Search Results

February 2, 2017 Recently, the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) released the annual update for its tax expenditure list, which included the exclusion for death benefits for the first time. The JCT defines a tax expenditure as, “revenue losses attributable to provisions of the Federal tax laws which allow a special exclusion, exemption, or deduction from gross income or which provide a special credit, a preferential rate of tax, or a deferral of tax liability.” This move was foreshadowed by last year’s JCT tax expenditure report, which indicated that the committee was considering adding death benefits to the list. The JCT estimated the cost of the exclusion to be $128.3 billion over five years. Despite the updated JCT tax expenditure list, it is unlikely that this latest report will impact the current development of tax reform legislation in Congress. Currently, our tax system does not tax income proceeds from any form of insurance—whether from life insurance, disability insurance, health insurance, homeowner’s insurance, or auto insurance—and Mezrah Consulting will continue to assist organizations educating the JCT about the current and appropriate tax treatment of death benefits. In December 2015, the JCT removed inside build-up from the tax expenditure list, recognizing its appropriate tax treatment. If you have any questions regarding income tax proceeds from death benefits, please call Mezrah Consulting at (813) 367-1111 or email us at MezrahClientServices@mezrahconsulting.com. Source: AALU

There is a general understanding that an element of the small captive insurance company industry is improperly using the tax exemption 831(b) to shield taxable income. In an effort to study and minimize the abuse, the IRS, on November 1, 2016, issued Notice 2016-66 identifying a specified captive insurance company design defined under IRS code section 831(b) as a “transaction of interest.” Taxpayers owning and using any 831(b) captive need to be aware of these changes to determine if they might be covered by it, and if so, what they need to do now and moving forward. If disclosure obligations are not followed properly, significant penalties can be applied for noncompliance. What changed? It is important to understand exactly what the IRS is now terming a transaction of interest. If the transaction is yielding tax benefits that abuse the law to achieve benefits that the IRS views as inappropriate, it can classify that transaction as an abusive tax shelter. Before the IRS can make a determination that a transaction is or is not abusive, it can identify the transaction as a “transaction of interest.” Not all 831(b) captives are transactions of interest and even if a captive is labeled a transaction of interest, it does not necessarily mean it’s abusive. If a captive insurance company is structured in a way that marks it as a transaction of interest, then several parties related to that structure have a reporting requirement. If not supported by the law, it would have potential penalties, however, just being classified as a transaction of interest does not mean or imply that there is any additional tax required or that there is any penalty for underpayment of taxes. Visit the IRS website to further understand how a transaction of interest is being defined. The reporting obligation can be time-consuming and applies to the captive itself, its owners, the insured company and the company promoting the captive. All of these may be considered participants and must file a Form 8886. These are described in detail here. The Forms must be filed by January 30, 2017, which is a hard deadline carrying heavy penalties if missed. Additionally, any material advisor, anybody who gave paid advice (subject to minimum fee requirements) constituting a “tax statement” to the participants, will need to complete an alternate form. Any affected 831(b) captive must disclose certain information on IRS Form 8918, Material Advisor Disclosure Statement. The information provided is meant as a general overview, and captive participants and advisors are cautioned to work with their own tax counsel to fully understand the implications of the Notice 2016-66. If you own an 831(b) micro-captive and are unsure of your need to complete Form 8886, please contact Mezrah Consulting.

December 27, 2016 Source: The Jewish Press of Pinellas County Bryan Glazer Family JCC Grand Opening The Mezrah Family Aquatics Center at the Bryan Glazer Family Jewish Community Center (JCC) grand opening was held on December 8, 2016. The JCC, located in West Tampa, has not only an indoor/outdoor café, fitness center, theater, and spa, but also the Roberta M. Golding Center for the Visual Arts. A preschool is scheduled for construction next to the Aquatics Center once funding is secured. The Glazer Center offers fitness training and classes. Various art classes are offered at the Visual Arts Center which is run by the City of Tampa Department of Parks & Recreation along with the Tampa Museum of Art in partnership with the Hillsborough County Board of Commissioners. The Center can also accommodate corporate, social and private events. Diane and Leon Mezrah, along with their son, Lee Mezrah, and Shari Mezrah (wife of Todd Mezrah) attended the ribbon cutting ceremony. Shari was visibly excited describing the event and the JCC to MC staff. “They cleaned and fixed up the old Armory building and made it beautiful! Not only can you workout, they offer fitness trainers, yoga, and massages. You can take classes in jewelry making and glass working. It truly is an inclusive facility that offers it all!” To find out more about the Bryan Glazer Family JCC’s various offerings, or to look into membership, please visit the JCC website.

