-74) which reaffirmed that home sale programs if constructed in alignment with the examples in the Revenue Ruling would still obtain the tax benefits of Rev. Ruling 72-339. Unfortunately, according to the Employee Relocation Counsel (ERC), historically the cost of buyout programs average almost 17% of the acquisition price of the home. As a result, many corporations have never employed home purchase programs, while others have abandoned buyouts and are looking for other options…read more.

To read the rest of the conversation, visit our resource library.

In the past, employers offering corporate relocation services had to assure that a home buyout price paid to the employee was a fair market value, no more and no less. The use of broker market analyses to help establish an appropriate listing price and independent appraisals to establish the buyout price was an attempt to assure that the home buyout price represented a fair market price.

Due to the rapidly declining real estate market, a questionable trend has reared its ugly head—employers who are desperate to find a way to increase a transferee’s home buyout offer, without triggering a “direct offer” scenario, are now asking for relocation appraisals without forecasting. A directed offer requires the IRS to treat the buyout amount paid to the employee, in excess of the home’s fair market value, as income to the employee.

Standard corporate relocation practice calls for appraisals that attempt to determine a home’s anticipated sale price taking into account current marketing conditions (known as a forecasting adjustment). Forecasting in a declining market results in lower appraised values than those without forecasting adjustments—ignoring a forecasting adjustment will likely result in the appraised value being inflated.

The result is that the employer pays an amount to the employee that is higher than fair market value while having appraisals that appear to support the value by not using the forecasting adjustment process.

As was pointed out by Pete Scott, Worldwide ERC Tax Counsel, in the tax and legal update session at the San Antonio Worldwide ERC Conference, risks of ignoring the forecasting component include a rejection by the IRS of the appraisal as good evidence of fair market value; the appearance of a directed offer; a departure from standard policy that could result in a purchase price substantially higher than the sales price and income that is taxable as wages and subject to withholding/payroll taxes. There was substantial agreement among the members of the ERC Public Policy Committee in San Antonio as well as among appraisers attending the meeting that the practice should be discouraged.

This strange reversal of practice is driven by the need for employers to do whatever is possible to encourage employees to accept their corporate relocations, while not creating additional income to the employee. Employers, however, should not abandon standard practices or depart from their own former policies regarding appraiser instructions by ignoring forecasting.

http://blog.sirva.com/blog/sirva-inc/0/0/c/n





A recording of The Fundamentals of Relocation Webinar session is now available. This session will provide a brief history of the industry, and a broad overview of the relocation process, including a review of the terms and concepts most common to relocation policy development and implementation. The discussion will include household goods and temporary living options, the home sale process based on IRS Revenue Rulings, and industry trends such as lump-sum benefits and high-cost area assistance.

 View the Webinar



fundamentals of relocation webinar

Thursday, May 22, 2008
1:00 p.m. EST (10:00 a.m. PT)

Speaker: David Barlow, SCRP, GMS, Senior Vice President, Client Support Services, SIRVA
Duration: One hour

This "relocation 101" webinar is designed for new relocation professionals, procurement managers and supply chain managers who would like an overview of relocation fundamentals, and for anyone who wants to stay current with the latest policy trends and best practices.

This session will provide a brief history of the industry, and a broad overview of the relocation process, including a review of the terms and concepts most common to relocation policy development and implementation. The discussion will include household goods and temporary living options, the home sale process based on IRS Revenue Rulings, and industry trends such as lump-sum benefits and high-cost area assistance.

Register at
https://van.webex.com/van/j.php?ED=91994767&RG=1

Details for joining the session will be included in the registration confirmation e-mail


What’s new? Well, everything that has to do with the current real estate market is new to most of us. We in the relocation industry have experienced almost two decades of prosperity and have gotten used to the good life.

 

Suddenly, we find a huge number of transferees are “upside down”, “under water” or any one of a number of other terms or phrases to describe a phenomenon that arises out of the transferee being unable to sell their home in a timely fashion for an amount of money that allows the employee to pay off the liens on their homes.

 

Issues that were only occasionally raised are commonplace today in the management of relocation home sale programs.

 

A few of the issues that will be discussed in the future:

  1. Caps on relocation costs – In an economic downturn where everyone is focused on cost containment, is it tax-safe to develop home sale programs where there is a cap on commissions, closing costs, etc. requiring the employee to share in the costs?   
  2. The one year rule - What does it really apply to? Are there tax implications and exceptions to the rule?
  3. Directed offers – It seems that using directed offers is becoming more common with employees finding themselves unable to realize enough from the sale of their home to pay off their liens. What about the use of directed offers and the tax implications of using them?
  4. Loss-on-sale – What are the best practices in offering a loss-on-sale program?
  5. Short sales – What is a short sale process? How prevalent is its use? What are the benefits of using the process and what are the tax and cost ramifications of using it for the employee and the employer?

If you have other issues you would like me to discuss, let me know in the comment section of the blog.

 

Hank