For today’s blog, I feature five trends in tax withholding practices for restricted stock and units, from the 2016 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey (co-sponsored by the NASPP and Deloitte Consulting):
Share Withholding Dominates; Sell-to-Cover Is a Distant Second. The majority (79% of respondents for executive transactions, 77% for non-executive transactions) report that share withholding is used to fund the tax payments the majority (greater than 75%) of award transactions. Most of the remaining respondents (17% of respondents for executive transactions, 18% for non-executive transactions) report that sell-to-cover is used to pay the taxes due on the majority of award transactions.
Rounding Up Is the Way to Go. Where shares are withheld to cover taxes, 75% of respondents report that the shares withheld are rounded up to the nearest whole share. Most respondents (62% overall) include the excess with employees’ tax payments; only 13% refund the excess to employees.
FMV Is Usually the Close or Average. The overwhelming majority (87%) of respondents use the close or average stock price on the vesting date to determine taxable income. Only 12% look to the prior day’s value to determine taxable income, despite the fact that this approach provides an additional 24 hours to determine, collect, and deposit the tax withholding due as a result of the vesting event (see “Need More Time? Consider Using Prior Day Close“).
Form 1099-B Is Rare for Share Withholding. Although share withholding can be considered the equivalent of a sale of stock to the company, only 21% of respondents issue a Form 1099-B to employees for the shares withheld.
Companies Are Split on Collecting FICA from Retirement Eligible Employees. Where awards provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement, practices with respect to the collection of FICA taxes are largely split between share withholding and collecting the tax from employees’ other compensation (41% of respondents in each case).
Last week, guest author Corey Rosen of the NCEO started a two-part series on how companies can share equity and stay private. This week, he concludes the series.
Yes, You Can Share Equity and Stay Private: Part Two
By Corey Rosen, National Center for Employee Ownership
In Part One of this article, we looked at general issues for staying private, including plan design and redemptions. Below are four more liquidity options.
Sales to Employees
Employees can buy shares from sellers. The purchase is with after-tax dollars; the proceeds are taxed as a capital gain. Some companies pay employees a bonus to use to buy the shares or loan the money at a reasonable rate, which right now could be very low without incurring a tax problem. It is also possible to set up an internal stock market. The details are beyond the scope of this article. Suffice it to say here that the SEC has made it possible to do this is a way that avoids most significant regulatory burdens.
Outside Investors
We have seen a growing trend in recent years for investors in private companies, whether angel investors or private equity firms, to be willing to invest in closely held companied with the intention of selling to another investor group in 5-7 years instead of forcing a sale to another company. This lets the company stay private, but be aware that these investors may want some level of control even for a minority interest, preferred stock, and/or a relatively high rate of return on their money.
Secondary Markets
If your company is a high-flyer with real prospects to go public at some point, there are now secondary markets such as NASDAQ’s SecondMarket and SharesPost,that allow investors to buy equity (usually equity held by employees in the form of options or restricted shares). These rights are then traded on the market until a liquidity event. Only the most promising companies can do this, however.
ESOPs
Employee Stock Ownership Plans (ESOPs) are highly tax-favored ways for companies to redeem their own shares by setting up an employee benefit trust similar to profit sharing or 401(k) trusts that are designed to hold company stock. Companies can use pretax money to redeem the shares through the ESOP, which then allocates them to employees. All full-time employees with a year or more of service are included and allocations are based on relative pay or a more level formula. Sellers can defer capital gains tax on the sale, and S corporation ESOPs can reduce their tax obligation by the percentage of shares the ESOP owns.
Corey Rosen, Ph.D., is the cofounder and senior staff member of the NCEO. He co-authored, along with John Case and Martin Staubus, Equity: Why Employee Ownership Is Good for Business (Harvard Business School Press, May 2005). Over the years, he has written, edited, or contributed to dozens of books, articles and research papers on employee ownership. He is generally regarded as the leading expert on employee ownership in the world.
Today’s blog features guest author Corey Rosen of the NCEO on how companies can share equity and stay private.
Yes, You Can Share Equity and Stay Private: Part One
By Corey Rosen, Founder, National Center for Employee Ownership
Recent reports show that more and more entrepreneurial companies are choosing to stay private for much longer periods of time. That may be because they do not believe the IPO market is ripe for an offering, or that they realize that the chances of actually having an IPO for most start-ups is comparable to high school basketball players making the pros. Some companies could find another company to buy them, but may not find the terms attractive. Still other entrepreneurs just don’t want to give up control. They may like what they do or, increasingly, have a social purpose that they believe the buyer will undermine.
Many of these companies share equity with employees, but wonder about how that can become liquid. Some are reluctant to spread equity too widely for just this reason, even though they like the idea of employee ownership.
In fact, there are lots of practical ways to share equity, stay private, and provide liquidity. In this two-part series, I look at how to do that. The National Center for Employee Ownership’s Staying Private: Liquidity Options for Entrepreneurial Companies, provides a detailed examination of these issues.
