A recent Baker & McKenzie blog (“What To Do When Your Board Goes Global,” available in the NASPP’s Global Stock Plans portal), focuses on an accelerating trend – that of company boards of directors becoming more and more globally diversified. “We are seeing an accelerating trend among U.S. companies to add non-U.S. residents to their Board of Directors. This makes sense: as more and more companies “go global” and expand in ever more countries, their Boards should reflect the global nature of the company.” While it may be a positive that companies are comprising their boards of more globally diverse members, there are things to know.
Areas of Key Consideration
Taxation can get complex. To ensure proper withholding occurs, companies need to verify the director’s tax status relative to the US. Are they a US citizen or permanent resident? Did they reside in the US for 183 or more days per year? These questions are essential in determining US tax withholding requirements. Additionally, companies will also need to assess and determine whether an exemption from US tax withholding exists based on a treaty with the director’s home country.
Even if there is no complex US withholding required beyond a flat rate of 30%, the director may be subject to withholding taxes in his/her home country. Canada is one such country where this is a distinct possibility.
Companies need to determine whether any income/tax reporting needs to occur at the US state level where the non-US director performed services.
Careful attention should be given to analyzing regulatory exemptions in the home country that may be available. While some exemptions may apply to employees, those same exemptions may or may not be available to non-employees, including non-employee directors. It’s important not to outright assume that if employees qualify for an exemption that non-US directors will qualify too.
The Baker & McKenzie blog suggests thoroughly vetting tax and regulatory requirements that apply to non-US directors in each jurisdiction, similar to the practices many companies undertake in vetting requirements that are applicable to employees. Additionally, such analysis should be ideally conducted on an annual basis to capture changes to tax and regulatory requirements, as well as board demographics.
For today’s blog entry, I have the results of the NASPP’s Quick Survey on ASC 718, presented in a nifty interactive infographic (place your cursor over a section of each chart to see its label). (Click here if you don’t see the graphic below.)
BTW—if you are one of the 83% of respondents that haven’t yet figured out the impact of the tax accounting changes to your earnings per share, see my blog entry “Run Your Own Numbers,” for easy-peasy instructions on how most companies can figure this out in just 5 minutes. It’s a great opportunity to demonstrate your knowledge and value to your accounting/finance team.
What would you do if you got an email from your CEO, asking you to provide a report of taxable stock plan transactions, including employee IDs—stat? A) Respond with the requested information as quickly as possible or B) forward the email to your IT department for investigation?
As it turns out, B might be the correct answer.
Phishing Scheme Targets Payroll and HR
If you are on the IRS’s mailing list, you know that it’s once again that time of year when the IRS sends out alert after alert about tax phishing schemes. Most have nothing to do with stock compensation, but a recent alert hits a little close to home. A new tax phishing scheme targets payroll and HR personnel. In a phishing scheme, a scammer masquerades as a representative of a legitimate business to trick people into giving out personal information that the scammer can use for illicit purposes.
This phishing scheme involves an email that purports to be from the company’s CEO or other executives and requests that the recipient provide employee data, including personal and W-2 information.
According to the IRS, the email may include the following (or similar) requests:
Kindly send me the individual 2015 W-2 (PDF) and earnings summary of all W-2 of our company staff for a quick review
Can you send me the updated list of employees with full details (Name, Social Security Number, Date of Birth, Home Address, Salary) as at 2/2/2016.
I want you to send me the list of W-2 copy of employees wage and tax statement for 2015, I need them in PDF file type, you can send it as an attachment. Kindly prepare the lists and email them to me asap.
Kindly?
It seems to me that the big giveaway here is the use of the word “kindly” in the above requests. What executive ever used that word when asking for a report ASAP?
Let’s Be Careful Out There
While the schemes don’t yet seem to involve stock compensation, payroll and HR aren’t that far removed from stock plan administration. Some of my readers probably wear both hats. It’s always a good idea to verify any unusual requests from executives and to make sure that any personal data for employees, including compensation data, is transmitted in a secure manner, especially if that data includes employee identifiers, such as names and ID numbers.
