The Financial Accounting Foundation has completed their post-implementation review of FAS 123(R) (see my August 27, 2013 blog entry, “FAF to Review FAS 123(R)“) and the upshot is that they think the standard (now known as ASC 718) needs to be simplified. In response the FASB has proposed some very significant amendments to the standard. In addition to the summary I provide here, be sure to listen to our newest Equity Expert podcast, in which Jenn Namazi discusses the proposed amendments with Ken Stoler and Nicole Berman of PwC.
Share Withholding
Currently, ASC 718 provides that withholding for taxes in excess of the statutorily required rate triggers liability treatment. This has been a problem because of rounding considerations (if companies round the shares withheld up to the nearest whole share, does that constitute withholding in excess of the required rate) and, more significantly in jurisdictions (e.g., US states and other countries) that don’t have a flat withholding rate. The FASB proposal would change the standard to allow share withholding up to the maximum tax rate in the applicable jurisdiction, regardless of the individual’s actual tax rate.
This is obviously great news and would make share withholding a lot more feasible for non-US employees. There is still the question of rounding, however. It also isn’t clear how this would apply in the case of mobile employees. Finally, don’t forget that, here in the US, the IRS still opposes excess withholding at the federal level (see my January 9, 2013 blog entry “Supplemental Withholding“).
Estimated Forfeitures
Estimating forfeitures is one of the most complicated aspects of ASC 718—I’ve seen multiple presentations of over an hour in length on just this topic. The FASB has proposed to dispense with this altogether and allow companies to simply recognize the effect of forfeitures as they occur. Companies would be required to make a policy decision as to how they want to recognize forfeitures that would apply to all awards they grant. I assume that this would apply only to forfeitures due to service-related vesting conditions, but I don’t know this for certain.
Tax Accounting
Another area of the standard that has provided a wealth of material for NASPP webcasts and Conference sessions is how companies account for the tax deductions resulting from stock awards. FASB’s proposal would change the standard to require that all tax savings and all shortfalls flow through the income statement. If an award results in a deduction in excess of the expense recognized for it, the excess savings would reduce tax expense (currently, the excess is recorded to APIC). Likewise, shortfalls would always increase tax expense (currently, shortfalls are deducted from the company’s APIC balance to the extent possible, before reducing tax expense).
With this change, companies would no longer need to track what portion of APIC is attributable to excess tax deductions from stock plan transactions. But this would introduce significant variability into the income statement (which is the reason FASB decided against this approach ten years ago). This approach gets us closer to convergence with IFRS 2, but is still not completely aligned with that standard (in IFRS 2, all excess deductions run through APIC and all shortfalls run through the P&L). But this makes me wonder if companies will simply record the windfall/shortfall tax deductions as they occur, or would they have to estimate the potential outcome and adjust tax expense each period until the deduction is finalized (as under IFRS 2)?
Now? Now They Figure This Out?!
All of these changes will eventually make life under ASC 718 a heck of a lot simpler than it is now. That’s the good news. The bad news is that it’s really too bad the FASB couldn’t have figured this out ten years ago. Not to say “I told you so” but I’m sure there were comment letters on the exposure draft that warned the FASB that the requirements in at least two of these areas were too complicated (I’m sure of this because I drafted one of them).
If you are already thinking wistfully about how much more productively you could have used all that time you spent learning about estimated forfeitures and tax accounting, imagine how your administrative providers must feel. They’ve spent the last ten years (and a lot of resources) developing functionality to help you comply with these requirements; now they’ll have to develop new functionality to comply with the new simpler requirements.
More Info
I’ll have more thoughts on this and some of the FASB’s other decisions—yes, there’s more!—next week. For now, check out the PwC and Mercer alerts that we posted to the NASPP website (under “More Information” in our alert, “FASB Proposes Amendments to ASC 718“). And listen to our Equity Expert podcast on the proposed amendments with Ken Stoler and Nicole Berman of PwC.
For today’s blog entry, I have a couple of follow-up tidbits related to the recent EITF decision on accounting for awards with performance periods that are longer than the time-based service period. I know you are thinking: “Yeesh, it was bad enough the first time, how much more could there be to say on this topic!” but you don’t write a blog.