There are many moving parts when it comes to building a successful company. Managing day-to-day operations, overseeing the development and enhancement of products, cultivating an award-winning customer service team, attracting and retaining talent, and even more so now, navigating a clear path through the political, economic and global changes that face organizations every day. Success depends on executive leadership to drive all of the company’s strategic and financial initiatives. These dependable, hard-working employees create the foundation of a successful organization and expect a compensation and benefits package that goes beyond a paycheck and traditional bonus plan. They want to be recognized for their contributions with additional benefits that protect their future and that of their families. So how do you properly attract, retain and reward those individuals? One possible solution is to create a supplemental executive retirement plan (SERP). A SERP is a deferred compensation agreement between the company and the selected key executive, where the company agrees to provide supplemental retirement income to the executive if the executive meets certain pre-determined eligibility, years of service, performance and vesting conditions. A SERP provides benefits in addition to those covered in other traditional retirement plans such as IRA, 401(k) or pension plan. A properly designed SERP can not only attract and retain a highly compensated employee important to the organization, but it can also help to facilitate a smooth transition from the employee to new executive leadership after a certain period of service, or upon retirement. Benefits for the Company: Retain key executive talent and keep in place the team that is driving corporate growth and profitability Relatively easy to implement and requires no IRS approval or involved administration Employer controls the plan design and eligible group Plans can be designed with manageable profit and loss impact if appropriately designed and financed Plans can be designed with the ability to recover costs plus a cost of money Allows customized options to determine contribution and/or benefit amounts that correspond with the company’s needs and financial sensitivities Benefit amounts are not subject to disclosure in the Summary Compensation Table but rather are noted within a separate benefits table Significantly less costly to provide a SERP benefit as opposed to losing a key executive who could leave the company with intellectual capital and industry and customer relationships Plan benefits a select group of executives and can be driven by years of service, company performance (ROI, ROE, ROA, net income, revenue, etc.) or a combination of both. Designs can take the form of a defined benefit plan (e.g. percentage of final average compensation), defined contribution plan (e.g. percentage of compensation contributed annually) or can take the form of a Private Equity whereby the executive earns a preferred return and then profit shares with the company above some income threshold. Benefits for the Executive: Compensation is deferred and not subject to income tax until received Benefits, once received, are not subject to FICA Benefits can be distributed to eliminate state tax Benefit amounts can make up a meaningful part of one’s retirement income (40-60% of total final average compensation) In the event the executive dies, a lump-sum survivor benefit can be provided to the executive’s beneficiary equal to the present value of future benefits Benefits can be secured via a grantor trust from a change in control, change in heart or the company’s inability to pay plan benefits Planning retention and succession strategies are essential for any business. A SERP is a proven strategy used to attract and retain top talent and can help the business achieve specific financial and business goals. Before moving forward, we would recommend that you discuss your options regarding plan design, plan funding, plan security and plan administration with our team of knowledgeable consultants. To learn more, contact Mezrah Consulting now. December 2016

Target date funds (also known as lifecycle funds) have become increasingly popular in retirement plans. Close to 70% of 401(k) and profit sharing plans offered target date funds in 2014, according to the most recent survey by the Plan Sponsor Council of America.* Are target date funds a good fit for your plan? What criteria are important when choosing to use them in a plan? Understanding What They Are Target date funds automatically rebalance their asset allocations and generally become more conservative as the target date gets closer. The change in asset allocation is referred to as the glide path. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) has emphasized the need for plan sponsors to understand a fund’s glide path, which can be either “to retirement” or “through retirement.” With “to retirement” target date funds, the equity portion of the fund’s asset allocation is reduced to its most conservative point at the target retirement date. “Through retirement” funds reach their most conservative asset allocation some years after the retirement target date. Important Differences Glide paths of funds with the same target dates may vary from fund to fund. For example, funds may differ in the percentage originally allocated to equity. They may also differ in when they start reducing their equity exposure and the rate at which it’s reduced. Another difference is that the asset allocation may follow an established glide path or be actively managed based on market conditions. Underlying funds may be actively managed, passively managed, or a combination of both. Fees for active management are generally higher than for passive management, which is designed to track the performance of benchmark indices. Guidance for Choosing Target Date Funds In February 2013, the DOL’s Employee Benefits Security Administration issued guidance to employers and other fiduciaries of retirement plans for selecting and monitoring target date funds. The DOL emphasized that there are considerable differences among target date fund — even among those with the same target date. When selecting target date funds, the DOL suggests the plan fiduciaries take several steps. These include: Establishing a process for comparing and choosing target date funds. Information to consider should include investment returns, fees, and expenses and also how well the target date fund’s characteristics align with the ages of eligible employees and the dates they are likely to retire. Creating a plan to regularly review the funds. Be aware of any significant changes in strategy, management, or other criteria since the last review. Understanding the target date fund’s asset allocation, as well as the risks, strategies, and the glide path of the fund. Review fees and investment expenses. Some target date funds invest directly in individual stocks and bonds, but if the target date fund is a “fund of funds” that invests in other mutual funds, the plan sponsor should be aware of the fees and expenses for both the target date fund and the underlying funds. Creating effective plan participant communications, including required regulatory disclosures. Employees should understand what target date funds are, what the glide path is, and how it works. Documenting the selection and ongoing review of target date funds for the plan. Know Your Plan Participants Since different target date funds have different asset allocations over their glide paths, having an understanding of the demographics of your plan participants and their asset allocations may help you choose target date funds for your plan. This is especially important if you use target date funds as your plan’s qualified default investment alternative, as many plan sponsors do. If your plan already has a target date fund option, it may be beneficial to review how participants are using the funds. Although target date funds are designed as a sole investment option, participants often invest in a target date fund and other options. Participants may also be invested in multiple target date funds. There may be a need to provide additional education to help participants better understand the target date concept. Communication Is Critical Providing information to your participants to clear up any misconceptions is vitally important to getting the maximum benefit of having target date funds in your plan. Points of emphasis can include that target date funds aren’t guaranteed against losses and that reaching a target date doesn’t necessarily mean that investors have saved enough to meet their retirement goals. If you offer funds that don’t reach their most conservative allocation until after the target date, participants should understand the risks involved with having greater exposure to more volatile investments as they approach their retirement date and eventually retire. According to the DOL, such funds may be most appropriate for participants who expect to take their money out of the plan gradually after they retire rather that withdraw all their plan savings at retirement. Having accurate expectations of target date funds should not only improve the participants’ investing experience but your overall plan experience as well. Source: Pension Investors Corporation * 58th Annual Survey of Profit Sharing and 401(k) Plans, Plan Sponsor Council of America, 2015 November 2016

Incentivizing executives to meet business objectives is one of the most important factors in designing executive benefit packages. A sound plan depends on good governance and well-established compensation practices that are aligned with the organization’s overall goals. There are several types of executive benefit plans and each one compensates differently according to the needs of the organization’s industry. To be assured you are maximizing your efforts, consult with your third party administrator to determine which package will suit your company best. When you are ready to move forward it is important to consider the following elements: 1) Define the eligible group. Who do you want to impact? Unlike qualified plans, which must be offered to a non-discriminatory group of employees, a non-qualified plan may be offered to a select group based on certain job titles and/or level of compensation and responsibilities. 2) Outline the purpose. Understand that the executive benefits package is designed to attract and retain select talent, reward performance and years of service. These benefits help you attract the key executives who will contribute to your company’s growth and profitability. 3) Determine competitiveness. There is tremendous competition to retain valuable, high-performing executives. Know your industry’s peer group and what other organizations are providing to their executives. A balanced benefit package that incentivizes performance can also improve recruitment and retention efforts, positioning your company to achieve its set business goals. 4) Identify benefit types. There are many factors beyond compensation that you will need to consider when assembling an executive benefit package. Voluntary plans, company contributions, make up contribution plans due to government limitations in qualified plans, and enhancements to existing group benefit plans (life insurance, disability, and long-term care) are all components that will need to carefully be addressed. 5) Create a solid framework. In designing the overall executive benefits package, make sure each component is well defined and documented. Important factors include – defined contribution, defined benefit, wealth building, wealth preservation, personal risk mitigation or elimination, personal asset protection and credit exposure to the organization. 6) Understand plan costs. It is critical to the financial well-being of the organization to understand the total costs associated with the executive benefits package. Be sure to review your organization’s corporate financial sensitivity to cash flow and profit and loss (P&L), economic costs, as well as tax costs to the executives you are compensating. 7) Verify proxy disclosure. How sensitive is your company to disclosure of benefits? In this climate of intense scrutiny, some organizations must not only understand their executive benefit packages and where they fit into the total compensation picture, but they must also be prepared to defend the plans in proxy statements. There is a lot of work involved with developing solid executive benefit packages that keep your organization competitive, integrates goals and contains performance measurements that tie back to compensation. These packages can be structured in many different ways. To maximize organizational performance, it is important to work with your plan administrator who can see to it that your organization’s executives have been properly incentivized and your company’s goals are aligned.