Leap year can make things complicated. For example, if you use a daily accrual rate for some purpose related to stock compensation, such as calculating a pro-rata payout, a tax allocation for a mobile employee, or expense accruals, you have to remember to add a day to your calculation once every four years. Personally, I think it would be easier if we handled leap year the same way we handle the transition from Daylight Saving Time to Standard Time: everyone just set their calendar back 24 hours. Rather than doing this on the last day of February, I think it would be best to do it on the last Sunday in February, so that the “fall back” always occurs on a weekend.
In a slightly belated celebration of Leap Day, I have a few tidbits related to leap years and tax holding periods.
If a holding period for tax purposes spans February 29, this adds an extra day to the holding period. For example, if a taxpayer buys stock on January 15, 2015, the stock must be held for 365 days, through January 15, 2016 for the sale to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment. But if stock is purchased a year later, on January 15, 2016, the stock has to be held for 366 days, until January 15, 2017, to qualify for long-term capital gains treatment. The same concept applies in the case of the statutory ISO and ESPP holding periods–see my blog entry “Leap Year and ISOs,” (June 23, 2009).
Even trickier, if stock is purchased on February 28 of the year prior to a leap year, it still has to be held until March 1 of the following year for the sale to qualify for capital gains treatment. This is because the IRS treats the holding period as starting on the day after the purchase. Stock purchased on February 28 in a non-leap year has a holding period that starts on March 1, which means that even with the extra day in February in the year after the purchase, the stock still has to be held until March 1. See the Fairmark Press article, “Capital Gains and Leap Year,” February 26, 2008.
Ditto if stock is purchased on either February 28 or February 29 of a leap year. In the case of stock purchased on February 28, the holding period will start on February 29. But there won’t be a February 29 in the following year, so the taxpayer will have to hold the stock until March 1. And if stock is purchased on February 29, the holding period starts on March 1. Interesting how none of these rules seem to work in the taxpayer’s favor.
The moral of the story: if long-term capital gains treatment is important to you, it’s not a bad idea to give yourself an extra day just to be safe–especially if there’s a leap year involved.
In just a couple of weeks, employees will begin receiving Forms 1099-B for sales they conducted in 2015. Here are five things they need to know about Form 1099-B:
What Is Form 1099-B? Anytime someone sells stock through a broker, the broker is required to issue a Form 1099-B reporting the sale. This form is provided to both the seller and the IRS. It reports the net proceeds on the sale, and in some cases, the cost basis of the shares sold. The seller uses this information to report the sale on his/her tax return. [Same-day sale exercises can be an exception. Rev. Proc. 2002-50 allows brokers to skip issuing a Form 1099-B for same-day sales if certain conditions are met. But your employees don’t need to know about this exception unless your broker isn’t issuing a Form 1099-B in reliance on the Rev. Proc.]
The Cost Basis Reported on Form 1099-B May Be Too Low. For shares that employees acquire through your ESPP or by exercising a stock option, the cost basis indicated on the Form 1099-B reporting the sale is likely to be too low.
Sometimes Form 1099-B Won’t Include a Cost Basis. If employees sold stock that was acquired under a restricted stock or unit award, or if they acquired it before January 1, 2011, the Form 1099-B usually won’t include the cost basis (although procedures may vary, so check with your brokers on this).
What To Do If the Cost Basis Is Incorrect (or Missing). If the cost basis is incorrect, employees will need to report an adjustment to their gain (or loss) on Form 8949 when they prepare their tax returns. If the basis is missing, they’ll use Form 8949 to report the correct basis.
