Riddle me this: when is a benefit not a benefit? The answer: when that benefit results in a change to the terms and conditions of an ISO. Making changes to ISO can have the unfortunate effect of disqualifying the options from ISO treatment, which might make the optionees less than enthusiastic about the new “benefit.”
The Uber Case
This was highlighted in a recent class-action lawsuit brought by an Uber employee (McElrath v. Uber Technologies). McElrath, an employee of Uber and the plaintiff in the suit, was promised an ISO that vested over four years in his offer letter. But, when the ISO was granted, the vesting schedule was shortened to just six months. This caused a much greater portion of the ISO to exceed the $100,000 limitation. The plaintiff contends that Uber changed the vesting schedule to ensure a corporate tax deduction for the option.
There could be any number of legitimate reasons for Uber to grant the options with a shorter vesting schedule than stated in the offer letter. Additionally, shorter vesting periods certainly offer benefits to employees. I suspect that many companies consider acceleration of vesting to be a change they can make without an award holder’s consent. But this illustrates that, when it comes to ISOs, it is important to consider the tax consequences to the optionee before making any changes.
Modifications, Too
The Uber case doesn’t involve a modification, just a discrepancy between what was granted and what was promised in the offer letter. But this concept also applies any time an ISO is modified. Any change that confers additional benefits on the optionee (other than acceleration of exercisability and conversion of the option in the event of a change-in-control) is consider to be the cancellation of the existing ISO and the grant of a new option. If the new option doesn’t meet all of the ISO requirements (option price at least equal to the current FMV, granted to an employee, $100,000 limitation, etc.), the option is disqualified from ISO treatment.
And, while acceleration of exercisability (which most practitioners interpret to mean vesting) doesn’t result in a new grant, there is still the pesky $100,000 limitation to worry about. In many cases, acceleration of exercisability will cause an ISO to exceed this limitation.
Where a modification disqualifies all or a portion of an option from ISO treatment, it is important to consider whether it is necessary for the optionee to consent to the modification. Most option agreements stipulate that any changes that adversely impact the optionee cannot be executed without the optionee’s consent. Keep this in mind the next time your compensation committee has a bright idea about making existing ISOs better.
Here we are again at the start of another season of Section 6039 filings. Nothing much has changed with respect to Section 6039 filings in recent years, so imagine my surprise when I learned that the IRS had updated Form 3922.
Form 3922 Grows Up
As it turns out, the only update to the form is that it has been turned into a fill-in form. If you are planning on submitting paper filings, this allows the form to be filled in using Adobe Acrobat, so you don’t have to scare up a typewriter or practice your handwriting. I haven’t owned a typewriter since college and even I can’t read my handwriting, so I am a big fan of fill-in forms.
Unfortunately, this is just about the least helpful improvement to the forms that the IRS could make. Form 3922 is for ESPP transactions. ESPPs tend to be offered by publicly held companies with well over 250 employees. Chance are, if a company has to file Form 3922, the company has more than 250 returns to file (less than 250 ESPP participants is probably a pretty dismal participation rate for most ESPP sponsors) and the returns have to be filed electronically. The fill-in feature doesn’t impact the electronic filing procedures; it is only helpful for paper filings.
It would have been more helpful if the IRS had made Form 3921 a fill-in form. Given the declining interest in ISOs (only around 10% of respondents to the NASPP/Deloitte Consulting 2016 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey grant ISOs), companies are more likely to be filing this form on paper. The IRS notes, however, that it selected Form 3922 to be made into a fill-in form because they receive so few filings of it on paper. I guess the IRS’s goal was to appear helpful but not actually be helpful. Your tax dollars at work.
A Fill-In Form Isn’t As Helpful As You Think, Anyway
As it turns out, having a fill-in form may not be that helpful, anyway. I was thinking you could fill in the form, save it, and then email it to the IRS but it doesn’t seem like this is the case. No, even if you fill it in using Adobe Acrobat, you still have to print it out and mail it to the IRS. And the requirements for printing the form out still include phrases like “optical character recognition A font,” “non-reflective carbon-based ink,” and “principally bleached chemical wood pulp.” I think this means that you have to print the form on white paper, using black ink that isn’t too shiny, and using the standard fonts in the fill-in form. But I’m not entirely sure.