The fall season can be one of the best times of the year. It’s the start of football season, pumpkin flavored coffees, cooler weather and of course, one of HR’s busiest times of the year – open enrollment. For a variety of reasons, benefit options often change and with that come new demands on employees and employers during open enrollment. This can often times lead to stress and anxiety not only for the HR professionals, but for the employees trying to compare benefit plans, understand various changes in their policies, and how it will impact their families throughout the following year. To make the enrollment process as smooth as possible, it is important that employers educate and communicate to their employees effectively. The following four tips can help HR professionals meet their annual open enrollment challenges and in turn provide their employees with important information to make informed benefit decisions. Organize a Focus Group: One of the best strategies to boost engagement during open enrollment begins long before benefits season. Set up meetings with finance and your third party administrator to discuss how best to improve, communicate, and deliver a successful enrollment experience. By involving everyone early on in the process, you increase your chance of improving engagement come open enrollment time. Plan Ahead Using Thoughtful Content: Content and word choice are an important part of a successful enrollment season. Think about how you can best convey your message and lean on your team to help guide your decisions. Discuss any plan design enhancements and include them in the materials. Thoughtful execution allows you to influence what information your employees see and read first. Get Creative with Communications: Simple is better. Benefits can be confusing, so all communications should be presented in a clear format. Identify new imagery including photos, graphics, and financial examples. Simple charts and engaging videos help to make difficult benefit decisions easier for the average participant. Think about the creativity you have available, but keep the key message and “what you need to do for enrollment” information central to the enrollment materials. Improve the process: In order to improve this year’s open enrollment experience, it is important to review what worked well last year and identify what can be improved. This exercise is an important step to providing clear direction while setting executable goals. Know what you want to measure and how you are going to measure it. Eighty percent of employees believe their overall benefits packages influence their engagement on the job and with their organizations, according to the 2014 Aflac WorkForces Report. The report goes on to say that only nine percent believe their HR departments have effectively communicated health care reform and subsequent changes to their benefits packages. By working with both your internal resources and the Mezrah Consulting Team, you can be assured your open enrollment season will provide your employees with a personalized and informative experience.

October 21, 2016 MARKET TREND: The competition for executive talent remains high. Various approaches for tying executive compensation to a company’s value can offer effective tools for both enhancing company performance and attracting and retaining talent. Companies, however, need to decide whether they want to use actual equity or “synthetic” equity arrangements to accomplish their goals as they differ in effect and implementation. SYNOPSIS: Stock options and restricted stock have been common compensation tools for several decades and can be effective in attracting, retaining, and motivating employees to render the desired performance. These approaches, however, may have unexpected tax consequences for the employees and may cause the company to give up an unacceptable degree of control. Synthetic equity programs are more recent developments that can address many of the concerns presented by stock options and restricted stock. TAKE AWAYS: Equity-based incentive compensation is important for companies and executives alike. This compensation can be provided through the delivery of actual equity, in the form of stock options or restricted stock, or through the use of synthetic equity arrangements. The keys to successful compensation planning using equity- based compensation are to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and to choose the one that, on balance, will best accomplish the company’s objectives. It is widely recognized that paying “equity-based” compensation, which is tied to the value of the employer’s equity, can provide a valuable incentive for improving the performance of employees (particularly among executives) and a meaningful reward for enhancing the employer’s value. Often, this compensation is provided in the form of actual equity through arrangements like stock options and restricted stock. Alternatively, this compensation may be provided through a “phantom” or “synthetic” equity arrangement. This WRMarketplace provides an overview of the tax and practical considerations of each arrangement, while Part II of this series will take a closer look at the use of some of these approaches in practice. STOCK OPTIONS Overview: A stock option is a contract allowing an individual to purchase stock of the issuing company during a specified period for a fixed exercise price. Upon payment of the exercise price, the participant becomes a shareholder in the issuing company. There are generally two types of option – “nonqualified stock options” (“NSOs”) and “incentive stock options” (“ISOs”). Tax Treatment: In reviewing the tax treatment of stock options, there are two key actions that can trigger tax recognition: (1) the exercise of the option (“option exercise”) and (2) the subsequent disposition of the stock received from the option exercise (“stock disposition”). NSOs – Tax on Option Exercise: With NSOs (typically the majority of stock options), the participant (optionee) generally recognizes ordinary income as of the option exercise in an amount equal to the excess of the fair market value (“FMV”) of the stock at the date of option exercise over the exercise price paid for the stock. The exercise price must at least equal the stock’s FMV on the date of the NSO’s grant. The optionee and the issuing corporation also may pay Social Security and Medicare taxes based on the option exercise. ISOs – Tax on Stock Disposition: With ISOs, however, the optionee recognizes capital gain upon stock disposition rather than ordinary income at option exercise, assuming that the stock is held until the later of the second anniversary of the ISO’s grant or the one-year anniversary of the option exercise. Social Security and Medicare taxes also are not payable upon the option exercise. Practical Result – Little Difference: Although ISOs seem to offer more favorable tax treatment than NSOs, the practical result for the optionee is similar in both cases because of the alternative minimum tax (“AMT”). The difference between the stock’s FMV at option exercise and the exercise price (which must at least equal the stock’s FMV at the option grant) is an adjustment item in calculating the optionee’s AMT liability for the year of exercise. Thus, both NSOs and ISO may create complicated tax situations for the optionee, unless the option exercise and stock disposition occur simultaneously or within a short period of each other. Otherwise, the optionee may owe income tax when he or she does not have the liquidity to pay that tax. Practical Considerations Award Based on Company’s Future Performance: The employer should consider whether stock options will provide the desired incentive for the employee. Based on the tax rules noted above, stock options must be granted with an exercise price at least equal to the stock’s FMV on the date of the option grant. Accordingly, stock options only provide economic value to the optionee if the company’s value increases after option grant. While that may incentivize an employee’s future actions, the employer also may want to award employee compensation based on the company’s current value. As stock options only capture future appreciation, they don’t address this goal. Employee Becomes Shareholder: Employers also must recognize that the award of stock options