Background
To refresh your memory, this applies to performance awards that provide a payout to retirees at the end of the performance period contingent on achieving a non-market condition target (in other words, just about any goal other than stock price or TSR targets). Where awards like this are held by retirement-eligible employees, the awards will not be forfeited in the event of the employees’ terminations but could still be forfeited due to failure to achieve the performance targets. The service component of the vesting requirements has been fulfilled but not the performance component.
This also applies to awards granted by private companies that vest based on both a time-based schedule and upon an IPO/CIC.
The EITF came to the same conclusion you probably would have come to on your own. Expense is adjusted for the likelihood that the performance conditions will be achieved; as this estimate changes throughout the performance period, the expense is adjusted commensurately until the end of the period, when the final amount of expense is trued up for the actual vesting outcome. (See “Performance Award Accounting,” April 15, for more information.)
The IASB Does It’s Own Thing
I thought it was just a few maverick practitioners that had taken an opposing position. The alternative approach (which the EITF rejected), is to bake the likelihood of the performance condition/IPO/CIC being achieved into the initial fair value, with no adjustments to expense for changes in estimates or outcome (akin to how market conditions are accounted for).
It turns out, however, that the IASB is one of the maverick practitioners that takes this position. Apparently, the IASB thinks that option pricing models can predict the likelihood of an IPO occurring or earnings targets or similar internal metrics being achieved. Which makes this another area were US GAAP diverges from IFRS. Just something to keep in your back pocket in case conversation lags at the next dinner party you attend.
Mid-Cycle Performance Grants
As I was reading Mercer’s “Grist Report” on the IASB’s decision, I noticed that they also had made a determination with respect to grants made in the middle of a performance cycle. These are typically grants made to new-hire employees. For example, the performance cycle starts in January and an executive is hired in February. All the other execs were granted awards in January at the start of cycle, but the newly hired exec’s award can’t be granted until February.
Under ASC 718, the grant to the newly hired exec is accounted for just like any other performance award. True, his award will have a different fair value than the awards granted in January and the expense of the award will be recorded over a shorter time period (by one month) than the other execs’ awards. But where the award is contingent on non-market conditions, the expense is adjusted based on the likelihood that the goals will be met and is trued up for the actual payout, just like any other performance-conditioned award.
The same treatment applies under IFRS 2, but only if the performance-conditioned award is granted shortly after the performance cycle has begun. Awards granted farther into the performance cycle (in my example, if the exec were hired in, say, June, rather than February) are accounted for in the manner applicable to market conditions (i.e., the vesting contingencies are baked into the initial grant date fair value, with no adjustment to expense for changes in estimates or outcome), even if the targets are internal metrics.
Hmmmm. I’m starting to wonder if discussions like this explain the dearth of dinner parties in my life.
Thanks to Susan Eichen at Mercer for bringing the IASB’s decision to my attention and for explaining the IASB’s positions with respect to mid-cycle performance grants.
It’s a holiday week so I thought I’d do something a little lighter for today’s blog entry. Over the nearly 20 years that I’ve worked in this industry, I have asked a lot of questions about stock compensation. I’ve also found the answers to a lot of them, but there are still a few questions that remain a mystery to me. For today’s entry, I present some of my unanswered questions.
IFRS 2?
The international financial reporting standard for stock compensation is IFRS 2. Two? Is this really the second standard that the IASB drafted? Seriously? Of all the possible areas of discrepancy in worldwide accounting, stock-based compensation was the second most important area they could think of? And, if so, what the heck was so important that it beat us out for the number 1 spot?
Why Two and a Half Months?
What is magical about two and a half months after the end of the calendar year for the IRS? Would anyone care if the deadline were just two months (i.e., the end of the second month)? Because in terms of explaining both the provisions of 409A and the FICA short-term deferral rule, this would be a heck of a lot easier to say.
Forms 1 & 2?
Whatever happened to Forms 1 and 2? I must remember to ask Alan Dye about this. Wouldn’t it have made more sense to call Forms 3, 4, and 5 something like “Forms 16A, 16B, and 16C”? Or maybe 16H (“H” for holdings), 16NE (“NE” for non-exempt transactions), and 16E (“E” for exempt transactions)? The form for Rule 144 is called “Form 144,” why not use the same naming system for Section 16 forms?
When Is 30 Days After June 30?
Why does Form G-4 (filed by companies that have issued loans for the purchase of their own stock in excess of the Federal Reserve Board thresholds) have to be filed within 30 days following June 30? Wouldn’t that always be by July 30? Why couldn’t the Federal Reserve Board just say, “file this form by July 30”? Does the Federal Reserve Board have a different calendar than I do?