What About Form 3921?
When I first saw that Form 3922 is now fill-in-able, I assumed, perhaps naively, that a fill-in Form 3921, which would truly be useful, would be available any day. But that was back in September and still no update to Form 3921. Upon reflection, especially given the IRS’s statement about why this honor was bestowed upon Form 3922, I think I may have been overly optimistic.
The full results from the 2016 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey, which the NASPP co-sponsors with Deloitte Consulting LLP, are now available. Companies that participated in the survey (and service providers who weren’t eligible to participate) have access to the full results. And all NASPP members can hear highlights from the survey results by listening to the archive of the webcast “Top Trends in Equity Plan Design,” which we presented in early November.
For today’s blog entry, I highlight ten data points from the survey results that I think are worth noting:
Full Value Awards Still Rising. This survey saw yet another increase in the usage of full value awards at all employee levels. Overall, companies granting time-based restricted stock or units increased to 89% of respondents in 2016 (up from 81% in 2013). Most full value awards are now in the form of units; use of restricted stock has been declining over the past several survey cycles.
Performance Awards Are for Execs. We are continuing to see a lot of growth in the usage of performance awards for high-ranking employees. Companies granting performance awards to CEOs and NEOs increased to 80% in 2016 (up from 70% in 2013) and companies granting to other senior management increased to 69% (from 58% in 2013). But for middle management and below, use of performance award largely stagnated.
Stock Options Are Still in Decline. Usage of stock options dropped slightly at all employee levels and overall to 51% of respondents (down from 54% in 2013).
TSR Is Hot. As a performance metric, TSR has been on an upwards trajectory for the last several survey cycles. In 2016, 52% of respondents report using this metric (up from 43% in 2013). This is first time in the history of the NASPP’s survey that a single performance metric has been used by more than half of the respondents.
The Typical TSR Award. Most companies that grant TSR awards, use relative performance (92% of respondents that grant TSR awards), pay out the awards even when TSR is negative if the company outperformed its peers (81%), and cap the payout (69%).
Clawbacks on the Rise. Not surprisingly, implementation of clawback provisions is also increasing, with 68% of respondents indicating that their grants are subject to one (up from 60% in 2013). Enforcement of clawbacks remains spotty, however: 5% of respondents haven’t enforced their clawback for any violations, 8% have enforced it for only some violations, and only 3% of respondents have enforced their clawback for all violations (84% of respondents haven’t had a violation occur).
Dividend Trends. Payment of dividend equivalents in RSUs is increasing: 78% of respondents in 2016, up from 71% in 2013, 64% in 2010, and 61% in 2007. Payment of dividends on restricted stock increased slightly (75% of respondents, up from 73% in 2013) but the overall trend over the past four surveys (going back to 2007) appears to be a slight decline. For both restricted stock and RSUs, companies are moving away from paying dividends/equivalents on a current basis and are instead paying them out with the underlying award.
Payouts to Retirees Are Common. Around two-thirds of companies provide some type of automated accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement (60% of respondents for stock grants/awards; 68% for performance awards, and 60% for stock options). This is up slightly in all cases from 2013.
Post-Vesting Holding Periods are Still Catching On. This was the first year that we asked about post-vesting holding periods: usage is relatively low, with only 18% of companies implementing them for stock grants/awards and only 13% for performance awards.
ISOs, Your Days May be Numbered. Of the respondents that grant stock options, only 18% grant ISOs. This works out to about 10% of the total survey respondents, down from 62% back in 2000. In fact, to further demonstrate the amount by which option usage has declined, let me point out that the percentage of respondents granting stock options in 2016 (51%) is less than the percentage of respondents granting ISOs in 2000 (and 100% of respondents granted options in 2000—an achievement no other award has accomplished).
Next year, we will conduct the Domestic Stock Plan Administration Survey, which covers administration and communication of stock plans, ESPPs, insider trading compliance, stock ownership guidelines, and outside director plans. Look for the survey announcement in March and make sure you participate to have access to the full results!
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.
Back in May, the Senate Finance Committee published a report of possible ways that the tax treatment of employee benefits might be changed as part of the tax reform project that the Committee is working on. Today I take a look at some of the strategies they are considering.