An Incorrect Cost Basis Is Likely to Result in Employees Overpaying Their Taxes. It is very important that employees know the correct basis of any shares they sold. They will subtract the cost basis from their net sale proceeds to determine their taxable capital gain (or deductible capital loss) for the sale. Reporting a cost basis that is too low on their tax return could cause them to pay more tax than necessary. In some cases, this doubles their tax liability. The only person who wins in this scenario is Uncle Sam; your employees lose and you lose, because no one appreciates the portion of their compensation that they have to pay over to the IRS. Your stock compensation program is a significant investment for your company; don’t devalue the program by letting employees overpay their taxes.
Employees should review any Forms 1099-B they receive carefully to verify that the cost basis indicated is the correct basis. If it is missing or incorrect, they should use Form 8949 to report the correct basis.
The Portal also has examples and flow charts, all of which have been updated for the 2015 tax forms. [In case you are wondering, there were no significant changes to Form 1099-B, Form 8949, or Schedule D in 2015.]
This past summer, the NASPP and Solium co-sponsored a quick survey on global stock plan administration. We asked companies about the technological challenges they experience when it comes to administering global stock plans, focusing on 12 primary challenges related to tax compliance, financial reporting, and other administrative matters. Close to 70% of respondents indicated that they struggle with four or more of the challenges identified and several noted that they struggle with nine or more of the challenges.
For today’s blog entry, I highlight five things I learned from the survey:
1. There are still a lot of manual processes out there.
Two-thirds of respondents say they spend too much time on manual processes. This is a high-risk proposition: it is difficult to implement adequate controls over processes and calculations performed in a spreadsheet. This seems especially concerning given that the SEC is in the process of adopting rules requiring recovery of compensation for all material misstatements, even if due to inadvertent error (see “SEC Proposes Clawback Rules,” July 7, 2015). One incorrect calculation discovered too late could result in recoupment of bonuses and other incentive compensation paid to executive officers.
2. Tax compliance is a top concern for companies.
This really isn’t a surprise—let’s face it, tax laws outside the United States are a hot mess. Every country does something different. Some countries change their laws every few years (I’m looking at you, Australia and France) and grandfather in old awards. Some countries have different rules for social insurance taxes vs. income taxes. Add in mobile employees and, well, you have a lot of work for tax lawyers.
3. Regulatory compliance is also a challenge.
56% of respondents cite keeping up with regulatory changes as a top challenge and 45% cite regulatory requirements in other countries. Regulatory compliance goes beyond tax laws to include things like securities laws, data privacy (a hot topic these days, see “Data Privacy Upheaval,” December 3, 2015), labor laws, currency restrictions and a host of other issues. It’s hard to stay on top of it all.
4. It’s the participants that suffer.
Ultimately, in the struggle to administer a global stock plan, something has to give and that something is usually the participant. Only 50% of respondents offer a qualified plan in countries where they could; the hurdle of regulatory compliance gets in the way. And 75% of respondents said that they would focus more on employee education if they could just spend less time on basic administration.
5. Expectations are low.
When we asked companies what is on their wish list for their administrative system, I was surprised at how low some items ranked (it was a “check all that apply” question, I thought everyone would want just about everything). For example, despite the fact that 71% of respondents reported tax-compliance for mobile employees as a top challenge, only 64% wanted a system that could calculate tax liabilities for mobile participants. It left us wondering if companies need to dream bigger for their administrative platforms.
Check out the White Paper and Survey
If you haven’t had a chance to read it yet, check out the white paper on the survey results and download the full results from the Solium website.
It’s that time of the year when attention begins to focus on year-end tax reporting. Sometimes when it comes to tax reporting, the devil is in the details – there are many nuances that need to be monitored and addressed to ensure proper compliance with the tax code. One of those is the IRS’s rule of administrative convenience, which allows companies to delay the collection of FICA taxes on certain transactions until a future date, on or before 12/31. In today’s blog, I’m going to dive into the inner-workings of this rule.
What is the Rule of Administrative Convenience?
