As I mentioned in my blog on Tuesday, we are starting to see some movement towards repeal or revision of at least parts of the Dodd-Frank Act. The Administration’s executive order isn’t the only action that has been taken; here are a couple of other developments:
CEO Pay Ratio—The SEC Weighs In
On Monday, February 6, Acting SEC Chair Michael Piwowar issued a statement on the CEO pay ratio disclosure. Piwowar requests comments on “unexpected challenges that issuers have experienced as they prepare for compliance with the rule and whether relief is needed,” and encourages detailed comments to be submitted within 45 days. Piwowar also notes that he has directed the SEC staff to “reconsider the implementation of the rule based on any comments submitted and to determine as promptly as possible whether additional guidance or relief may be appropriate.”
While that’s pretty vague, is does indicate that, in addition to the Secretary of the Treasury and the Financial Stability Oversight Council, the SEC is also looking at the CEO pay ratio rule. Even so, it’s hard to say what this means. As we all know, and as an article in the Wall Street Journal notes (“GOP-Led SEC Considers Easing Pay-Gap Disclosure Rule of Dodd-Frank“), it is difficult for the SEC to move quickly on matters like this:
Republicans on the SEC could be stymied by the commission’s own procedures on the pay-ratio rule because undoing a regulation is handled by an often lengthy process that is similar to creating one. It also is difficult for the SEC to delay it outright, because of the commission’s depleted ranks. There are just two sitting commissioners—Mr. Piwowar and Kara Stein, a Democrat—meaning the SEC is politically deadlocked on most matters. Ms. Stein on Monday signaled opposition to efforts to ease the pay rule. “It’s problematic for a chair to create uncertainty about which laws will be enforced,” she said.
And Then There’s Congress
An article in Bloomberg/BNA reports that the Financial Choice Act is likely to be reintroduced into Congress this year (“Dodd-Frank Rollback Bill Expected in February, Duffy Says“). Originally introduced last year, this bill would repeal or restrict major parts of the Dodd-Frank Act, including reducing the frequency of Say-on-Pay votes, limiting application of the clawback provisions, and repealing the CEO pay ratio and hedging disclosures. Jenn Namazi blogged on the Act last year (see “Post Election: Things to Watch – Part I” and “Part 2“).
The Financial Choice Act is bigger than Dodd-Frank. The bill would also require a joint resolution of Congress before any “major” rulemaking by the SEC and a number of other agencies could go into effect. Mark Borges notes in his blog on CompensationStandards.com (“Acting SEC Chair Weighs in on CEO Pay Ratio Rule“) that the bill is expected to require the major proxy advisory firms to register with the SEC and, among other things, disclose potential conflicts of interest.
Poll: What Are You Doing?
It’s hard to know what to do in response to all this. Preparing for the CEO pay ratio disclosure requires a lot of time and resources, which most on the corporate side would view as wasted if the disclosure is eliminated. But if the disclosure isn’t eliminated, stalling preparations now could result in an implementation time crunch.
In his blog on CompensationStandards.com (“As Predicted—Hitting the Pause Button on the CEO Pay Ratio Rule“), Mike Melbinger says: “Postponement and revision of the rule seems likely. Now might be a good time to stop spending time and money on this calculation.” Take our poll to tell us what your company is doing (click here if the poll doesn’t display below).
A riddle: what do the Trade Adjustment Assistance Program, the African Growth and Opportunity Act, and HOPE for Haiti have to do with Forms 3921 and 3922? You might think “not much” but then you aren’t a member of Congress. The Trade Preferences Extension Act, which includes provisions relating to those three things and a couple of other global trade-related items, also increases the penalties for failure to file Forms W-2 and forms in the 1099 series, which includes Forms 3921 and 3922 (why forms 3921 and 3922 are considered part of the “1099” series is another riddle for another day).
The New Penalties
Timing of Correct Filing
New Penalty (Per Failure)
New Annual Cap
Old Penalty (Per Failure)
Old Annual Cap
Within 30 days
$50
$500,000
$30
$250,000
By Aug 1
$100
$1,500,000
$60
$500,000
After Aug 1 or never
$250
$3,000,000
$100
$1,500,000
With intentional disregard,
regardless of timing
Min. of $500
uncapped
Min. of $250
uncapped
Make That a Double
The penalties apply separately for returns filed with the IRS and the statements furnished to employees. If a company fails to do both, both the per-failure penalty and the cap is doubled. Thus, if both the return and the employee statement are corrected/filed/furnished after Aug 1, that’s a total penalty of $500, up to a maximum of $6,000,000. If intentional disregard is involved, that’s a minimum total penalty of $1,000 (and this amount could be higher) with no annual maximum.