These strategies were suggested by witnesses at hearings that the Committee held, as well as by various bipartisan commissions, tax policy experts, and members of Congress. Not all members of the Committee agree on which direction constitutes “reform” for the tax code (e.g., whether tax reform should reduce the deficit or lower tax rates), so some of the ideas are contradictory. It’s sort of a grab bag of tax reform.
Section 162(m)
The report suggests expanding the group of employees whose compensation is subject to the deduction limit under Section 162(m); applying the limit to all stock compensation, including stock options; and reducing the maximum deduction companies are entitled to. If this all sounds familiar, it’s because it’s already happening for health insurance providers (see my blog “CHIPs: More Than a Cheesy TV Show“). If Congress goes in this direction, I have to believe that the IRS might take it one step further and implement the allocation rules that they have proposed for health insurance providers as well. This could have a pretty significant impact on stock plan administration.
An alternative suggestion to all of these ideas is to repeal Section 162(m) altogether. With all the media outrage over executive compensation, I’d be pretty surprised if this is the direction Congress takes. But, never say never–I’ve been surprised many times in my life.
Section 409A and Deferred Compensation
Despite the draconian rules under Section 409A, deferred compensation continues to be a point of controversy. The report suggests requiring all non-qualified deferred compensation to be taxed when earned. Which would make it “nondeferred compensation” or just regular compensation. Essentially the ability to defer taxation on any compensation outside of a tax-qualified plan would be eliminated. If deferrals aren’t eliminated entirely, then perhaps the amount of compensation that can be subject to deferral might be limited.
Or, rather than eliminating the ability to defer compensation, an alternative suggestion is to require companies to pay a special investment tax on earnings attributable to non-qualified deferred compensation. If the compensation hasn’t been paid out, then the company is presumably earning a return on the unpaid amounts and could be paying a special tax on that return. I can only begin to imagine the complicated rules that would apply to stock compensation under this approach. I foresee lots of NASPP Conference sessions.
The report also suggests repealing Section 409A altogether, repealing it for only private companies, or repealing the 20% penalty.
Stock Options
As noted above, the report suggests making stock options subject to Section 162(m) without exception. Use of full value awards had already outpaced usage of stock options–this would be just another nail in the coffin.
The report also suggests eliminating incentive stock options; I can’t see many public companies shedding a tear over this, but private companies might be bummed. Hopefully this idea wouldn’t be extended to include ESPPs, however.
And, you guessed it–Senator Levin’s proposal (“Senator Levin, Still Trying“) on limiting corporate tax deductions for stock options to the amount of expense recognized for them rears its ugly head in the report as well.
In today’s entry I highlight a few articles that are available on the NASPP website that I think are particularly valuable. Many of these articles are updated on an annual basis; together they comprise the core foundational knowledge necessary to be proficient in stock compensation.
Restricted Stock and Units: The article “Restricted Stock Plans” covers just about anything you could want to know about restricted stock and unit awards and is updated annually.
ESPPs: “Designing and Implementing an Employee Stock Purchase Plan” takes an in-depth look at the regulatory and design considerations that apply to ESPPs, particularly Section 423 plans. This is a reprint of my chapter in the NCEO’s book “Selected Issues in Equity Compensation” so it is updated annually.
Securities Law: Alan Dye and Peter Romeo’s outlines of Rule 144 and Section 16 provide great overviews of these areas of law and are also updated annually.
I’m sure that all of you are completely on top of this, but just in case you’ve gotten a little distracted by all the excitement over the new tax withholding rates and the American Taxpayer Relief Act, don’t forget that it’s time to file the returns and distribute the information statements required under Section 6039 for ISOs and ESPPs.
Section 6039 Deadlines Coming Up
The information statements need to be distributed to employees by January 31 and the returns need to be filed with the IRS by February 28 (if filing on paper) or April 1 (if filing electronically).
The returns are filed on Form 3921 for ISOs and Form 3922 for ESPPs. You can simply provide employees with a copy of the returns that will be filed with the IRS or you can provide them with a substitute statement, provided the statement complies with the IRS’s requirements (which aren’t terribly onerous despite what one law firm memo I’ve seen suggests).
What If You Did Forget?