Design Your Plan with Liquidity in Mind
Many entrepreneurs I talk to say that equity stakes will become liquid when there is a liquidity event, but they don’t know when, if, or how that will occur. To them, this is not a big issue—they plan to stay until that happens and maybe beyond. But for employees, the uncertainty makes equity grants far less valuable than they really are because, as we know from behavioral economics research, people vastly overweight risk and uncertainty in assessing economic value. On top of that, some plans may have grants that expire if not exercised, but if they are exercised, employees have to pay a tax now for a benefit that can’t be realized any time soon.
To deal with this problem, companies should consider vesting on liquidity only. If liquidity is too far away and too uncertain, they should look for ways to provide liquidity in the interim, as described below. Companies can limit the cash drain of these approaches by using net settlements, where the employees get the net after tax value of the equity holdings on exercise in the form of shares. That way, at least employees aren’t paying out of pocket, something that makes the award look like punishment.
Second, you need a realistic way to assess value. Formula approaches like book value and multiples of revenues are frequently used and almost invariably wrong. A basic valuation by an outside appraiser is not very expensive and is well worth the several thousand dollar cost. It gives your plan a lot more credibility, it assures that you are paying an appropriate amount, and gives you a good sense of how your company can become more valuable.
So how can you provide liquidity?
Redemptions
The simplest approach is for the company to buy back the stock. This must be done with after-tax dollars. Equity holders who paid for their shares get capital gains treatment on the sale if they are effectively exiting the business; otherwise, dividend rates apply. Currently, there is little difference between the two, however, unless the owner has a substantial basis in the shares, in which case capital gains treatment is preferable. The shares can be retired (meaning the enterprise value of the company goes down, but the per share value of remaining shares remains the same) or made available for sale to other buyers or for awards to employees.
In part two of this article, we will look at four other alternatives: sales to employees, outside investment, secondary markets, and ESOPs.
Corey Rosen, Ph.D., is the cofounder and senior staff member of the NCEO. He co-authored, along with John Case and Martin Staubus, Equity: Why Employee Ownership Is Good for Business (Harvard Business School Press, May 2005). Over the years, he has written, edited, or contributed to dozens of books, articles and research papers on employee ownership. He is generally regarded as the leading expert on employee ownership in the world.
PricewaterhouseCoopers has published a summary of SEC comments on stock compensation (“2013 SEC Comment Letter Trends: Employee Stock Compensation,” available in the NASPP’s Surveys & Studies Portal). The comments were made in the course of the SEC’s review of various types of public filings (mostly Forms S-1, but also some Forms 10-K and other filings). I thought it would be interesting to take a look at what PwC found for today’s blog.
Companies Targeted
The majority (79%) of the companies to receive comments were technology, pharmaceutical, and life science companies. But don’t read anything into this–as noted above, the majority of the SEC’s comments were on S-1 filings, and these industries represented the majority of IPOs last year (particularly IPOs where employees held substantial amounts of stock compensation).
Areas Commented On
81% of the SEC’s comments related to information on stock compensation included in the MD&A. Of the comments related to the MD&A, 90% related to the discussion of critical accounting policies, et. al., for stock compensation. Based on the sample comments excerpted by PwC, it seems that many of these comments requested more information on the valuation of the company’s stock on grant dates.
Types of Comments
PwC found that, overall, 50% of the comments related to disclosure, 41% related to valuation, and 9% related to other accounting issues. Of the 41% of comments related to valuation, many of these seem to relate to the valuation of the company’s underlying stock on grant dates, rather than the valuation of stock options. Also, a little over one-third of the comments that PwC classified as disclosure-related were on the disclosures related specifically to valuation. Another 29% were on disclosures related to IPOs; many of these comments focused on valuation of the company’s stock (specifically on the differences between the most recent valuation and the IPO price).
Accounting Recognition Comments
Not much here. PwC notes that:
“Interestingly, we did not come across many comments related to some of the more complex areas of stock compensation accounting. For example, we saw only one comment on classification of awards as equity verses liability, no comments on expense attribution methodology, one comment on award modifications, and no comments on determination of the grant date.”
Key Takeaways
Overall, it seems that the SEC either (1) focused primarily on stock valuation-related issues in their review of stock compensation info in public filings, or (2) focused on everything but simply didn’t find much to comment on beyond the stock valuation issues.
If you are a public company, this is probably good news. Because your stock is publicly traded, so long as your grant dates are accurate, there’s not a lot for the SEC to question with regards to your stock value. But if you are a private company, you’ll want to make sure your house is in order when it comes to grant date stock valuations.
I’m a big fan of learning from my own mistakes, but if given the opportunity, I’m an even bigger fan of learning from the mistakes of others. And frankly, when it comes to our jobs, it can cost everyone involved a lot less to learn from the mistakes others have made than repeating the mistakes ourselves. Thanks to the National Center for Employee Ownership, this is now possible!