How Does the IRS Determine What Constitutes “News”?
Why does the IRS send out an email announcing inflation adjustments for the carbon dioxide (CO2) sequestration credit under §45Q but doesn’t send an email announcing proposed rule changes under Section 83?
How Many EDGAR Passwords Does It Take to Change a Lightbulb?
Why the heck does it take four–count ’em, that’s 4–codes to change my EDGAR password? That’s two more codes than I have to enter to change the password on any of my financial accounts. And it’s useless as a form of security because I can’t remember any of them, so I have them all written down in the same document–if someone manages to get one of them, he/she probably has them all. Heck, I bet most companies have a single document where they store all of these codes for all of their insiders–all in one handy place for anyone who wants to sabotage their insiders’ Section 16 filings. This is a perfect example of why lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to develop computer systems.
What Is a Borker, Anyway?
Does anyone else consistently mistype the word “broker” as “borker”? It seems so inappropriate but also kind of appropriate at the same time. “Consluting” for “consulting” is another typo I make with some regularity. Thankfully, both errors are caught easily with spellcheck.
Just a few thoughts to ponder and perhaps discuss with your family as you enjoy Thanksgiving dinner. Enjoy your holiday!
The Financial Accounting Foundation, or FAF, has announced that they are going to conduct a post-implementation review of FAS 123(R). In today’s blog, I take a look at what this might mean for the future of stock plan accounting.
What the Heck?
The FAF oversees and provides funding for the FASB, as well as several other entities involved in promulgating US accounting standards. The FAF has recently begun conducting post-implementation reviews to evaluate the effectiveness of standards issued by the FASB (and also standards issued by GASB, Governmental Accounting Standards Board, which is the only other accounting standards board here in the United States–they aren’t just targeting the FASB).
You Can Take Your Aluminum Hat Off–They’re Probably Not Out to Get Us
Upon reading that the FAF is planning a post-implementation review of FAS 123(R), my first reaction was alarm. In the past, when various accounting authorities have reviewed US accounting standards on stock compensation, the outcomes haven’t been particularly favorable for those of us on team stock awards (notable examples include FIN 44, EITF 96-18, and, of course, FAS 123(R)). The FAF says (on its website) that standards are selected for a PIR based on “considerable amount of stakeholder input indicating that the standard might not be meeting its stated objectives.”
So I asked Bill Dunn at PwC about it and he put me in touch with his colleagues Ken Stoler and Pat Durbin (Pat is PwC’s national practice leader on standard setting). Ken and Pat don’t think the PIR signals any significant changes for stock plan accounting. They think that FAS 123(R) was selected for review merely because it is complex, pervasive, and has raised numerous practice issues–not because the FAF thinks there is anything wrong with the standard. They suspect that any changes that the FAF recommends will be minor and only in areas where divergence in practice has developed.
What Is a PIR?
According to the FAF website, the PIR has three main goals: to determine if the standard meets its stated objectives, to evaluate the standard’s implementation and compliance costs and benefits, and to provide feedback to improve the standard setting process. The PIR team uses a variety of procedures, including reviewing the project archives, reviewing academic and other research, and collecting stakeholder input via surveys and interviews. They then present their findings to the FASB’s chair and oversight committee.
As I understand it, the PIR team doesn’t recommend any specific standard-setting actions, they simply point out areas of concern and it is up to the FASB to decide whether or not to take action. Which means that this is a loonnnng process. First the FAF has to conclude the PIR, which takes a long time, and then the FASB has to act on their concerns, which takes even longer. But, the silver lining for me is that it sounds like there could be fodder for several blog entries along the way, especially if the FAF finds any areas of concern (which surely they will–it’s a big standard).
Why “FAS 123(R)”?
My other thought upon reading this was to wonder why the FAF calls the standard “FAS 123(R)” when the rest of us have to call it “ASC 718.” Because, frankly, it’s been a struggle to get used to the ASC 718 moniker. If the FAF can call it FAS 123(R), I thought maybe the rest of us could too. But, unfortunately, Ken doesn’t think we’ll all go back to calling it FAS 123(R) anytime soon.
By now, you are probably finishing off any remaining leftovers from Thanksgiving. On that theme, I have a few leftover items for the blog and now seems like a good time to use them up. Sort of like making a casserole out of turkey, mashed potatoes and stuffing, but not quite as tasty.