Well, you’ve still got plenty of time on the returns that are filed with the IRS, especially if you file electronically, which is actually probably easier than trying to file on paper anyway. There are several providers than can take your data, whip it into shape, and file it electronically for you–see the NASPP’s webcast “Comparing Solutions for Section 6039 Compliance. Not only is the deadline (April 1–we get an extra day this year because March 31 is a Sunday) still several months off, but you can file for an automatic, no-questions-asked 30-day extension using Form 8809.
But you’d better get cracking on the employee statements. There’s no automatic extension available here–if you need an extension you need to write a letter to the Extension of Time Coordinator in the Information Returns Branch at the IRS, include a good excuse (the dog ate my information statements?), and hope the IRS is feeling generous. [A couple of thoughts come to mind: 1) How cool is that job title? I think it would be awesome to tell people that you are the “Extension of Time Coordinator.” I bet a lot of people want to be your friend. I wonder if this person also has the authority to suspend birthdays? And, 2) if you are in need of an extension, it’s nice to know that there are so many other people in the same boat that the IRS has actually created a position to handle all the requests.]
If any of my readers have requested (or have clients that requested) an extension on the employee statements I’d love to hear from you–how quickly did the IRS respond, was the extension granted, did they give you are hard time about it, etc.?
More Information
The NASPP has loads of resources on Section 6039–Section 6039 is practically our middle name! Our Section 6039 Portal brings together all of our great resources on this topic, including numerous blog entries we’ve written on the topic as well as many other articles we’ve collected and various IRS publications that relate to this reporting obligation.
New this year, we’ve posted the article “6039 Gotchas!” by My Equity Comp to the portal. And the article “Figuring Out Section 6039 Filings” answers every question you could possibly have on either the returns or the statements. If it doesn’t, let me know so I can update it.
In addition to the webcast on providers that I mentioned above, we have a “lessons learned” webcast on 6039 filings.
Last year was the first year companies filed Section 6039 returns with the IRS for ISO and ESPP transactions. Those of us who lived through those filings are a little older and wiser now. So, as we head into our sophomore year of 6039 returns, I have a few tips for you.
Update Your FAQ
Participant statements have to be sent out by January 31, so updating your FAQ on Forms 3921 and 3922, as well as any other communications you include with the statements, should be first up on your list of things to do. The materials you created last year probably refer to the forms as “new,” state that this is the first year employees are receiving them, and fail to mention Form 8949 (and instead just tell employees to complete Schedule D). I’ve updated the sample memos and FAQ available in the NASPP’s Section 6039 Portal:
If you are interested in seeing what I changed in the FAQ, I’ve posted a redline version of it in the NASPP Document Library. And, of course, I posted the updated Section 6039 Flow Charts last week.
Deja Vu
Forms 3921 and 3922 are currently not available through the IRS’s online order form (if you recall, last year the forms weren’t available until mid-March, well after the deadline for filing on paper). Yesterday was a federal holiday, so I couldn’t verify whether or not the forms were available through 1-800-Tax Forms, but I suspect not. If the forms aren’t available right quick, companies will have to use substitute statements for participants again this year. Hopefully the forms will be available this year before the deadline to submit paper filings. If they aren’t, anyone filing on paper will need to file for an extension on Form 8809. It’s best to file for the extension online, using the IRS FIRE system, even if you are submitting the returns on paper.
Lessons Learned
Here are a few tips and other things that I learned from last year’s filings:
You can email the IRS many, many times with the same question and they won’t take out a restraining order against you. But they also still won’t answer your question. This probably isn’t the kind of tip you were looking for.
You have to include employees’ full social security numbers on the participant statements. Yes, I know that employees already know their social security numbers and that this presents a security risk. It’s not my rule–email the IRS about it (see my first tip).
If you are having trouble figuring out your grant date and grant date FMV for Form 3922, you are probably thinking too much. If you have a look-back, it’s the same date and FMV you use to determine the purchase price. If you don’t have a look-back, I take it back; you aren’t thinking too much.
The corporation on Form 3922 has to be the corporation whose stock is purchased under the plan, even if this isn’t the company that operates the plan. I’ve asked this question of IRS staffers multiple times and I get the same answer every time; I don’t think they are going to change their minds. But I think you could include the address of the company operating the plan rather than the address of the corporation whose stock is purchased, so that any IRS communications about the filings at least go to the right place.