Effective Date
The new penalties will be effective for returns and statements required after December 31, 2015, so these penalties will be in effect for 2015 forms that are filed/furnished early next year.
Penalties At Least As Interesting As the Trade Provisions?
Interestingly, when I Googled “Trade Preferences Extension Act,” so I could figure out what the rest of the act was about, the first page of search results included as many articles about the new penalties as about the trade-related provisions of the act.
If you want to know what the rest of the act is about, here is a summary from the White House Blog. There’s not a lot more to say about the penalties but if you want to spend some time reading about them anyway, here are summaries from Groom Law Group and PwC.
The House Financial Services Committee has recently been engaged in efforts to help start-up companies raise capital, including a bill (H.R. 4571) that directs the SEC to increase the threshold (from $5 million to $20 million) at which companies are required to provide additional disclosures to employees under Rule 701.
Background
Privately held companies typically rely on Rule 701 to issue stock through compensatory awards granted to employees. Where a company has relied on Rule 701 for the issuance of more than $5 million worth of stock in a 12-month period, the company is required to provide additional disclosures to employees, including the financial statements of the company prepared in accordance with US GAAP, risks associated with purchasing the company’s stock, and a summary of the material terms of the plan.
Proposed Change
The legislation passed by the House Financial Services Committee directs the SEC to increase the $5 million threshold to $20 million and further requires that this amount be indexed to inflation on a five-year basis. The bill makes no other changes to Rule 701.
The $5 million threshold has been in place since Rule 701 was adopted in 1988. Originally, Rule 701 actually capped issuances at $5 million; in 1999 the Rule was amended to merely require additional disclosures when this threshold is exceeded.
This threshold is frequently a concern for private companies, especially technology start-ups and others that grant equity broadly throughout their employee population. Anyone who has tried to buy real estate recently in California knows that $5 million in today’s economy isn’t what it was in 1988. According to the inflation calculator on the Bureau of Labor Statistics website, $5 million in 1988 had the buying power of a little over $10 million today; half the amount of the increase proposed by the House Finance Committee. We guess if the House Finance Committee is going to go for something, they might as well go for broke (or perhaps the bill sponsors felt they needed a little room for negotiation).
Next Steps
This legislation still needs to be voted on by the full House, then by the Senate, and then signed into law by the President. GovTrack.us (where you can sign up to receive email, Twitter, or Facebook updates on the bill) gives the bill only a 31% chance of passing. And after the bill is signed into law, the SEC has to draft a proposed rule, solicit comments, review the comments and issue a final rule before the change will take effect.
But, what is particularly interesting here is that—unlike some other limits I’d like to see adjusted for inflation (the ESPP $25,000 limit and the ISO $100,000 limit come to mind)—Congressional action isn’t necessary for Rule 701 to change. This is a rule promulgated by the SEC; as such, it could be modified by the SEC with or without direction from Congress. The SEC revamped Rule 144 in 2007; it’s been a lot longer than that since Rule 701 was updated. Perhaps this legislation will put this issue on the SEC’s radar.
The Chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee has released a discussion draft of proposed legislation that could dramatically change the tax treatment of stock compensation as we know it. Here is a summary of the proposals.
No More Deferrals of Compensation
The good news is that Section 409A would be eliminated; I still don’t fully understand that section of the tax code and maybe if I just wait things out a bit, I won’t have to. But the bad news is that it would no longer be permissible to defer taxation of stock compensation beyond vesting. Instead, all awards would be taxed when transferable or no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.
This would eliminate all elective deferral programs for RSUs and PSUs. The NASPP has data showing that those programs aren’t very common, so you probably don’t care so much about that. On the other hand, according to our data, about 50% of you are going to be very concerned about what this will do to your awards that provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement. In addition to FICA, these awards would be subject to federal income tax when the award holder is eligible to retire. Say goodbye to your good friends the rule of administrative convenience and the lag method (and the FICA short-term deferral rule)–those rules are only available when the award hasn’t yet been subject to income tax. This could make acceleration/continuation of vesting for retirees something we all just fondly remember.
