Close X
Attorney Spotlight

Find out which two countries Cheryl Palmeri gets the most questions about related to International Trade in today's market? Find out more>


Close X


Search our Experience

Experience Spotlight

In June 2016, AmSurg Corp. and Envision Healthcare Holdings, Inc. (Envision) announced they have signed a definitive merger agreement pursuant to which the companies will combine in an all-stock transaction. Upon completion of the merger, which is expected to be tax-free to the shareholders of both organizations, the combined company will be named Envision Healthcare Corporation and co-headquartered in Nashville, Tennessee and Greenwood Village, Colorado. The company's common stock is expected to trade on the New York Stock Exchange under the ticker symbol: EVHC. Bass, Berry & Sims served as lead counsel on the transaction, led by Jim Jenkins. Read more.

AmSurg logo

Close X

Thought Leadership

Enter your search terms in the relevant box(es) below to search for specific Thought Leadership.
To see a recent listing of Thought Leadership, click the blue Search button below.

Thought Leadership Spotlight

Inside the FCA blogInside the FCA blog features ongoing updates related to the False Claims Act (FCA), including insight on the latest legal decisions, regulatory developments and FCA settlements. The blog provides timely updates for corporate boards, directors, compliance managers, general counsel and other parties interested in the organizational impact and legal developments stemming from issues potentially giving rise to FCA liability.

Read More >

Supreme Court Overturns Sixth Circuit Ruling Exempting Certain Severance Payments from FICA


April 3, 2014

On March 25, 2014, the Supreme Court of the United States (the "Supreme Court") voted unanimously to overturn the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals (the "Sixth Circuit") ruling in United States v. Quality Stores, Inc. ("Quality Stores"). As we outlined in a previous alert, in September 2012, the Sixth Circuit ruled in Quality Stores that a type of severance payment called a supplemental unemployment compensation benefit ("SUB") payment does not constitute "wages" subject to the Federal Insurance Contributions Act ("FICA") tax under Section 3121 of the Internal Revenue Code (the "Code").

Generally, an employer must withhold an employee's estimated federal income tax and the employee's share of the FICA tax (at a rate of 7.65%) on wages earned by the employee. The employer also pays a corresponding share of the FICA tax on the employee's wages. In Quality Stores, the Sixth Circuit and, more recently, the Supreme Court considered whether SUB payments (i.e., amounts paid under an employer severance plan to an employee who was involuntarily terminated due to a plant closing, layoff or similar condition) are subject to the FICA tax.

Section 3121 of the Code does not expressly include or exclude SUB payments as "wages" subject to the FICA tax. As such, the Sixth Circuit looked to the treatment of SUB payments under Section 3402 of the Code, which defines "wages" for federal income tax withholding purposes. Section 3402(o) clearly directs employers to withhold federal income taxes from SUB payments "as if" they are wages. The Sixth Circuit read the "as if" language in Section 3402(o) to imply that Congress did not generally consider such payments to be wages. Otherwise, the Sixth Circuit reasoned, subsection (o) would be unnecessary. The Sixth Circuit thus concluded that SUB payments are not subject to FICA taxes. The Sixth Circuit's decision in Quality Stores was not consistent with an earlier decision of the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, which created the circuit split that invited the Supreme Court's recent determination.

The Supreme Court overturned the Sixth Circuit's decision in Quality Stores. The Supreme Court considered the treatment of severance payments generally for FICA tax purposes and concluded that given the broad definition of "wages" under Section 3121 and the absence of severance payments from its otherwise extensive list of specific exclusions, there was no need to look to Section 3402 for guidance. The Supreme Court rejected the argument that Section 3402(o) should be interpreted to exempt all severance payments from the FICA tax and held that the severance payments at issue were subject to the FICA tax. 

Some employers filed for a refund of FICA taxes in reliance on the Sixth Circuit's decision in Quality Stores. It is unclear whether the IRS will provide formal notice of the denial of such claims based on the Supreme Court's decision or will simply not respond to the claims. 

Please contact a Bass, Berry & Sims attorney if you need further guidance.

Related Professionals

Related Services


Visiting, or interacting with, this website does not constitute an attorney-client relationship. Although we are always interested in hearing from visitors to our website, we cannot accept representation on a new matter from either existing clients or new clients until we know that we do not have a conflict of interest that would prevent us from doing so. Therefore, please do not send us any information about any new matter that may involve a potential legal representation until we have confirmed that a conflict of interest does not exist and we have expressly agreed in writing to the representation. Until there is such an agreement, we will not be deemed to have given you any advice, any information you send may not be deemed privileged and confidential, and we may be able to represent adverse parties.