allows the optionee to become a shareholder of the company – with all the attendant legal rights – upon option exercise. The existence of minority shareholders can prevent the original owners from conducting business without interference. For example, minority shareholders may have the right to examine the company’s books and records. Perhaps more importantly, in the event of a sale of the company, potential buyers may not want to deal with minority shareholders (or even holders of outstanding options to acquire employer stock), since minority shareholders may be able to assert dissenter’s rights under state law and hold up or derail a proposed transaction. Liquidity Needs: In addition to any tax liability, the employee may need to have available cash to pay the exercise price upon option exercise. RESTRICTED STOCK Overview: Restricted stock is typically an award of employer stock, subject to the requirement that the individual forfeit the shares back to the employer if the criteria established by the issuer are not satisfied. These “vesting” criteria typically obligate the employee to remain employed for a specified period but also may require the employee to achieve specified performance objectives to allow the stock to vest (i.e., remove the stock restrictions and forfeiture requirements). Tax Treatment: For tax purposes, the key actions for restricted stock are the vesting of the stock in the employee (“vesting date”) and the award or grant of the restricted stock to the employee (“grant date”). Tax Based on Vesting Date: Unless the employee has made an “83(b) election” as discussed below, upon vesting of the stock, the employee recognizes ordinary taxable income on the stock’s FMV as of the vesting date. Social Security and Medicare taxes are also owed based on the time of vesting. Thus, as with stock options, if the restricted stock vests at a time when there is no liquid market for the employer’s stock, the employee may have a tax liability without having sufficient cash available to pay that liability. Tax Based on Grant Date: 83(b) Election: Alternatively, an employee can elect to be taxed on the restricted stock’s FMV as of the grant date by making what is referred to as an “83(b) election.” This election potentially enables the employee to pay less ordinary income tax by basing the tax on the presumably lower value of the stock as of the grant date rather than the vesting date. It also allows the employee to anticipate more accurately the liquidity needs generated by the tax liability. The employee, however, cannot recover the taxes paid if the restricted stock decreases in value after the grant and may not be able to recover the taxes if the stock is forfeited back to the employer before it vests. Practical Considerations: Unlike stock options, restricted stock awards can compensate an employee based on the then full value of the company and do not require the employee to come up with cash to acquire the stock. But restricted stock creates the same issues as stock options in terms of giving the employee full rights as a shareholder of the employer – in this case from the time of the grant date of the restricted stock award, even if the stock is not vested. “PHANTOM” OR “SYNTHETIC” EQUITY Overview: Unlike stock options or restricted stock plans, phantom or synthetic equity plans do not promise to deliver shares of the employer. Instead, they promise a payment in cash based on the value of the employer’s shares at the time of payment (though plans can be structured to allow payment in shares if that medium of payment is desirable at the time of payment). The value to be paid with respect to a synthetic equity award can be based on the full value of a share or the appreciation in the value of a share since the time of award. Tax Treatment: A participant in a synthetic equity plan is not taxed until he or she actually receives payment. In all cases, the tax payable will be at ordinary income rates; there is no way of obtaining capital gains tax treatment for a synthetic equity award. Generally, a synthetic equity plan is structured to pay out on a liquidity event and often pays out in cash. As a result, the potential exposure to tax liability when there is no cash available to pay the tax does not exist. In addition, the employer is similarly not obligated to make a payment when it cannot afford to do so. Practical Considerations: In recent years, the use of synthetic equity plans has increased in frequency because they generally provide solutions to the problems described above with respect to stock options or restricted stock. Because these synthetic plans are not stock options, the tax laws governing the determination of FMV do not apply, giving synthetic plans greater flexibility in establishing the amount that will be paid to the employee and less administrative cost and burden than option plans. Also, because the synthetic equity plan generally does not grant shares of stock to employees, the plan participants do not acquire potential troubling or burdensome shareholder rights. Although synthetic equity plans address many of the concerns presented by stock options and restricted stock, they are not without their own issues. For example, the motivational value of the award may be diminished if an employee wants actual equity in the employer. But more importantly, a synthetic equity plan may be a “deferred compensation plan” subject to the requirements and restrictions of IRC §409A, which imposes strict limitations on the operation of a deferred compensation plan, severely limits the ability to change provisions relating to payments under such a plan, requires the specification of payment provisions at the time the award of deferred compensation is made, and subjects an employee to current taxation with interest plus a 20% tax penalty if the requirements of IRC §409A are violated. Accordingly, careful consideration of the terms and conditions of these arrangements must be undertaken before they can be implemented. Part II of this series will describe in more detail the planning issues involved in setting up a synthetic equity program. COMPARING EQUITY-BASED COMPENSATION PROGRAMS – A SUMMARY Program Advantages/Disadvantages TAKE-AWAYS Equity-based incentive compensation is important for companies and executives alike. This compensation can be provided through the delivery of actual equity, in the form of stock options or restricted stock, or through the use of synthetic equity arrangements. The keys to successful compensation planning using equity-based compensation are to understand the advantages and disadvantages of each approach and to choose the one that, on balance, will best accomplish the company’s objectives. For more information on using equity-based compensation in your executive benefit plan, please contact Mezrah Consulting. Source: AALU

October 14, 2016 When complete, rows of cabanas and barbecue grills will surround an 8-lane competitive-sized swimming pool – flanked by an expansive wading pool, spa, splash pad for kids and scores of other watery features for families. Those plans are taking shape, thanks largely to a generous donation from Leon and Diane Mezrah, together with their children Todd, Shari and Lee, and their grandchildren Max, Sam and Cole. To honor, the family’s matriarch and patriarch, the aquatics center will be named the Diane and Leon Mezrah Family Aquatic Complex. “I pretty much grew up at the pool at the previous JCC in South Tampa. We were there every day in the summer,” said Lee Mezrah. “For me, this donation was a way to honor my parents, and secondly to bring back something that was really meaningful for me as a child – a community pool.” That donation places the family among the largest financial backers of the overall JCC project. When complete, the facility will have more than 100,000 square feet of interior space, including a visual arts center, a fitness center, indoor track, a business accelerator and space for gatherings of varying sizes for social or business events. Construction is now under way and the facility will open late this year. The design and construction team for the JCC hired a pool architect to design the pool and the wider area around the property’s north side. That development comes as downtown Tampa adds more water recreation areas, including a city-backed