As drafted, this proposal would also apply to stock options, so that they too would be subject to tax upon vest (the draft doesn’t say anything about repealing Section 422, so I assume that ISOs would escape unscathed). But one practitioner who knows about these things expressed confidence that there would be some sort of exception carved out for stock options. I have to agree–I don’t have data to support this, but I strongly suspect that the US government gets a lot more tax revenue by taxing options when they are exercised, rather than at vest (and that someone is going to figure this out before the whole thing becomes law).
Section 162(m) Also Targeted
The proposal also calls for the elimination of the exception for performance-based compensation under Section 162(m). This means that both stock options and performance awards would no longer be exempt from the deduction limitation. At first you might think this is a relief because now you won’t have to understand Section 162(m) either. I hate to rain on your parade, but this is going to make the tax accounting and diluted EPS calculations significantly more complex for options and performance awards granted to the execs subject to this limitation.
And that’s a bummer, because the proposal says that once someone becomes subject to the 162(m) limitation, they will remain subject to it for the duration of their employment. Eventually, you could have significantly more than five execs that are subject to 162(m). That’s right–five execs. The proposal would make the CFO once again subject to 162(m), a change that’s probably long overdue.
And There’s More
The proposal would also change ordinary income tax rates, change how capital gains and dividends are taxed, and eliminate the dreaded AMT (making the CEP exam just a little bit easier). And those are just the changes that would impact stock compensation directly. There is a long list of other changes that will impact how you, your employees, and your employer are taxed. This memo by PwC has a great summary of the entire discussion draft. In addition, we are in the process of recording a podcast with Bill Dunn of PwC on the draft–look for it soon in the NASPP podcasts available on iTunes.
When Does This All Happen?
That’s a very good question. This proposal has a long ways to go on a road that is likely to be riddled with compromise. As far as I can tell, it hasn’t even been introduced yet as a bill in the House. It has to be passed by both the House and the Senate and then signed into law by the President. So I wouldn’t throw out those articles you’ve saved on Sections 409A and 162(m) and the AMT just yet. It’s hard to say what, if anything, will come of this.
As my readers know, because we’ve covered this topic ad nauseam here in the NASPP Blog (e.g., see entries on December 13, 2012, December 6, 2012, August 10, 2010, and May 6, 2010) when employees holding stock awards travel from state to state, it may be necessary to allocate the taxable income they recognize upon settlement of their awards to the various states where they provided services during the life of the awards. This can apply not only to employees that relocate or that live in one state and work in another, but also to employees on assignment and even business travelers. Many states require employees that work as little as one day in the state to pay income tax in that state. To further complicate matters, the formulas used to allocate the income can vary from state to state.
With some states (most notably NY and CA, but there are others as well) implementing audit initiatives and actively pursuing enforcement in this area, this issue has moved to the forefront in terms of things that keep stock plan administrators awake at night.
Relief?
Given the complexity of the acronym, it’s hard to believe the Mobile Workforce State Income Tax Simplification Act (MWSITSA? mew-sit-sa? really?) is about simplification but there it is, the word “simplification,” right there in the title. The Act would accomplish this by prohibiting states from taxing non-residents that work in the state for less than 30 days during the calendar year. Moreover, the determination of whether or not the company has to withhold taxes could be based on employees’ expectations of how many days they’ll work in states other than their state of residence (in the absence of fraud, collusion to evade taxes, or some sort of daily attendance tracking system).
A memo from PwC in the NASPP’s State Taxes Portal provides a great summary of the Act (the memo refers to an earlier version of the bill but I believe it is substantially the same as the current version.)
Not So Much?
This would be a big help in terms of business travelers, but there would still be employees on temporary assignment and employees that relocate to contend with. And, even with business travelers, I can imagine plenty of situations where this bill wouldn’t help (e.g., a salesman with an out-of-state territory or a regional division head that spends a lot of time traveling to headquarters in another state). And the bill doesn’t seem to do anything about standardizing the formula for allocating income among jurisdictions.
My impression is that, so far, most companies’ compliance efforts have focused on relocations and assignments and that no one has been doing much in terms of compliance for business travelers anyway. But at least if the Act became law, you could cross business travelers off your list of long-term projects–well, as least some of them.