The rule of administrative convenience allows FICA withholding for certain transactions to occur by 12/31 of the year of the triggering event. This means that companies can delay the mechanics of actually withholding FICA until the end of the year, when many employees may have already met their annual FICA limit. In this case, no additional FICA withholding for the original transaction would be necessary and the company is off the hook in terms of having to figure out how to collect FICA on the shares. However, if the employee hasn’t met their FICA limit as year end approaches, then an appropriate amount of FICA will still need to be withheld. This is the time of year when the stock plan administrator should evaluate the deferral of any FICA taxes under the Rule, and work with Payroll to ensure any necessary withholding occurs on or before 12/31. I should note that while the focus of most examples of this rule centers around the last possible date – 12/31 – to comply, companies can withhold the deferred FICA on any prior date as well. It’s just that for practical purposes, the “date” slated for collection is often near year-end, since that is a logical point in time when most employees who are going to max on on their FICA withholding for the year would be at that threshold, eliminating the need for any additional FICA withholding for the deferred event.
To What Types of Stock Compensation Does the Rule Apply?
The short answer is that the rule applies only to withholding of FICA on restricted stock units (RSUs). The long answer is below.
Both restricted stock units (RSAs) and restricted stock awards (RSUs) are subject to FICA taxes once the risk of forfeiture no longer exists (this usually occurs at vesting, but could occur be at the time of retirement eligibility – even if unvested). If the shares are not released to the employee at that time (let’s say that vesting will occur in the future, after the retirement eligible date, even though the risk of forfeiture no longer exists), then selling or withholding shares to pay for the FICA withholding is not an option. In these situations, the company must figure out how to withhold FICA (and other) taxes.
RSUs are considered to be a form of non-qualified deferred compensation and, therefore are taxed under a different section of the tax code than restricted stock and non-qualified stock options. This makes them eligible to rely on the Rule of Administrative Convenience.
RSAs are subject to tax under Section 83 of the tax code. As a result, both income taxes and FICA are due when the award is no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. This also means that the rule of administrative convenience is not available for this type of award.
ESPP and incentive stock option transactions are not subject to withholding or to FICA taxes, so the rule of administrative convenience also does not apply to shares acquired under these instruments.
Using the Rule, What FMV is Used to Calculate FICA?
“The rule of administrative convenience permits an employer to use any date, on or after the award vests (becomes nonforfeitable) but prior to the end of the year, to take the value of the award into account for FICA purposes. This rule of administrative convenience, for example, would allow an employer until December 31st as the date for all employees who vest during the course of the year. Bear in mind that the “taken into account” date will have the benefit, or detriment, of earnings/losses on the award that has become, effectively, deferred compensation. This is because under the nonduplication rule of FICA taxation, once compensation is taken into wages for FICA, further earnings/gains are not treated as FICA wages.”
More on Tax Reporting
Tax reporting can be tricky. The good news is that the NASPP’s upcoming Annual Tax Reporting Webcast will be on December 1st at 4pm eastern time. Mark your calendars! The webcast is free to NASPP members; non-members can contact naspp@naspp.com for information on how to access the webcast. We’ve got a Sneak Peek of the webcast available now in our latest podcast episode.
The Social Security Administration has announced that the maximum wages subject to Social Security will remain at $118,500 for 2016. The rate will remain at 6.2% (changing the tax rate requires an act of Congress, literally), so the maximum Social Security withholding for the year will remain at $7,347.
As noted in the SSA’s press release, increases in the Social Security wage cap are tied to the increase in inflation as measured by the Consumer Price Index for Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers. The Bureau of Labor Statistics found no increase in inflation over the past year based on this index, so there are no cost of living adjustments to Social Security benefits or the wage cap.
For those of you keeping score, the last time the Social Security wage base remained the same for a two years in a row was 2010 to 2011 (see “Social Security Wage Base Will Not Increase for 2011“), but in that year the Social Security tax rate was temporarily reduced.