Water Works Park. But beyond those pools, Lee said there are not many places for kids in the area to cool off from the Florida heat. Leon Mezrah recalls his time raising kids in Tampa and the importance of a community pool. “We used to go to that South Tampa JCC pool all the time,” Leon Mezrah said. “We sure didn’t have a pool at our house, so that’s where we went. We’re happy with what this new JCC is doing, and we look forward to the completion of the building, and I think our family will use it quite often. We’re excited about having pledged what we did.” Diane Mezrah added, “Our objective was to bring back an enhanced sense of community to the entire South Tampa area. This will be a wonderful gathering place, not only for the Jewish community but for everyone.” As a child, Todd Mezrah was at the former South Tampa JCC often. “I went to summer camp there for years,” Todd said, “and I ultimately became a counselor there.” Todd’s wife Shari Mezrah said much of her motivation for supporting the JCC came from their desire to give back to the community. “Tampa is our home,” she said. “We wanted to be part of this important project as well as create a legacy for our family.” A pool is more than just a great place to hang out, Shari said. It’s a place to work out, gather with friends and have a more robust social life. “We are thrilled to be a part of it,” she said. In the coming months, contractors should begin digging out space for the pools, said Jack Ross, the executive director of the JCC. It is expected to open with the rest of the JCC late this fall. “The design has evolved significantly because of the generosity of the Mezrah family,” Ross said. “Since this began, the plan went from just a normal square on the design plans that said ‘pool,’ to an extensive aquatics center.” Ross and the construction design team consulted with swim league and youth team professionals on the best configuration of size and number of lanes, and even delved into the exact profile of the pool and methods to tamp down waves to allow swimmers to cruise through the water faster. “We have a pool that’s more dedicated to races and swimming laps,” Ross said, “and then there’s a more recreational pool that’s about 3 feet deep for kids and adults to play in. Nearby is a splash area with a bunch of statues squirting water all over for fun.” “The Aquatics Center is going to be one of the jewels in the crown of the Bryan Glazer Family JCC and people across the region are excited about it,” said Ross. The old South Tampa JCC, with its pool, on Horatio Street adjacent to Jewish Towers, was there for many years but closed in the early 1990s. The Tampa Jewish Federation & JCC closed a deal in late 1992 to purchase a 21-acre former drug rehabilitation center off Gunn Highway. It was converted it into the new home for the Federation and JCC and is now the Maureen and Douglas Cohn Community Campus, housing not only Federation and JCC offices, but also offices for Tampa Jewish Family Services and the Weinberg Village assisted living facility. The Cohn campus is expected to continue its current operations even after the Glazer JCC opens in South Tampa. Source: Jewish Press of Tampa

August 9, 2016 On June 21, 2016, the Treasury Department issued long-awaited proposed regulations under Code Section 457(f) regarding nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements sponsored by governmental and tax-exempt entities. Section 457(f) essentially requires that nonqualified deferred compensation of such employers in excess of amounts permitted to be deferred under an “eligible Section 457(b) plan” will be included in income at the later of (1) contribution or (2) vesting. The proposed regulations address important issues about the application of Section 457(f), including 1) defining what constitutes bona fide severance pay, (2) death and disability plans excluded from compensation, (3) adding a short-term deferral exclusion, and (4) clarifying the meaning of the term, “substantial risk of forfeiture.” These proposed regulations will become effective when published as final regulations. RELEVANCE: As with nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements in for-profit companies, Section 457(f) plan sponsors often use permanent life insurance to help informally finance the future payment obligation to key employees and/or their beneficiaries. Together with the Section 409A proposed regulations discussed in a recent Blog entry, familiarity with the proposed regulations is essential for those involved in selling or implementing nonqualified deferred compensation plans to non-profit or government entities under Section 457(f). Below is a synopsis of the proposed regulations. 1. Definitions of Excluded Compensation Clarified. Code Section 457 generally excludes “bona fide vacation leave, sick leave, compensatory times, severance plan, disability pay and death benefit plans” from compensation. The proposed regulations clarify the definitions of these various types of excluded compensation. a. Severance Pay Plan Defined. The proposed regulations provide that, to qualify as a bona fide “severance pay plan” excluded from compensation, (1) benefits may be payable only upon “involuntary” severance, or pursuant to a “window program” or an “early retirement incentive plan”, (2) benefits must not exceed two times the participant’s annualized compensation, and (3) the plan must require that all benefits be paid no later than the last day of the second calendar year following the year of severance. The second two criteria generally follow the definition of severance under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974, as amended (“ERISA”); however, the definition of “involuntary” severance is a significant addition to the ERISA statutory definition, codifying less formal prior guidance. Under these proposed regulations, severance paid pursuant to an employee-initiated “good reason” departure may be treated as “involuntary” if certain requirements are met. Such requirements are similar to those under the Section 409A regulations and include a substantially identical safe-harbor definition of “good reason.” The definition of “window program” also generally follows the definition under the Section 409A regulations. “Early retirement incentive plans” are limited to retirement subsidies payable in coordination with a qualified defined benefit pension plan. b. Other Welfare Benefit Plan Definitions. The proposed regulations define bona fide death and disability plans similarly to the definitions under Section 409A regulations but provide significantly more detail on what constitutes a bona fide sick or vacation leave plan. c. New Short-Term Deferral Exclusion. Similar to the exclusion under Section 409A, the proposed regulations add a “short-term deferral” exclusion, under which a deferral of compensation does not occur with respect to any amount actually or constructively received on or before the 15th day of the third month following the later of the end of the calendar year or the employer’s fiscal year in which the payments vest. This new exclusion is significant because it will allow payments to be made after the vesting year without subjecting them to Section 457(f) (i.e. they do not have to be included in the service provider’s income at the time of vesting). 