Update on Proxy Disclosure Lawsuits On November 6, I blogged about plaintiffs’ attorneys that are now bringing lawsuits alleging that companies’ disclosures related to their stock plan or Say-on-Pay proposals are inadequate (“Martha Stewart and Your Proxy Statement“). The lawsuits seek an injunction to delay the shareholder votes on these proposals (which, in effect, delays the annual meetings); companies targeted by these attorneys are faced with settling and paying out plaintiffs’ attorney fees in the six figures (up to $625K) to avoid a delay.
Last week, Mike Melbinger provided an update on this issue in his Compensation Blog on CompensationStandards.com. To date, 20 companies have been targeted and at least six have settled, meaning that they agreed to make additional disclosures and pay fees to the plaintiffs’ attorneys. At least one company (Brocade Communications) also had to delay the vote on their stock plan proposal (although they did hold their annual meeting on time). At least three companies (Clorox, Globecomm Systems, and Hain Celestial) got courts to reject the injunction. And Microsoft got the law firm that filed the complaint (Faruqi & Faruqi, which has initiated most of these suits) to withdraw it. The article “Insight: Lawyers Gain from Say-on-Pay” Suits Targeting U.S. Firms,” published by Reuters on November 30, has a good summary of the various suits.
This is an opportunity for you, as a stock plan administrator, to demonstrate the value that you bring to the table. Make sure that your legal department is aware of the potential for these lawsuits, so that if your company is targeted, they aren’t caught offguard. You also might want to forward the memo we’ve posted from Orrick to legal (“New Wave of Proxy Statement Injunctive Lawsuits: How to Win & Prevent Them“), which include thoughts on strengthening your disclosure so they will be more likely to withstand one of these lawsuits.
IFRS: Hot or Not? An article published on November 13 in Accounting Today (“SEC Still Has Reservations about IFRS” by Michael Cohn) reports on comments by SEC officials at FEI’s 31st Annual Current Financial Reporting Issues conference on where the SEC stands on IFRS. The upshot is that SEC researchers have identified a number of concerns with adopting IFRS in the US and that the SEC is still taking a wait and see approach. Some of the areas the researchers looked at were the cost of conversion, whether or not IFRS makes sense for US capital markets, the interpretative process, the impact on private companies, investor understanding, and what our exit strategy might be if the US adopts IFRS and it backfires. Based on this report, I’d say we still have a long ways to go before we are under IFRS (or some sort of equivalent) here in the US.
Of course, things may change now that there will be a new chair at the SEC.
Even the SEC Makes Mistakes The next time someone finds a typo in something you’ve written, you can point out that you are in good company. In his blog for Allen Matkins, Keith Bishop notes a number of errors on the Form 10-K posted to the SEC website (“The SEC’s Form 10-K: ‘In Endless Error Hurled,'” April 11, 2012), including cites to regulations that don’t exist and outdated instructions. I feel a lot better now about the myriad typos I’m sure can be found in my blogs. If the SEC isn’t perfect, how can the rest of us be expected to be error-free?
More Than You Ever Want to Know About Stock-for-Stock Exercises I spent an hour or so today drafting a 1,200-word essay in response to a question in the NASPP Discussion Forum about stock-for-stock exercises. I’m so pleased with my response that I wish I had another use for it. But I don’t, so I’m mentioning it here in the hopes that a few more people will read it. If you want to understand what a tax-free exchange of property is (and what it isn’t), check out Topic #7391.
Shout-Out Finally, a shout-out to Sara Spengler at Facebook for suggesting the Thanksgiving tie-in for today’s blog entry.
Many things in life take on a “hurry up and wait” path, and the SEC’s evaluation of whether or not to incorporate International Financial Reporting Standards (“IFRS”) into U.S. accounting practices is no different. As I write this blog, we are approaching four years since the SEC first issued their proposed road map to IFRS (August 27, 2008) and the acronym IFRS became a buzz word in the stock compensation world.
What’s the Latest News?