A few other things that currently are not scheduled to change for next year:
The Medicare tax rates remain the same and there’s still no cap on Medicare. The wage threshold at which the additional Medicare tax must be withheld is still $200,000.
The flat supplemental rate is still 25% and the maximum individual tax rate is still 39.6%.
The threshold at which supplemental wages become subject to withholding at the maximum individual tax rate is still $1,000,000.
The compensation threshold at which an employee is considered highly compensated for purposes of Section 423 will remain $120,000.
Note that all of the above items can be changed by Congress and Congress has been known to sometimes make changes to next year’s tax rates very late in the year (e.g., see the 2011 alert noted above). But as things stand now, you have one less thing to worry about on your year-end checklist (but don’t forget that you still need to reset year-to-date wages/withholding back to $0 after December 31).
We’re into fall already, and before we know it the end of the year will be upon us. This upcoming period of time is a busy one for stock administration professionals. In the mix of activity that tends to spike in the month of December is that of charitable giving and gifts. In today’s blog I’ll cover some reminders about ensuring proper tax reporting and securities law compliance for stock related donations.
My inspiration for this blog actually came from a Fortune magazine article about John Mackey, co-CEO and co-founder of Whole Foods. Only a single sentence in the entire article mentioned stock options. In talking about Mackey’s $1 per year salary, the article also mentioned that “The company donates stock options Mackey would have received to one of its foundations.” As I started thinking about how that transaction would be handled on the company side, I realized that it’s been a while since we talked about gifts and donations.
This is honestly a topic that could command a lot of written coverage. The intricacies of gifting stock can be complex from several angles. In the interest of space, I’ll focus on a few areas that touch stock administration.
Timing of Donation to Charity: For tax purposes, the IRS considers the charitable donation to be complete on the date it is received by the charity – not the date it was requested, not the date the company approved the transfer. This is something to be mindful of the closer the request is made to December 31st. If the donor personally delivers a stock certificate with all necessary endorsements to the charitable recipient, the gift is complete for federal income tax purposes on the day of delivery. If the shares are being transferred electronically to the charity, then the transfer is complete when the shares are received into the charity’s account. It’s not enough to have made a transfer request to a broker. This timing can be important to companies who are tracking dispositions of ESPP shares and ISOs. For dispositions due to charitable donations occurring near December 31st, it’s best to verify the date the shares were actually received by the charity in order to apply the disposition to the proper tax year.
Donations of shares acquired through an ESPP or Incentive Stock Option (ISO) exercise: There are some tricky nuances around taxation on the participant side that hopefully will have been discussed with their tax advisor. What stock administrators need to know is that in tracking dispositions of ESPP and ISO shares, a disposition is a disposition – even a charitable one. That means for purposes of tracking qualified vs. disqualified dispositions, the same rules apply to charitable donations of the shares. See the above section on “Timing of Donation to Charity” to ensure tax reporting in the proper year.
Rule 144 Considerations: Rule 144 is concerned with the sale of control securities, not their gratuitous transfer, so the subsequent sale of the stock by a charity, not the actual gift of the shares to the charity, would be subject to the restrictions of Rule 144, if it is applicable. The charity must follow Rule 144 if it has a control relationship with the issuing company. Those wanting more detail on Rule 144 and gift requirements can read the March-April 2013 issue of The Corporate Counsel.
In summary, if an affiliate gifts stock to a non-affiliate that was originally acquired by the affiliate in the open market (i.e., not restricted in the affiliate’s hands), since the securities were not subject to a holding period requirement in the affiliate donor’s hand, SEC staff has stated that the donee need not comply with the Rule 144(d) holding period requirement for its sales of the securities. Moreover, the Staff notes that if the donee is not an affiliate and has not been an affiliate during the preceding three months, then the donee is free to resell the securities under Rule 144(b)(1) “subject only to the current public information requirement in Rule 144(c)(1), as applicable.”