2. Rules Relating to “Substantial Risk of Forfeiture.” The definition of “substantial risk of forfeiture” under the proposed regulations is similar to that under the Section 409A regulations: An amount is subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture if entitlement to that amount is “conditioned on the future performance of substantial services, or upon the occurrence of a condition that is related to a purpose of the compensation, if the possibility of forfeiture is “substantial.” Whether an amount is conditioned on future performance is based on the facts and circumstances, but the proposed regulations specify that the inquiry should examine whether the hours required to be performed during the relevant period are substantial in relation to the amount of the compensation. a. Non-Competes as Substantial Risk of Forfeiture. Unlike Section 409A regulations, these proposed regulations provide that a non-compete condition may be considered a substantial risk of forfeiture if (1) the condition is expressly proscribed in a written agreement that is enforceable under applicable law, (2) the employer consistently makes reasonable efforts to verify compliance with all of the noncompetition agreements to which it is a party, including the one at issue, and (3) the facts, circumstances, and timing indicate that the employer has a substantial and bona fide interest in preventing the employee from performing the prohibited service and that the employee has a bona fide interest in engaging, and the ability to engage, in the prohibited services. b. Conditions for Initial Deferrals and Extensions. The proposed regulations create special rules to determine whether initial deferrals of current compensation may be treated as subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (so as to allow a voluntary deferral) and whether a substantial risk of forfeiture can be extended (i.e., rolled to a later year). First, the present value of the deferral amount payable on lapse of the new substantial risk of forfeiture period must be “materially greater” than the amount that would have been paid absent the initial election or extension. “Materially greater” here means more than 125% of the deferred amount measured as of the date that amount would otherwise have been paid (the proposed regulations specify these regulations cannot be used to interpret Section 1.409A-1(d)(1) even though the same “materially greater” language is used in that regulation). Second, for a voluntary deferral or extension to be treated as subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, it must require the performance of substantial services or a limitation on competition (i.e., not merely a performance condition). Third, the additional period for which substantial services must be performed must be at least 2 years, absent an intervening event like death, disability, or involuntary severance. Finally, the agreement must be made in writing prior to the beginning of the calendar year in which services are performed (in the case of an initial deferral) or at least 90 days before the lapse of an existing substantial risk of forfeiture. Special rules apply for new employees but not newly eligible employees. The proposed regulations also add a substitution rule similar to the Section 409A regulations, which provides that if an amount is forfeited, the new risk of forfeiture will be ignored for purposes of 457(f). This means that the above requirements may not be circumvented by just canceling an existing right and replacing it with a new one having a later vesting date. 3. Calculation of Section 457(f) Inclusion. The proposed regulations provide that the amount to be included in income under an ineligible plan will be the present value of deferred compensation at the later of (1) the first date that there is a legally binding right to such compensation or (2) the date that the compensation is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (i.e., the vesting date). The amount taken into income under ineligible plans will include any earnings as of the inclusion date. Earnings that accrue on deferred amounts after the inclusion date will be included in income when paid. Once amounts are “properly” taken into income, they are considered investment in the contract and are not taxable again at the time of distribution. a. Defined Benefit Plans. For a defined benefit plan, the present value of the ultimate benefit payable is calculated by multiplying the amount of a payment (or of each payment in a series of payments) by the probability that any contingencies will be satisfied, and then discounting that amount using an assumed rate of interest. The proposed regulations require that the present value be determined “using actuarial assumption and methods that, based on all the facts and circumstances, are reasonable as of the applicable date,” without regard to whether the present value is “reasonably ascertainable” under Section 31.3121(v) regulations. This calculation ignores the probabilities that payment will not be made or the payment will be reduced based on adverse financial conditions of the plan or of the employer. If the date of payment is conditioned upon separation from employment, severance is generally deemed to occur on the 5th anniversary of the applicable date, unless circumstances indicate that this assumption is not reasonable. If unreasonable assumptions are used to calculate present value, then the IRS will calculate present value using methods it determines to be reasonable. However, the IRS will apply the midterm Applicable Federal Rate (“AFR”). Note: Because the AFR is considerably lower than any reasonable discount rate, this will result in the maximum acceleration of tax. The proposed regulations do not address the result if an unreasonably low discount rate is used (e.g., if an employer uses a rate of zero to avoid present value calculations). A zero discount rate would likely be seen as unreasonable and the IRS might take the position that amounts included in income in excess of the amount computed using the mid-term AFR may not be treated as investment in the contract because they have not been “properly” included in income. b. Account Balance Plans. For an account balance plan that is credited at least annually based on a pre-determined actual investment or a reasonable interest rate, the amount included in gross income will be the account balance as of the applicable inclusion date (typically, the vesting date), taking into account both principle and earnings. However, if the amounts credited to the account are not reasonable and are not based on a predetermined actual investment, as defined by the Section 31.3121(v) regulations, then the includible amount will be increased by the present value of the excess of the earnings to be credited under the plan over the amount that would be credited using a reasonable rate of interest. Again, if the taxpayer does not make the determination applying reasonable crediting rates, the IRS will apply the mid-term AFR in making the determination. c. Coordination with Other Inclusion Sections. The proposed regulations clarify the application of Section 457(f) to amounts that were includible in income under other provisions of the Code, such as Section 83 or Section 401(b). Any amounts that have not yet been included in income by reason of the application of another such Code section will be included in income at the time Section 457(f) would otherwise apply. 4. Recurring Part-Year Compensation. The proposed Section 457(f) regulations coordinate with proposed Section 409A regulations to clarify that a plan or arrangement under which an employee receives recurring part-year compensation will not be considered a deferral of compensation under Section 457(f) if the arrangement does not defer payment beyond the last day of the 13th month following the first day of the service period for which the recurring part-year compensation is paid, and the amount of the recurring part-year compensation (not merely the amount deferred) does not exceed the annual compensation limit under Section 401(a)(17) (e.g., $265,000 for 2016) for the calendar year in which the service period commences. 5. Applicability Date. With limited exceptions, the proposed regulations will apply for calendar years beginning after the publication date of the final regulations to existing deferrals pursuant to a binding legal right which arose during a prior calendar year which have not previously been included in income. Note: This means that if the proposed regulations are finalized in their current form, all existing arrangements will need to be amended to the extent necessary to comply with the new rules no later than the end of the calendar year in which the regulations are finalized. Taxpayers may also rely on the proposed regulations prior to the final publication date. Mezrah Consulting will continue to keep you apprised of any further information relating to new and proposed IRS rules regarding 457(f) and non-qualified deferred compensation plans (NQDCP) sponsored by governmental and tax-exempt entities. However, please contact Mezrah Consulting if you have any questions regarding 457(f) regulations and compliance of your NQDCP. Your business and confidence are appreciated. Source: AALU & Marla Aspinwall of Loeb & Loeb, LLP.