Which brings us to the $10 million question–will the Act get passed. I think there’s a good chance that legislation of this sort will be enacted some time during, say, my lifetime (note that I expect that I’ve got at least three or four decades ahead of me). But I’m not holding out a lot of hope for the short term. The good news is that a version of this bill was introduced into the House last year and passed. Unfortunately it stalled out in the Senate and now we’re in a new session of Congress so it has to start all over again. Govtrack.us gives it a 40% chance of making it out of committee but only a 6% prognosis of actually being enacted. At least there’s hope for our grandchildren…
A few weeks ago I blogged about a potential insider trading loophole relative to 10b5-1 plans. While I don’t have any updates on that front today, I do have word of other insider trading related buzz. This time, it relates to our branches of government. Last week Congress quietly passed a modification to the STOCK Act, effectively eliminating trading disclosure requirements for most high-ranking government staffers that were previously covered under the Act. On Monday, April 15th, President Obama followed suit by signing the modification into law.
I’m Not Sure I’ve Even Heard of the STOCK Act
First things first – what’s the STOCK Act? The STOCK Act (aka the Stop Trading on Congressional Knowledge Act) was passed a year ago in April 2012. It explicitly states that the members of Congress and their staffs are not exempt from the same insider trading prohibitions that apply to everyone else. The law basically mandates that Congress and several thousand high ranking government staffers disclose certain financial information, including stock trades, to an online searchable database. Prior to the Act, such disclosures were not easily accessed by the public – it usually required an in person request to obtain this information.
Sounds Reasonable – What’s the Uproar About?
The changes to the Act preserved the conclusion that insider trading is still prohibited for the same people (Congress, etc.). Some ruffling of feathers comes from what has changed, and that is the disclosure elements of the Act. The original version of the Act requires all affected people to make disclosures to a searchable online database – the idea being more publicly accessible disclosures. The modification to the Act now only requires those online searchable disclosures to be made by the President, Vice-President, Congress and candidates for Congress, and some other other Presidential and Senate-appointed positions. Absent from this disclosure requirement are the thousands of staffers who were previously covered. Activists are calling this an “epic failure” of the original intent of the STOCK Act, which was to make trading by those positions accessible to the public, and allow watchdog agencies policing ability over potential insider trading. Supporters of the modification say that putting financial information for thousands of government employees online, where it can be so easily accessed by the public, is not in our national security best interests.
Why Do I Care?
Regardless of which side of the fence you stand on this issue, sometimes we can find the impact in an overall message or theme. It’s been weeks and weeks of consistency in my Google Alerts – insider trading feels like a topic that’s warming up. The SEC has been in an aggressive mode of cracking down on insider trading, and, as discussed a few weeks ago, there is potential for new types of insider trading investigations – like that into 10b5-1 trading plans. It’s just my opinion, but I somehow think that all of these events keep putting the spotlight onto insider trading, which could mean a new era of scrutiny. While the government keeps refining their own policies around insider trading, we have the opportunity to do the same. If an investigation ever comes your way, you’ll want to be certain that you’ve followed your pre-clearance procedures and disclosure requirements to the “T”.
I’d venture to say the trigger for an insider trading investigation almost never originates in the stock plan group. However, if trades in your company’s stock are ever the subject of an SEC investigation, you can bet there’s going to be a microscope on the company to determine the policies and practices around prevention. I would recommend adding an audit and policy/procedure evaluation of your insider trading prevention practices to your list of 2013 objectives, if you haven’t done so already. It’s always better to be ahead of the curve when it comes to areas of compliance. Our Insider portal offers an overview of the various regulations, as well as sample documents.
Earlier this summer, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), introduced another bill that would limit corporate tax deductions for stock options to the expense recognized for them, the “Ending Excessive Corporate Deductions for Stock Options Act.” His cohort on this year’s bill is Senator Sherrod Brown (D-Ohio) (Senator Claire McCaskill, D-OH, has also signed on since the bill was introduced).
A Bi-Annual Event I say “this year’s bill” because this is becoming a bi-annual event. Levin has been introducing bills like this for at least the past 20 years. He didn’t even bother to change the name of the bill this year. In fact, just for kicks, I did a redline comparison of this bill to his 2009 bill; the two bills are almost exactly the same. His co-sponsors have varied over the years but often include Senator John McCain (R-AZ).
The bill would limit the tax deduction corporations could take for stock options to the amount of expense recognized for them (i.e., the grant date fair value). According to Levin’s press release, this would raise $24.6 billion in tax revenue over the next ten years (assuming, apparently, that the market doesn’t have too many more days like yesterday). The press release states that Levin has released IRS data showing that, from 2005 to 2009, corporations took tax deductions that were “billions of dollars” greater than the expenses shown on their financial statements.
This is surprising to me because I’m not sure how the IRS would even have this data. The tax deductions companies took in those years would relate to options that were granted in prior years–many may have been granted before FAS 123(R) (now ASC 718) even went into effect. Comparing the tax deduction the company claimed to the option expense for that year is not a valid comparison.