“The one-year cut off for the application of the current public information requirement to donees does run from the donor’s original acquisition. Good news—but don’t forget that the six-month “tail,” adopted in 2007 (which requires donors to aggregate with their donees’ sales) runs from the date of the gift.” The “tail” mentioned in the article applies to the donor, who must aggregate his/her sales of stock with those of the donee for purposes of complying with the Rule 144 volume limitation. This requirement applies for six months after the gift (12 months where the issuer is not a reporting company or is not current in its Exchange Act reporting).
If you are not a subscriber to The Corporate Counsel (or have not yet renewed) you can gain immediate access online to sample gift compliance letters by taking advantage of the no-risk trial. (Almost all of our member companies and law firms are long-term subscribers to The Corporate Counsel.)
In case you were wondering (in your spare time), the IRS now has a techniques guide for auditing equity compensation. The “guide” is actually an instruction to internal IRS auditors on how to evaluate equity compensation during an “examination” (fancy word for “audit”). The guide, published in August 2015, is available on the IRS web site. I’ll try to summarize some of the more interesting points in today’s blog.
The Angles of Audit
Before I dive into what the guide says, I want to cover a thought that came to me as I was reading the guide. Stock Plan Administrators and their vendors are focused on tax compliance relative to the company’s corporate tax obligations (reporting, withholding, etc.). However, it’s important to remember that as compliant as we may be from a issuer standpoint, there is still audit exposure potential from the individual angle of tax compliance. An employee may get audited, even if the company is not being audited. The company’s documentation may be requested from the IRS as part of that audit. It’s important that issuers are aware that there are a variety of audit angles that could attract attention to their equity compensation record-keeping and disclosures at any given time, and the IRS guide seems to support that thought – providing detailed information on the types of transactions and potential tax issues that could arise. With that detail comes guidance on how to source documents attached to equity compensation. According to a blog dedicated to explaining the guide by Porter Wright Morris & Arthur LLP,
“Interestingly, the Guide devotes a fair amount of detail to explaining where auditors may find these documents, encouraging them to review Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) filings as well as internal documents. As such, the Guide serves as an important reminder to employers to be mindful that the IRS (or other third parties) someday could seek to review their corporate documents. ”
Documents Galore
Let’s cut to the chase. Where are auditors instructed to look?
SEC documents – This is an obvious one, but it’s where the IRS recommends their auditors start. Disclosures such as the 10K (Form 10-K), proxy statement (DEF 14A) and Section 16 reports of changes in beneficial ownership (Form 4) are places to identify types of plans and awards, as well as detailed compensation data for named executive officers and directors. The IRS recommends comparing data from these disclosures to individual Form W-2s and 1099-MISCs to verify proper tax withholding and reporting. If discrepancies surface, the IRS recommends expanding the audit (yikes).
Internal Documents – Types of internal documents subject to scrutiny include employment contracts, and meeting minutes from Board of Director and Compensation Committee meetings.
The Porter et al blog summarized this into some key awareness factors for employers:
“Employers should be aware of these instructions. Often times, it is easy for someone to prepare internal documents using jargon or short-hand that is familiar among people at the company but that may be difficult to explain to a third party or worse could be misleading. The Guide demonstrates that internal documents may not be restricted to internal personnel. Instead, the IRS very well could review these internal documents. As such, employees and advisers who prepare these documents should be mindful of both the information contained in the documents and how they present that information.”
Takeaways
When preparing documentation or disclosures (including supporting documents for those disclosures), it’s good to look at the process as if a third party will eventually come in and evaluate the information. The Porter blog made a great point – often times records are maintained in manner that internal parties may easily understand, or there’s someone on hand who can “interpret” that scrawl made by a board member. However, once that information is subject to review by an auditor, questions can arise. Companies should be aware of the IRS audit instructions relatives to equity compensation and maintain their records in a way that will make it easy to explain if audited.