Stanford University Owes $43 Million Endowment Tax Bill

The university said it is actively working to repeal or limit the 1.4% tax on returns.

Stanford University’s $27.7 billion endowment will have to pay $42.9 million to satisfy the so-called endowment tax, a 1.4% excise tax that was included in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. It is the first year the tax has been collected, and the university said it will hurt the school’s financial aid.

“Over time, the tax will reduce funds available from the endowment to support financial aid and other essential support for our core academic mission,” Stanford University spokesperson Dee Mostofi wrote in a statement to The Stanford Daily.

“Stanford strongly opposes the tax and is actively working on efforts to repeal or limit the tax.”

The endowment tax, which was introduced into the tax code with the passing of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 levies a 1.4% excise tax on capital gains made by universities with more than 500 students and endowments that have more than $500,000 in assets per student. Stanford is one of an estimated 25 to 30 schools that are expected to have to pay the tax.

Never miss a story — sign up for CIO newsletters to stay up-to-date on the latest institutional investment industry news.

Mostofi said Stanford will only pay a portion of its endowment tax bill this July, as the current year tax is only applied to realized capital gains, which are made when the university sells its investments.

“The difference between the $42.9 million and current-year tax will be paid when the unrealized capital gains are eventually realized in future years,” Mostofi said.

Proponents of the tax have said it could encourage universities to direct more money toward making college more affordable for low-income students. However, Mostofi said that “while hampering the charitable mission of higher education institutions, the legislation does not help our country’s students and their families.”

Harvard University, which has an endowment worth approximately $40.9 billion, reported in October that it estimated that it will have to pay nearly $50 million to satisfy the excise tax for fiscal year 2019.

“Less money is now available for the university to maintain financial aid, which totaled $193 million for undergraduates this year,” wrote Thomas Hollister and Paul Finnegan, Harvard’s vice president for finance and treasurer respectively, in Harvard’s annual financial report.

“Uncertainty in federal research funding and the damaging tax on college and university endowments in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act also have the potential to hinder Harvard’s ability to grow investments in financial aid, teaching, and research across campus,” Harvard University President Lawrence Bacow also wrote in the financial report.

According to think tank the Tax Policy Center, the endowment tax is only expected to generate about $200 million a year, which it said is not a significant amount of revenue for the federal government, but could set a precedent for imposing further taxes on university endowments.

Related Stories:

IRS Issues Endowment Tax Regulations

Endowments Unharmed by Tax Law Changes…So Far

Minimizing the Endowment Tax

Tags: , , , , ,

Ex-NBA Player Says He Was Denied COLAs in Pension Case

Former Houston Rockets team member Zaid Abdul-Aziz is entitled to additional benefits for the rest of his life, suit says. 

A former NBA player petitioned the US Supreme Court last week to review his retirement benefits case, which alleges the National Basketball Association Players’ Pension Plan denied the retiree cost-of-living adjustments (COLAs) he was entitled to after his pension payments ended. 

The lawsuit from Zaid Abdul-Aziz, who played basketball for the NBA from 1968 to 1978, was thrown out of Second Circuit in November after previously failing to make it through the US District Court for the Southern District of New York in March. Among the six teams he played for were the Boston Celtics and the Houston Rockets.

Both courts ruled in favor of the NBA, which argued that Abdul-Aziz failed to file for breach of contract within the six-year statute of limitations. The former athlete filed his lawsuit in June 2017, roughly 16 years after his benefit payments ended in July 2001. 

But the plaintiff, who elected for a 10-year fixed benefit, asserted that the countdown clock for limitations should have started in June 2015, after the basketball player said he was first notified through written notice that he had had a right to COLAs. 

For more stories like this, sign up for the CIO Alert newsletter.

“The law is that the statute of limitations is not supposed to rule until there is a clear repudiation of an ERISA [Employee Retirement Income Security Act] benefit, so it’s our contention that Mr. Aziz was not put on notice of a right to additional benefits,” said Jason L. Melancon, counsel for Abdul-Aziz. 

“Prior to that, no letter addressed COLAs in his retirement benefits at all,” Melancon added. 

A spokesperson for the NBA could not be reached for comment. But in legal filings, an associate counsel for the NBA was cited as saying that the basketball player was provided with benefit illustrations that explained his 10-year payments “would equal the entire amount of his pension benefits.” In other words, that’s all he was entitled to receive.

That’s in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, Melancon said. Under the protection, Abdul-Aziz is entitled to COLA payments for the rest of his life, even if his payments from a fixed 10-year plan have expired, the lawyer said. The same is also true of retirees who elected for a lump-sum payment, he said. 

Melancon said the previous court rulings reflected a reluctance from judges to enforce retirement benefits more than a decade after pension payments ended. But the lawyer argued the case has far-reaching consequences beyond former NBA players. 

“Their ruling opens up a Pandora’s box, because now statute of limitations is going to be what employers use to deny additional retirement benefits to every single retiree who elects to receive an actuarial benefit,” Melancon said. “So, if you elected to use a lump sum benefit or a 10-year benefit, you’re screwed now.”

Related Stories: 

AT&T Plan Members Sue Over Early Retirement Calculations

Game Changer? Challenge to Pension Plan Could Bring More Lawsuits

Four Pension Plans Apply for Benefits Reductions

Tags: , , , , , , , ,

«