You can usually get an idea of whether a company’s tax deductions for stock compensation exceed the expense recorded for it from their financial statements, but most of the financial statements I’ve seen only provide this information in aggregate for all types of arrangements the company offers–stock options, restricted stock, RSUs, performance awards, ESPP, etc. Levin’s bill only applies to stock options.
Section 162(m)–No More Free Pass
The bill would also make stock options subject to the limitation on corporate tax deductions under Section 162(m). Currently, stock options are exempt from the limit by virtue of being considered inherently performance-based (because the stock price must appreciate for the option to deliver a benefit). This clearly would raise revenue–maybe that’s where a good chunk of the $25 billion comes from. What was the tax deduction your company claimed for the options exercised by your NEOs last year?
Given that, after twenty years, Levin still hasn’t had any success with this agenda, I think chances are nothing will happen with this bill either, so I don’t expect it to be a hot topic at this year’s NASPP Conference. But you can catch up on all hottest tax topics–straight from the IRS–with the session “The IRS Speaks” at the 19th Annual NASPP Conference.
It’s Not Too Late to Enroll in the NASPP’s Financial Reporting Course The NASPP’s newest online program, “Financial Reporting for Equity Compensation” started on Thursday, July 14, but it’s not too late to get into the course. All webcasts have been archived for you to listen to at your convenience.
Designed for non-accounting professionals, this course will help you become literate in all aspects of stock plan accounting, from expense measurement and recognition, to EPS and tax accounting. Register today so you don’t miss any more webcasts.
NASPP “To Do” List We have so much going on here at the NASPP that it can be hard to keep track of it all, so I keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in my blog.
Don’t miss your local NASPP chapter meetings in Denver, Houston, and San Francisco. I’ll be at the San Francisco chapter annual all-day event at the lovely Wente Vineyard in Livermore, CA, on Wednesday–I hope to see you there!
Honestly, I anticipated that the Bush-era tax cuts would lapse at the end of this year–and I know I’m not the only one. It’s is unusual for Congress to be this active this late in the year. But, yesterday the Senate did approve the tax plan which includes an extension of those tax cuts for two more years. The bill is up for a vote in the Senate today and is expected to pass. (See this article from Reuters.)
So, if your company has been grappling with what, if anything, should be done in anticipation of tax increases, you’ve just been given a couple more years to sort through the issue. If you are wondering what in the world this has to do with your stock plans, since employers can just use a flat rate for withholding on equity compensation, then you must have missed our July webcast, How Upcoming Tax Rate Changes Impact Your Stock Plans. Don’t worry; the full webcast and transcript are still available!
Where this bill could really hit home is this: In addition to the extension of the individual tax rates, the bill includes a one-year decrease in payroll taxes. Specifically, the 6.2% Social Security tax paid by employees would be reduced to 4.2%. Employers would not be given the same tax holiday; employer “matching” stays at 6.2%. The bill doesn’t appear to impact the changes to the Medicare portion of payroll taxes, which are set to increase from 1.45% to 2.35% for wages above the threshold amount starting in 2013. (For more information on the implications of the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act of 2010, check out that great webcast I mentioned above.)
If this bill does pass, there are a few things you will want to be sure and prepare for. Obviously, you’ll need to make sure to update the Social Security tax rate in your stock plan administration database. Additionally, it will be a good idea to sit down briefly with your payroll department to confirm that there won’t be any glitches exchanging Social Security withholding and year-to-date levels after the payroll system is updated.
On the communication front, this isn’t really the kind of issue that warrants a whole campaign. It’s not confusing and lower taxes are always well received. It is, however, a great reminder of the value of a good disclaimer. Your educational materials, particularly those pertaining to taxes on equity compensation, should have a disclaimer that includes verbiage indicating that the information in the materials may not reflect current regulatory developments. This bill would mean a pretty straight-forward decrease in tax withholding, but the next development may not be so simple. Having a quality disclaimer helps protect the company in case there is a delay in updating your educational materials or if employees are inadvertently referring to outdated printed material. If you’re feeling ambitious, a handy little asterisk notation on any examples you have available to employees noting the one-year reduction in the Social Security withholding rate would be fantastic.
Finally, and maybe only after the dust settles from the changes that 2010 has brought us, take a look at what 2013 might look like for your employees, particularly those making over $200,000 annually, and decide if there are any changes your company may want to implement in anticipation of the tax rates increasing.