If you are filing electronically, you probably went through some angst last year relating to rounding shares and/or monetary amounts. Publication 1220 was updated this year to specify that a true round should be used on share amounts. There’s still no instruction on how monetary values should be rounded, but it would seem reasonable to do the same thing. Then again, this seems like such an immaterial issue that I think you could probably use any reasonable rounding method (up, down, true) you want, so long as you are consistent about it.
Account number is really a transaction number. And it’s important, because if you have to file a corrected return, the account number could be critical to matching the corrected form to the original filing. You can come up with your own system for assigning account numbers, just so long as each transaction you report has a unique number and the numbers aren’t longer than 20 digits. They can include numbers, letters, and symbols.
You have to file Form 3921 for all ISO exercises, even same-day sales, even though an AMT adjustment is necessary for same-day sales. This is the way the law was passed by Congress, so the IRS can’t really do anything about it. Blame your Congressman.
Dead men don’t wear plaid but they do still get Section 6039 statements. The death of an employee does not relieve you of the obligation to file Forms 3921 and 3922.
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.
Ah, 1969–the summer of love…and the birth of AMT. The Tax Reform Act of 1969 created a minimum tax designed to ensure that individuals with high incomes could not avoid paying federal income tax (thus, the concept of a minimum amount of tax that must be paid by high income filers). This was in response to a scandalous statement that 150 tax payers making over $100,000 paid no income tax. This minimum tax evolved into what is now the Alternative Minimum Tax. Although AMT receives regular bombardment on all sides, the revenue stream that AMT provides the federal government has made it prohibitive for anyone with the power to change the system to speak up and push for a solution (However, many politicians are perfectly happy to talk about the problem).
The Confusion
The fundamental differences between regular income tax and AMT are that AMT has only two tax brackets and that many exemptions and itemized deductions are not available under AMT. Because AMT is a parallel tax system, it’s difficult for many individuals to even determine if they are subject to AMT or not. In any given year, all tax payers theoretically need to consider whether they are subject to ordinary income tax or AMT. There is no one test to determine if you need to pay AMT; essentially, you must compute your taxes due under both systems and determine which is higher. A lot of middle income tax payers assume that their tax filing is so simple that surely they don’t need to worry about AMT. However, even if you have only personal exemptions and take the standard deduction, it is possible (extremely unlikely, but possible) to end up being subject to AMT. Fortunately, virtually all tax programs incorporate questions to help you determine whether or not you are subject to AMT and the IRS provides a handy little AMT Assistant that will help you determine if you should even bother.
ISOs and AMT
Incentive stock options create a special set of confusions and misunderstandings when it comes to AMT. Here are a few reasons why:
If an employee exercises an ISO and doesn’t sell shares in the same tax year, she or he needs to file Forms 6251 and 8801 for the year of exercise – regardless of whether or not AMT is due. Now that the IRS is being notified of ISO cash exercises courtesy of Form 3921, it’s especially important that your employees are aware of this.
If an employee exercises and sells ISOs in the same year, resulting in a disqualifying disposition, there is no AMT income from the ISO exercise (provided all the shares are sold) because you the preferential tax treatment on the exercise is eliminated. It’s important that your employees are aware that Form 3921 does not take any disposition into account.
ISOs fall into a special category of AMT income that is eligible for a tax credit in subsequent year. However, in order to calculate–or even qualify–for the credit, a tax payer must file Forms 6251 and 8801 every year until the credit can be claimed. Claiming an AMT credit is particularly tricky and a fabulous reason to rely on a tax professional, which brings up the topic of tax and financial planning resources for your employees. Calculating the credit is difficult, too, because it is limited to AMT income that is in excess of regular income. Consider partnering with your broker(s) or other service provider to help put employees in contact with tax professionals.
Disqualifying dispositions that occur in a year subsequent to exercise are a mess because the employee could end up with AMT in the year of the exercise and ordinary income in the year of the sale. However, that ordinary income could result in a favorable AMT adjustment when calculating AMT in the subsequent year.
Find out more about ISOs on the NASPP’s Incentive Stock Options portal. Also, the NASPP’s fabulous and freshly updated Stock Plan Fundamentals course starts in April. The entire second session (of six) is dedicated to the taxation of equity compensation, including ISOs.