On July 13th, the SEC issued a long-awaited staff report that basically summarized their considerations around whether or not the U.S. should adopt IFRS. The key word here is “considerations”. The bottom line of the SEC’s report can be articulated quite simply: the SEC’s report did not contain a recommendation on whether IFRS should be adopted, or a decision and time frame for potential adoption, but rather an analysis of all of the related pros and cons. Where does that leave us? We remain in uncertain territory as to if, when and how IFRS will be adopted (thus the title of this blog). We are still very much in “if” territory, though many accounting experts keeping watch on this issue seem to feel strongly that it’s still a matter of “how” and “when” and not “if”.
No News is….No News!
The IASB has vocalized their impatience surrounding the U.S.’s slow decision making process when it comes to adopting IFRS, so that pressure is undoubtedly mounting. Even so, the prospect of the U.S. adopting IFRS remains on the horizon, and is not something the SEC is likely to decide on before the end of 2012. The good news is that we can turn our attention to more pressing matters (such as what to do about all the tax rate changes that are scheduled to kick in January 1, 2013), and, at least from a stock compensation perspective, not have to worry about looming accounting changes having an impact on us anytime soon.
This is still on the radar, and we’ll keep any updates coming. If you do have spare time, our IFRS2 Portal contains information on many of the considerations on the topic.
One of the aspects of stock plan management that I’ve always found particularly challenging is keeping on top of “global” developments. We keep ourselves plenty busy trying to stay abreast of U.S. requirements for administering our stock plans, and when you layer in a foreign jurisdiction, or two, or a dozen, or more, now you’ve got a handful. The work has multiplied.
This week brought a few changes or updates on the global horizon, and in today’s blog I’ll summarize them in case you’re interested.
A SAFE Update in China
For Companies offering equity compensation to employees who are PRC nationals in China (and I know that there are many of you that do), approval from the State Administration of Foreign Exchange (“SAFE”) has been required since 2007 (via Circular 78). The process for obtaining SAFE approval has been long and cumbersome for many companies. For those companies who have, are contemplating, or are in process of seeking to gain such approval, some good news has emerged: in February, Circular 78 was replaced with a new Circular 7, effective immediately. Circular 7 seems to simplify the process of obtaining SAFE approval for equity compensation plans, including provisions that reduce the documentation required, expand the entities and people covered in the application, and cover more award types. There are some great alerts with more details on this topic in our Global Stock Plans portal. Be sure to check them out – included is information on action items that may be necessary even if you already have previously obtained SAFE approval in China.
Expanded Reporting in France for Qualified Plans
For those of you with French-qualified stock plans, new reporting requirements went into effect on January 31, 2012. Included is expanded reporting for stock option exercises. The bottom line: for stock options exercised on or after January 31, 2012, the new requirements apply. For details, visit our Global Stock Plans portal.
Adoption of IFRS: Urban Legend?
The talk about the possibility of the U.S. adopting IFRS as its accounting standard has started to sound like an urban legend in my book. Okay, well not really, but it was fun to describe it that way. It does seem like there is a lot of talk about “when” the SEC may have a timeline or more guidance on if and when IFRS will be implemented (and usually it remains just “talk”, since no SEC decision on the matter has been made). According to the Journal of Accountancy, the SEC’s Chief Accountant, James Kroeker, indicated at a conference in February that the SEC is on track to issue a decision in the next few months. A precise deadline has not been publicized and it seems that won’t happen until the SEC gets much closer to completing their report on the issue. This is something to keep an eye on over the next 6 months or so. Stay tuned.
Those are the highlights on the global front this week. As I mentioned above, there are resources in our Global Stock Plans portal that go further into these updates – well worth a few minutes of time.
This week I write about how stock compensation can introduce volatility into the P&L and why this is a problem.
The Problem with Liability Treatment
The recent article “Higher Stock Price Triggers First-Quarter Loss for Barnwell” (Honolulu Star Advertiser, May 12, 2011, Andrew Gomes) highlighted for me the exact problem with stock compensation that is subject to liability treatment. The article explains that Honolulu-based Barnwell Industries experienced a $1.5 million loss this quarter–a reversal of a $1.5 million profit for the same quarter last year. The reason for the loss is that their stock price doubled during the quarter.
How can a stock price increase cause the company to recognize a loss? The answer is that Barnwell has granted options that can be paid out in cash (the options include a cash SAR component) and are therefore subject to liability treatment. Thus, the increase in their stock price had a very significant impact on their stock compensation expense. Although they haven’t granted options since 2009, Barnwell’s stock option expense went from $46,000 for the comparable quarter last year to $1,677,000 for the current quarter. That’s an increase of 3,546%–kind of hard to explain to shareholders, who, for the most part, probably don’t have the foggiest understanding of liability vs. equity treatment.