Earlier this year, the NCEO asked some of the industry’s leading equity compensation lawyers, plan administrators (including yours truly), tax and accounting consultants and software vendors to share some of the mistakes they’ve made in equity compensation and what they did about them. The stories that came in were riveting and provided enough content for an entire book!
The book was recently published and is appropriately titled, “If I’d Only Known That.” It is information packed with a focus on better understanding the complex relationships between accounting, tax, securities law, plan design, administration, and humanity, using stories of how bad things happen to good people in equity compensation, and is written by industry professionals for people who work in the industry. It is arranged into three categories–communication and education; plan design and modifications; and administration, policy and process. So, for instance, you could expect to find stories about ESPP contribution carryover and fair market value nightmares (see below for a summary of a related story I contributed to the book) in the “administration, policy and process” chapter.
******************** Throughout my career I have been a big proponent of validating fair market values. This obsession derives from a story I share in the book titled, “Check and Double Check.” Here is an overview of the story and the lesson learned:
Summary of Story: A mid-size semiconductor company offers a tax qualified ESPP to its employees. Immediately following the close of the stock market on the day of purchase, the plan administrator entered the company’s stock price (obtained from Yahoo! Finance) in its stock plan system, which was the resulting purchase price for the offering. The purchase was processed, and shares were distributed to participants’ accounts. Several months later, an employee contacted the company because they had identified a difference between the company-referenced purchase price and various online resources, including Yahoo! Finance. The employee’s information was accurate. As a result, the company had to reverse and reprocess the purchase, which meant that all interim activity had to be reprocessed, e.g., reversing terminations/withdrawals that occurred following the purchase and communicating the mistake to employees.
Lesson: Companies should incorporate a FMV validation into their SOX controls, e.g., obtain a sign-off from a second person that FMV’s entered into the stock plan database agree to two primary credible sources.
Fair market values touch so many areas of stock compensation. Be sure you have processes in place to ensure the fair market values you use to do your jobs are accurate.
********************
“If I’d Only Known That” is a great resource for both service providers and plan administrators. For service providers, it’s a great marketing tool for conveying the necessity of professional assistance to clients and prospects. For plan administrators, it’s an invaluable tool to help skirt mistakes before they happen. Invest in your career–purchase a copy of this book now!
Special pricing on all book orders! The NCEO is offering special member pricing to all NASPP members who purchase a copy of the book. To get the NCEO member price ($25), add the book to your cart and then enter the appropriate code (“Known” for the print version and “KnownPDF” for the digital version) in the “Payment code” field on the shopping cart page and click the “Enter” button to the right. Codes are not case-sensitive.
There isn’t a U.S. rule or regulation that gives a specific definition for the fair market value, either for creating an option exercise price or for calculating income on transactions, even though fair market value (FMV) is a fundamental measure for all awards. Section 409A regulations require that a consistent and reasonable valuation method be applied to stock grants. For private companies, coming up with a reasonable method for valuing company stock is complex, but for public companies it is generally accepted that the FMV for stock plans is based off the open market trading value of the stock.
Not so Definite
All stock plans should define the fair market value, but should also give the Plan Administrator the authority to determine FMV as needed. This is particularly crucial for companies whose stock becomes very thinly traded, but can also be an important piece of flexibility for other stock transactions.
The grant date fair value should, if at all possible, follow the plan definition. For transactions, however, there may be a need to have more than one definition for FMV. Most of applicable tax code (e.g., Section 409A, 422, or 83) focuses on the method used for determining grant date fair value. Section 409A is the most specific, permitting the use of an average sale price provided that the period used does not exceed (and is both set and irrevocable) 30 days prior to the grant date. However, 409A does permit the company to use more than one FMV, provided each application of FMV is consistent.
There may be situations where ESPP purchase or restricted stock vesting event dates fall on a non-market day and the plan defines FMV based on current day trading values. Alternatively, many companies prefer to define the FMV for transactions with a sale (e.g., broker assisted cashless exercise or immediate sale on vesting of restricted stock) as the sale price. There are also situations where the company has a unique need that justifies defining the transaction date fair value as something other than the plan definition. All of these are reasons why a company may choose to use more than one definition for fair market value.
Make it Official
Even if your company doesn’t plan on ever diverging from the plan definition of fair market value, you should still consider the possibility of a non-market day transaction and create an official definition of FMV for that circumstance. If you are currently using or considering using an different FMV definition than the one in the plan, assuming you have confirmed that the plan gives the plan administrator that authority, best practice would be to have that policy made official. In addition, even if you have created an official policy or procedure, the best way to show that the company is being reasonable and consistent with its definition of FMV is to have the Board or the Board’s designated compensation committee ratify the policy in a resolution.
What Other Companies Are Doing
Curious about how other companies define FMV? In the NASPP’s 2010 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey, 78% of respondents use grant date closing price for option grants, but only 60% use closing price as the FMV for exercises. In addition, 80% use the actual sale price for broker-assisted cashless exercises.