I understand that Forms 3921 and 3922 still are not available from the IRS, so, in today’s blog, I provide instructions for requesting an extension of the filing deadline.
Note: I was not able to personally verify the availability (or lack thereof) of the forms prior to posting this blog entry because, of course, the IRS was closed yesterday for Presidents’ Day. Here at the NASPP, we were working–just one more way in which the NASPP is better than the IRS (see NASPP Discussion Forum Topic #6788 for more proof that the NASPP provides better service than the IRS).
Time is Running Out A week or so ago, when I placed my order for one copy each of Forms 3921 and 3922, I was told that it takes five to seven days to receive the forms. Thus, at this point, it seems unlikely that the paper forms will arrive in time for the filing deadline on February 28. Any company that is planning on filing on paper should probably go ahead and file for a 30-day extension.
How to Request an Extension
You can file Form 8809 to request a 30-day extension of the filing deadline. If you file Form 8809 electronically–which is easy peasy; the IRS provides an online fill-in form for this purpose–the extension is granted automatically, no questions asked. You don’t even have to state a reason for needing the extension (I know, I know, you really want to explain that the reason you need the extension is that the IRS HASN’T MADE THE FORMS AVAILABLE). You can file for the extension online, even though you will be filing the returns on paper. So long as you submit your extension request by February 28, there are no penalties for filing for the extension.
Log in. If you don’t have a login, you can easily create one for yourself. Follow the instructions provided.
Click “Main Menu” (in the left column). This will take you to the FIRE system main menu.
Click “Extension of Time Request” (in the left column). This will take you to the Extension of Time Request page.
Select “Fill-In Extension Form.” This takes you to a short explanation of the request form.
Read the explanation. Wonder to yourself why the IRS has to be so wordy all the time. Click the Continue button. This will take you to the online extension request form.
Complete the form and click the Submit button. You should get an online confirmation that your extension has been approved. (I say “should” because I didn’t actually click the Submit button myself when I tested this. The NASPP doesn’t have any Forms 3921 and 3922 to file so it didn’t seem very smart to confuse the IRS by filing for an extension on forms we aren’t filing. I can’t imagine trying to explain that to an IRS auditor.)
Print the confirmation for your records.
Once your extension request is approved, you’ll have until March 30 to file the returns. Hopefully the forms will be available long before then. If they are not, however, you can file for another extension. That extension isn’t granted automatically and you have to give a reason for the request, but I can’t really imagine a better reason than that the IRS hasn’t yet made the forms available.
Electronic Filers Don’t Need an Extension
If you are filing Forms 3921 or 3922 electronically, you don’t need an extension because: 1) you already have until March 31 to submit the filing and 2) you don’t need the actual forms from the IRS. You are submitting an ASCII text file via the FIRE system. If you have your file ready to go, you could submit it today, even though the official forms aren’t available yet.
More Information???
We are trying to get more information from the IRS about when the forms will be available. If we find out anything, you can be sure we’ll let our members know. Follow the NASPP on Twitter or Facebook to make sure you don’t miss any announcements we make about the forms.
Update: I spoke to two IRS representatives this morning, February 22. Forms 3921 and 3922 are still not available and they did not know when they will be available. They encouraged companies to request a filing date extension (as I’ve described in this blog) or to file electronically.
Last Chance to Submit Speaking Proposals for the NASPP Conference The IRS isn’t the only one with a February 28 deadline. All speaking proposals for the 19th Annual NASPP Conference must be submitted by February 28. (And unlike the IRS, the NASPP won’t grant an automatic 30-day extension, no matter how nicely you ask–you can chalk one up for the IRS, but I still think the NASPP is better.)
If you missed the big announcement last week, the NASPP Conference will be held from November 1-4 in San Francisco. Look for information on registering for the Conference soon.
Last Chance for the Early-Bird Rate for the Online Fundamentals This is also the last week to qualify for the early-bird rate on the NASPP’s acclaimed online program, “Stock Plan Fundamentals.” This multi-webcast course covers the regulatory framework and administrative best practices that apply to stock compensation. It’s a great program for anyone new to the industry or anyone preparing for the CEP exam. Register by February 25 for early-bird savings.
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.