Performance Awards Too
While performance awards receive equity treatment under ASC 718, they can also introduce the potential for similar volatility to the P&L. When performance awards are contingent on non-market based goals (e.g., revenue, earnings, and other internal metrics), the likelihood of forfeiture is estimated and expense is recorded based on this estimate. If the company does well, the likelihood of forfeiture will be lower and the expense for the awards will increase.
It’s important to keep this in mind when designing performance award programs and to set appropriate caps on payouts as a means of controlling stock plan expense (not to mention, how do you handle a situation where awards vest based on earnings, the earnings target is hit, and this decreases the forfeiture estimate to the point where the additional expense for the awards reduces earnings below the target). This is also a reason to consider market-based awards–i.e., awards that vest based on stock price targets or total shareholder return. For these awards, the likelihood of meeting the targets is baked into the initial fair value estimate and there are no further adjustments if the likelihood that the targets will be achieved changes.
Need to know more about the accounting treatment and design considerations for performance awards? Don’t miss the NASPP’s pre-conference program, “Practical Guide to Performance-Based Awards” at this year’s NASPP Conference.
IFRS 2
If ever required for US companies (see last week’s blog entry, “IFRS 2: The Saga Drags On“), there are three requirements under IFRS 2 that could introduce significant volatility to the P&L:
Tax Accounting: IFRS 2 requires all tax shortfalls to run through the P&L and, moreover, requires companies to estimate their tax benefit/shortfall each accounting period and adjust tax expense accordingly. This is the opposite of Barnwell’s problem. Here, an increase in stock price wouldn’t be a problem, but a decrease that causes options and awards to be underwater (i.e., the current intrinsic value of the award is less than the expense) could result in significant increases in tax expense, which would reduce earnings for the period. Sort of rubbing salt into the wound–reduced earnings is not going to help get the stock price back up.
Share Withholding: Share withholding on either options or awards triggers liability treatment (for the portion of the award that will be withheld to cover taxes) under IFRS 2. As the company’s stock price increases, this liablity–and associated P&L expense–will increase.
Payroll Taxes: The company’s matching tax liability for payroll taxes (Social Security and Medicare in the US) is also treated as a liability that must be estimated and expensed each accounting period. Again, as the company’s stock price increases, this liability and expense will also increase.
See the NASPP’s IFRS 2 Portal for articles on these IFRS 2 requirements.
Last Chance to Qualify for Survey Results This is the last week to participate in the NASPP’s 2011 Domestic Stock Plan Administration Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte). Issuers must complete the survey by this Friday, May 20, to qualify to receive the full survey results. Register to complete the survey today.
New “Early-Bird” Rate for the NASPP Conference If you missed last Friday’s early-bird deadline for the 19th Annual NASPP Conference, you can still save $200 on the Conference if you register by June 24.This deadline will not be extended–register for the Conference today, so you don’t miss out.
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.
Register for 19th Annual NASPP Conference (November 1-4 in San Francisco). Don’t wait; the new early-bird rate is only available until June 24.
Participate in the NASPP’s 2011 Domestic Stock Plan Administration Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte, with survey systems support provided by the CEP Institute). Don’t wait–this week is your last chance to participate.
I’m sure many of my readers have been disappointed that I haven’t been writing much about accounting lately, so today I take a look at the status of IFRS here in the United States.
IFRS: No News is Good News? The fact is that there hasn’t really been much to report on IFRS lately. As my readers know, back in 2008, the SEC proposed a roadmap that would have required adoption of IFRS in the United States, phased in from 2014 to 2016. Then the economy collapsed and rushing headlong into IFRS seemed like maybe not such a good idea. More recently, there have apparently been some developments–that I do not understand in the least, so don’t ask me about them–relating to the accounting treatment of highly devalued debt securities that have also given regulators pause on the idea of wholesale adoption of IFRS here in the United States.
In February of last year, the SEC announced that it backed off on the roadmap a bit and would make a decision in 2011 as to whether or not IFRS should be adopted in the United States. I expect that it will be several more months before the SEC announces its decision.
Condorsement?