August 8, 2016 The IRS recently issued proposed regulations supplementing the existing regulations and guidance on the application of Code Section 409A to nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements. As a whole, the proposed regulations clarify existing rules rather than making substantive changes to Section 409A. The proposed regulations will become effective when they are published as final regulations. RELEVANCE: Section 409A is a tax minefield laid for those employers who sponsor employee benefit plans with deferred compensation elements and for the participants in these plans. If an employer provides benefits to an employee that are subject to Section 409A but under a noncompliant plan, the participating employee will be subject to federal income tax results sooner than expected or desired, and will also be liable for a twenty percent federal penalty tax. Under its regulations, Section 409A potentially applies to any employment-related benefit payment that may be received in a future year, other than “short- term” deferrals including: Salary or bonus deferral plans, whether short or long term, Nonqualified retirement payments or benefits (including Section 457(f) plans), Severance arrangements, Employment agreements, Incentive compensation or retention arrangements, Split dollar plans providing for future roll out of policy equity or forgiveness of indebtedness, and Independent contractor agreements providing for deferred compensation. Life insurance professionals sometimes recommend deferred compensation arrangements, informally financed with life insurance, to business owners looking to provide a valuable benefit to one or more key employees. It is absolutely essential that employers, their counsel and life insurance agents active in the deferred compensation market have an in-depth knowledge of these proposed regulations and an understanding of their scope. FACTS: The IRS recently issued proposed regulations supplementing the existing regulations and guidance on the application of Code Section 409A to nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements. The general rule of Code Section 409A essentially requires that all amounts deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation arrangement be included currently in the covered employee’s gross income (to the extent vested and not previously included in gross income). Such amounts will also be subject to an additional 20% penalty tax. However, these two levels of tax will not be imposed and federal income tax on these amounts will be deferred – IF strict requirements are satisfied regarding (among other things) deferral elections and the time and form of permissible distributions. The new proposed regulations address certain specific provisions of the existing 409A regulations and are not intended to constitute a general revision or substantial change of existing regulations and guidance. The proposed changes are intended to be applicable on or after the date on which they are finalized. However, taxpayers may rely on the proposed regulations until final regulations are published. The proposed regulations clarify existing regulations and guidance in the following significant ways: 1. Joint Application of Sections 409A and 457. The proposed regulations clarify that the 409A rules apply separately and in addition to the rules under 457A and 457(f) applicable to nonqualified deferred compensation arrangements sponsored by tax-exempt organizations. Long awaited proposed regulations under Section 457 were issued the same day as the 409A proposed regulations June 21, 2016 (and are discussed in a separate Blog entry). The proposed regulations clarify that the inclusion of an amount in income under 457(f) by reason of vesting will be treated as a payment for all purposes under 409A. However, it is still possible for amounts to be considered subject to a “substantial risk of forfeiture” under 457(f) and not under Section 409A, for example, because payment is conditioned upon compliance with a noncompetition agreement which may be recognized as a substantial risk of forfeiture under 457(f) but not under 409A. Therefore, the proposed regulations clarify that in such cases, the amount payable at the end of the noncompetition agreement may not qualify for exemption from 409A as a short-term deferral, resulting in the application of both sections to the applicable payment. 2. Clarification of Short-Term Deferral Rules to Allow For Legally Required Delays. Payments are exempt from Code Section 409A to the extent that they are made no later than the 15th day of the third month following the later of the end of the calendar year or the service recipient’s taxable year in which the right to payment is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (a “short-term deferral”). The proposed regulations clarify that payments that otherwise qualify as short-term deferrals will continue to qualify for exemption from 409A even if the service recipient (e.g. the employer) delays making the payment because “payment would violate Federal securities laws or other applicable law.” Delay in payments subject to 409A is already permitted for this reason but proposed regulations expand existing regulations to include this as a basis for delay of short-term deferral payments without loss of exemption. 3. Definition of Service Recipient Stock Clarified. The exemption for stock options and stock appreciation rights under 409A is limited to “common stock” of the service recipient. Although “common stock” does not include any stock that is subject to a mandatory repurchase obligation or permanent put or call right at less than fair market value, the proposed regulations clarify that a service recipient’s right to repurchase shares upon termination for cause or violation of a noncompetition or nondisclosure agreement will not prevent the shares qualifying as “common stock” for purposes of exemption from 409A. The proposed regulations also clarify that stock options issued to a person in anticipation of providing services to an entity within 12 months prior to commencement of service may qualify as service recipient stock as long as vesting is conditioned upon services commencing within that period. 4. Modification of Rules Following Death. The proposed regulations expand the category of permissible payment events to include the death, disability, or unforeseeable emergency of a beneficiary who becomes entitled to payments due to the service provider’s death, and also allow the acceleration of payments which have already commenced in the event of such an occurrence. The proposed rules also provide that an amount payable following the death of a participant or beneficiary may be paid at any time between death and the last day of the calendar year following the calendar year in which death occurs. The proposed regulations further permit a plan providing for payments during this discretionary payment period following death to be amended to provide for payments during any other period within this discretionary payment period, without complying with the 409A change rules. For example, a plan providing for death benefits to be paid within 60 days after death may be amended to provide for payment at any time prior to December 31st of the calendar year following the calendar year in which death occurs, without waiting 12 months for the change to become effective. 5. Plan Termination Rules Clarified. Some commentators had interpreted the 409A plan termination rules under 1.409A-3(j)(4)(ix)(C) to require termination of only those plans in which the applicable service recipient participates. The proposed regulations clarify that the termination and acceleration of benefits pursuant to subsection (C) is permitted only if the service recipient terminates and liquidates all plans of the same category sponsored by the service recipient, not merely all plans of the same category in which a particular service provider actually participates, and that for a period of 3 years following such termination and liquidation, the service recipient cannot adopt a new plan in the same category, regardless of which service providers participate in the new plan. The proposed regulations also clarify the termination rules applicable to termination in connection with bankruptcy. 