Last week, the IRS issued the final version of the new Section 1.83-3 regs that were proposed back in 2012.
Background: The Proposed Regs
Section 83 provides that property transferred in exchange for services is taxable when it is transferable or no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture (whichever occurs first). As explained in the preamble to the proposed regs, the purpose of this revision was to clarify that, for a substantial risk of forfeiture to exist, there has to be 1) some reasonable possibility of forfeiture (e.g., a performance goal which is certain to be met would not give rise to a substantial risk of forfeiture) and 2) there has to be some likelihood that the forfeiture provision would be enforced.
Most of us always thought this was the case, so we were surprised to see the proposed regs. Some speculated that companies would now have to estimate the likelihood of forfeiture due to failure to meet the vesting requirements to determine if taxation is delayed under Section 83. During his session at the 2012 NASPP Conference, Stephen Tackney, of the Office of Chief Counsel, at the IRS explained that this wasn’t the IRS’s intention and that they were really only concerned about situations where the likelihood of forfeiture was so infinitesimally small as to be almost nonexistent. Apparently the IRS lost a couple of enforcement actions in court due to a misunderstanding about this concept, so they decided to make the rules a little clearer.
The proposed regs also clarified that lock-up restrictions and trading black-out periods don’t delay taxation under Section 83 and codified a prior Rev. Rul. clarifying when taxation is deferred as a result of the operation of Section 16(b) (for practical purposes, virtually never).
What’s New in the Final Regs
Well, not much, really. In response to the concerns that the regulations were perhaps raising the threshold for a substantial risk of forfeiture, the IRS explains in the preamble that the new regulations are not intended to depart from the historic position that the IRS has taken with respect to Section 83. The IRS also edited the language of the regs, I think with the intention of making this clearer.
The IRS added a sentence to the regs to further clarify that it must be likely that the forfeiture restrictions would be enforced for there to be a substantial risk of forfeiture. Here again, I don’t think this represents a change in position for the IRS.
Finally, the IRS added an example to clarify that, where a Section 16 insider engages in a non-exempt purchase in the six months before an otherwise taxable acquisition under a stock option or award, the non-exempt purchase doesn’t delay taxation of the option or award (even though it does delay when the insider can sell the shares acquired under the option/award). We had noticed there were some differences in opinion among practitioners as to whether this was the case and had asked for clarification. Although the situation probably doesn’t come up that often, when it does come up, we thought it important to know what the correct tax treatment is. And now we know (and I think it’s the answer most of us had been assuming all along).
Read more about the final regs, including our redline comparing the proposed and final regs, in the NASPP Alert “IRS Issues Final Regs Under Section 83.”
On June 23, the IRS and Treasury proposed new regulations under Section 162(m) relating to the requirements for options and SARs to be considered performance-based compensation and the transition period for newly public companies.
Not-So-Surprising Proposed Regs for Section 162(m) (Well, Maybe a Little Surprise for IPO Companies)
Section 162(m) limits the tax deduction public companies can take for compensation paid to specified executive officers to $1 million per year. As I’m sure you all know, however, performance-based compensation is exempt from this limitation.
The recently issued proposed regs are not nearly as controversial as the IRS’s 2008 surprise ruling on 162(m), but are still worth taking note of–especially since, as the Morgan Lewis memo we posted on the proposal points out, some of these clarifications are the direct result of compliance failures the IRS has encountered during audits.
Stock Options and SARs
Normally, for compensation to be considered performance-based, it must meet a number of rigorous requirements. At the time that Section 162(m) was implemented, however, at-the-money stock options and SARs were considered inherently performance-based, so the requirements applicable to them are significantly more relaxed (a decision I can only imagine regulators regret today, given current public sentiment towards stock options). The primary requirements are that the options/SARs be granted from a shareholder approved plan, individual grants are approved by a committee of non-employee directors, the exercise price is no less than the FMV at grant, and the plan states the maximum number of shares that can be granted to an employee during a specified period.
The proposed regs clarify that, for this last requirement, the plan must state a per-person limit; the aggregate limit on the number of shares that can be granted under the plan is insufficient (although, the stated per-person limit could be equal to the aggregate limit).