More recently, the idea of “condorsement” has been proposed. Under this approach, rather than requiring adoption of IFRS, U.S. GAAP would continue to exist, but FASB would work towards converging our standards to IFRS on a standard-by-standard basis. I admit that I am a little fuzzy on how condorsement differs from convergence. I would offer ten points to anyone that can explain it, but, to be honest, I don’t think I really want to know.
Convergence
Speaking of convergence, the FASB and IASB have an ongoing program designed to achieve this goal for projects specified under a memorandum of understanding (issued in 2006 and updated in 2008). Last month, they announced that five of the projects had been completed and the remaining three will be completed in the second half of 2011 (a slight delay from the original schedule). None of the projects relate to stock compensation, however. Phew.
SEC Roundtable
At the same time that the FASB and IASB announced the progress on their convergence project, the SEC announced that it will sponsor a Roundtable on July 7, 2011 to discuss incorporating IFRS into the U.S. financial reporting system.
A news bulletin issued by Morrison and Foerster discusses the FASB/IASB and SEC announcements.
Share Withholding: No News is Bad News
A key difference between IFRS 2 and ASC 718 is that, under IFRS 2, liability treatment is required any time shares are withheld by the company to cover tax withholding. I think many of us harbor a secret hope that this will somehow change before IFRS is required in the United States (either that, or that IFRS is never required and this somehow is left out of convergence/condorsement). So far, however, no such luck. A PricewaterhouseCoopers alert issued in September of last year reports that the Interpretations committee of the IASB refused to carve out an exception. The committee felt it did not have the authority to do so; the matter can still be presented to the IASB for relief.
Save Big on NASPP Conference by Completing Survey NASPP members that complete the NASPP’s 2011 Domestic Stock Plan Administration Survey (co-sponsored by Deloitte) by this Friday, May 13, can save 10% off the early-bird rate for the 19th Annual NASPP Conference (which is already a significant savings off the regular registration rate). Register to complete the survey today–so you don’t have to explain to your boss why you missed out on this rate.
Only Ten Days Left for NASPP Conference Early-Bird Rate It’s hard to believe how time flies, but the 19th Annual NASPP Conference early-bird rate expires this Friday, May 13. This deadline will not be extended–register for the Conference today, so you don’t miss out.
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.
Register for 19th Annual NASPP Conference (November 1-4 in San Francisco). Don’t wait; the early-bird rate is only available until May 13.
Today I discuss two completely unrelated, but blog-worthy, developments: 1) A recent development in the accounting treatment of share withholding under IFRS 2 and 2) Updated electronic filing specifications for Section 6039 returns.
Share Withholding: The More Things Change, the More They Stay the Same We received an alert from PricewaterhouseCoopers reporting that the interpretations committee of the IASB, or IFRIC, recently met to consider the accounting treatment of share withholding transactions.
As I’m sure our readers are aware from the numerous memos posted in our IFRS 2 Portal, share withholding is subject to liability (mark-to-fair value) treatment under IFRS 2. This is a significant divergence from U.S. GAAP, where liability treatment is not required. According to the NASPP’s 2010 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey, over three-fourths of respondents indicate that share withholding is used to cover the taxes due on more than 75% of RS/RSU transactions. That’s a lot of companies that are going to be subject to share withholding once IFRS 2 is required in the United States (and that may already be subject to it for their foreign subsidiaries).
The good news is that this issue is on the IFRIC’s radar, but the bad news is that they decided they couldn’t do anything about it. They’ve referred the matter up to the IASB for consideration. Stay tuned…
Electronic Filing Specs for 6039 Returns The IRS has finally updated Publication 1220 with the specifications for electronic filing of Forms 3921 and 3922, which will be used to file the returns required for ISOs and ESPPs under Section 6039. (I know the cover says it was updated in July, but the update wasn’t posted to the IRS website until August 26, so I’m not as late with this announcement as it looks).
If you are planning on creating your own files for electronic filing (rather than outsourcing this) or if you are a service provider that will be creating these files for your clients, you’ll want to get cracking on the files right away. Test filings can only be submitted in the fourth quarter of the calendar year–if you wait until the last minute, i.e., the March 31 deadline, you won’t be able to submit a test filing.
It’s Here (Almost)! It’s hard to believe, but the 18th Annual NASPP Conference is just a week out. With Conference registrations going strong–on track to reach nearly 2,000 attendees–and Say-on-Pay looming, you don’t want to be caught unprepared as we head into 2011. There’s still time to register but don’t wait any longer.
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.