<?xml version='1.0' encoding='UTF-8'?>
			<?xml-stylesheet type='text/xsl' href='https://www.michigantaxblog.com/rss.xsl' ?>
			<rss version='2.0' xmlns:content='http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/'
					xmlns:atom='http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom'
					xmlns:dc='http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/'>
				<channel>
					<title>Michigan Tax Law Articles, Blog &amp; Documents | Foster Swift</title>
					<link>https://www.michigantaxblog.com/category/Employment-Tax-Withholding</link>
					<atom:link href='https://www.michigantaxblog.com/category/Employment-Tax-Withholding?rss' rel='self' type='application/rss+xml' />
					<description><![CDATA[The latest updates to Michigan Tax Law Articles, Blog &amp; Documents.]]></description>
					<lastBuildDate>Thu, 13 Aug 2026 08:16:01 -0400</lastBuildDate>
					
				<item>
				<title>Can Limited Partners Avoid Self-Employment Tax? What Fifth Circuit’s
Decision Means for Business Owners</title>
				<link>https://www.michigantaxblog.com/fifth-circuit-limited-partner-self-employment-tax-decision-business-owners</link>
<dc:creator>Michael C. Zahrt, Zachary W. Miller (Summer Associate)</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>fifth-circuit-limited-partner-self-employment-tax-decision-business-owners</guid>

					<pubDate>Mon, 20 Jul 2026 09:00:01 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>Business owners who operate through partnerships or LLCs taxed as partnerships should take note: a recent Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals decision could significantly reduce the amount of self-employment tax certain partners owe.</p> <p>Under long-standing tax law, partners generally pay self-employment (SECA) tax&mdash;currently 15.3%&mdash;on their share of business income. However, there is an important exception: the distributive share of income earned by a &ldquo;limited partner&rdquo; is typically not subject to SECA tax (although payments for services, called &ldquo;guaranteed&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

				<item>
				<title>Tax Folks Update: Golden Parachute Rules for Deferred Compensation Plans</title>
				<link>https://www.michigantaxblog.com/golden-parachute-rules-deferred-compensation-plans-best-practices</link>
<dc:creator>Nicholas J. Stock II</dc:creator>
<guid isPermaLink='false'>golden-parachute-rules-deferred-compensation-plans-best-practices</guid>

					<pubDate>Tue, 17 Mar 2026 09:00:02 -0400</pubDate>
					<description><![CDATA[<p>This article discusses the application of Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code and related treasury regulations (&ldquo;<strong>IRC</strong>&rdquo; or &ldquo;<strong>Code</strong>&rdquo;)<a name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1"><span>[1]</span></a>, best practices, and alternative approaches to structuring and approving parachute payments in the context of a deferred compensation plan (&ldquo;<strong>Plan</strong>&rdquo;) for a privately held domestic company (&ldquo;<strong>Company</strong>&rdquo;)<a name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"><span>[2]</span></a>. Assume a Plan such as a synthetic equity plan involving phantom stock to be paid in cash upon IRC 409A compliant payment events, substantially simplifying valuation issues noted below.</p> <p><strong>I. BACKGROUND</strong></p> <p>Section 280G&nbsp;... </p>]]></description>
</item>

			</channel></rss>