6. Corrections Applicable to Unvested Amounts. Section 409A income inclusion rules effectively permit the correction of plan failures applicable to amounts that are not vested or paid as of the end of the calendar year in which the correction is made. However, an anti-abuse rule provides that amounts will not be considered unvested to the extent that there is a pattern or practice of permitting impermissible changes in the time and form of payment with respect to unvested deferred amounts. The proposed regulations indicate that while these rules permit the correction of certain plan provisions while amounts are unvested without including amounts in income or incurring additional tax, they were not intended to allow service recipients to change the time or form of payments that otherwise meet the requirements of 409A without compliance with applicable change rules. The new rules therefore treat as vested any unvested amounts impacted by a change in a plan provision otherwise not permitted by 409A that affects the time or form of payment – if there is no reasonable good faith basis for concluding (a) that the original provision failed to meet 409A requirements and (b) the change is necessary to bring the plan into compliance. Further, the proposed regulations give specific examples of patterns of practice of permitting impermissible changes and require that, if a correction method is proscribed in applicable correction procedures, one of the proscribed correction methods must be used (although it is not necessary that applicable penalties or reporting requirements be complied with for corrections with respect to unvested amounts). 7. Transaction-Based Compensation Rules Applicable to Exempt Stock Rights. Existing 409A regulations permit transaction based payments upon qualifying change in control events to be paid on the same schedule and terms as payments to shareholders generally if paid within five years after the change in control event. However, uncertainty has existed with respect to whether the provision for payments under an exempt stock option on the same basis as other shareholders would result in loss of the 409A exemption. Proposed regulations clarify that the special transaction-based payment rules apply to an exempt stock option or right so that payment in a manner consistent with these rules does not result in the stock right being treated as having a deferral feature violating 409A from the original grant date. 8. Termination of Service Clarified. Proposed regulations clarify that an employee who changes status to an independent contractor is treated as having separated from service if, at the time of the change in status, the level of services reasonably anticipated to be provided after the change as an independent contractor would result in a separation from service under the employee rules (i.e. less than 20%-50% of prior level of service). 9. Other Changes. Proposed regulations also include a number of other specific modifications or changes such as (i) clarification of the rules regarding recurring part-time compensation, (ii) the ability to accelerate the time of payment to comply with Federal debt collection laws, (iii) clarification that a service provider can be an entity, (iv) clarification of the separation pay plan definition where a service provider commences and terminates employment in the same year, and (v) providing that a right to reimbursement of reasonable attorney’s fees in connection with a bona fide legal claim against the employer does not provide for a deferral of compensation judgment. Mezrah Consulting will continue to keep you apprised of any further information relating to new and proposed IRS rules regarding 409A and non-qualified deferred compensation plans (NQDCP). However, please contact Mezrah Consulting if you have any questions regarding 409A regulations and compliance of your NQDCP. Your business and confidence are appreciated. Source: AALU & Marla Aspinwall of Loeb & Loeb, LLP.

February 2017 Mezrah Consulting is proud to support our community through sponsoring and attending various charitable events.  Below are a few recent contributions that we have made to our local community. Mezrah Consulting has been proud to support the National Pediatric Cancer Foundation (NPCF) the past few years, sponsoring the annual Brinner of Hope (breakfast for dinner) event. This year, we continued our support by sponsoring a new event, The Sunshine Project Summit. The Summit, which was held at the Tampa Airport Marriott on February 2nd & 3rd, was an opportunity for doctors who are conducting cancer research in various hospitals throughout the US to discuss their work. There was a networking dinner held the evening of the 2nd that was truly uplifting.  Dr. Stephen Lessnick received the NPCF’s Heart of Gold award for his hard work and dedication to finding a faster cure and several families whose lives have been touched by pediatric cancer shared their stories with attendees. The 5th Annual Companies for Kids Golf Invitational supporting Big Brothers Big Sisters of Tampa will be held on December 8, 2016, at Innisbrook Resort & Golf Club. Mezrah Consulting is proud to be sponsoring a hole at the event this year. Big Brothers Big Sisters of Tampa Bay’s mission is to “provide children facing adversity with strong and enduring, professionally supported one-to-one relationships that change their lives for the better, forever.” They serve seven counties: Hillsborough, Pinellas, Polk, Pasco, Citrus, Hernando and Sumter counties. Mezrah Consulting sponsored both semesters of the 2016 University of South Florida’s MUMA College of Business Trading Challenge Scholarship. The challenge was open to any Muma College of Business student. All players began with $1 million in virtual cash. The student with the highest account value at the end of the semester won a $1,000 scholarship. Mezrah Consulting is happy to sponsor the Make-A-Wish Annual Night of the Iguana. This is the 20th year of this fundraising event and will be hosted by Pepin’s Hospitality Centre on Friday, September 20, 2016.  Proceeds will benefit Make-A-Wish Central & Northern Florida which grants the wishes of children suffering from life-threatening medical conditions. To find out more please visit Night of the Iguana. On June 13, 2016, Mezrah Consulting was proud to sponsor a hole at the Consolidated Services Group’s (CSG) Tenth Anniversary Charity Golf Outing to benefit Make A Wish Foundation. The event raised over $45,000 for the Make-A-Wish Foundation of Philadelphia, Northern Delaware and the Susquehanna Valley, and raised enough funds to grant wishes to 21 children in their community. The 6th Annual Partners in Charity Silent Auction & Golf Tournament was held by Home Shopping Network (HSN) on Friday, April 15, 2016. Mezrah Consulting participated as a Bronze Sponsor. The tournament raised over $43,500.00 for Junior Achievement of Tampa Bay’s kindergarten-12th grade programs which foster work-readiness, entrepreneurship and financial literacy skills. On Thursday, April 7, Todd and Shari Mezrah, Katie Censoplano, Stephanie Taylor, and Jesse Klaucke of Mezrah Consulting attended the 29th Annual Tampa Bay Business Hall of Fame event. The Florida Council on Economic Education, which is focused on the education of children on economic responsibility,  hosted the event. This year’s theme was “Anchors of Our Community”. Jerry Divers, Bryan Glazer, Brian Lamb, Geoff Simon and, in memoriam, Harris Mullen were inducted as the Class of 2016. From left to right: Jesse Klaucke, Shari and Todd Mezrah, Katie Censoplano, and Stephanie Taylor Shari and Todd Mezrah Todd and Shari Mezrah, along with MC team members, attended the Tampa Tree of Life Awards Dinner on April 14 at the Grand Hyatt Tampa Bay. The event was held by the Jewish National Fund,  an organization specializing in the development of Israeli land and infrastructure, especially planting trees. Todd’s parents, Diane and Leon Mezrah, were honored for their long support of Jewish activities in the Tampa Bay area. MC Senior Financial Analyst, Jesse Klaucke, attended a luncheon on April 19 held by Financial Executives International (FEI). The lunch was held to discuss launching a Sarasota / Bradenton chapter. Currently, FEI has a Tampa chapter and is in the process of recruiting members for the new chapter.