Disclosure
For all performance-based compensation, including stock options and SARs, the regs already require that the maximum amount of compensation that may be paid under the plan/awards to an individual employee during a specified period must be disclosed to shareholders. For stock options and SARs, it’s pretty hard to determine what the maximum compensation is, since this depends on the company’s stock price over the ten years or so that the grant might be outstanding. The proposed regs clarify that it is sufficient to disclose the maximum number of shares for which options/SARs can be granted during a specified period and that the exercise of the grants is the FMV at grant.
Newly Public Companies
For a limited “transition” period, Section 162(m) doesn’t apply to arrangements that were in effect while a company was privately held (provided that the arrangements are disclosed in the IPO prospectus, if applicable). This transition period ends with the first shareholders’ meeting at which directors are elected after the end of the third calendar year (first calendar year, for companies that didn’t complete an IPO) following the year the company first became public (unless the plan expires, is materially modified, or runs out of shares or the arrangement is materially modified before then).
For stock options, SARs, and restricted stock, the current regs are even more generous–any awards granted during this transition period are not subject to 162(m), even if settled after the transition period ends. The proposed regs don’t change this, but they do make it clear that RSUs and phantom stock are not covered by this exemption. My understanding from some of the memos we’ve posted in our alert on this is that this reverses a couple of private letter rulings on this issue (see the Morrison & Foerster, Morgan Lewis, and Edwards Angell Palmer & Dodge memos). The current regs specifically state that the exemption applies to stock options, SARs, and restricted stock, but are silent as to the treatment of RSUs and phantom stock–providing the IRS/Treasury with the leeway to exclude them now.
Subtle Changes
Several of the changes are pretty subtle–so subtle that when comparing the proposed regs to the current regs, I couldn’t figure out what had changed. So I used the handy-dandy document compare feature in Word to create a redline version of the new regs, which I’ve posted for the convenience of NASPP members.
Chickens, Stock Plan Administrators, and Whiskey The author of the joke that appeared in last week’s blog entry is John Hammond of AST Equity Plan Solutions (and poet laureate of the NASPP blog). Ten points to Erin Madison of Broadcom, who was the only person to email me the correct the answer. I can’t believe no one else figured it out!
As I’m sure my readers know, the Dodd-Frank Act requires public companies to allow shareholders to vote on their executive compensation programs beginning next year. On October 18, the SEC proposed regulations governing how these votes will work, bringing us one step close to the inevitable.
Say-on-Pay Regs Proposed The regulations require three non-binding votes:
Say-on-Pay: Shareholders must be permitted to vote on executive compensation every one, two, or three years. The first vote must be held at the company’s first annual meeting on or after January 21, 2011. Shareholders will be voting on the compensation paid to executives as disclosed in the proxy statement.
Say-When-on-Pay: Shareholders must also be permitted to vote on how frequently the company holds a Say-on-Pay vote. This vote must occur at least every six years, with the first vote at the company’s first annual meeting on or after January 21, 2011.
Say-on-Parachutes: Shareholders must be permitted to vote on golden parachute arrangements. If these arrangements have not previously been voted on, this vote must be included in the proxy statement relating to the merger (or any similar transaction, such as a sale of the company’s assets) for which the compensation will be paid. In connection with this, the SEC is requiring enhanced tabular disclosure of parachute payments in proxy statements for mergers and similar transactions.
Effective Date
The Say-on-Pay and Say-When-on-Pay votes must be included in the proxy for the first annual meeting on or after January 21, 2011, even if the SEC has not finalized these regulations by then. The Say-on-Parachutes vote is not required until the regulations are finalized.
Non-Binding with a Kick
All of the votes are non-binding, which means the company doesn’t have to abide by them. For the Say-on-Pay vote, however, the proposed regulations require companies to discuss in the CD&A how the vote has been considered in setting executive pay. Likewise, for the Say-When-on-Pay vote, companies must disclose in the 10-Q following the vote whether they intend to comply with it. Woe to those companies that don’t choose to comply; shareholders can then introduce a proposal regarding the frequency of Say-on-Pay votes in the next year’s proxy statement.
More Information
We’ve posted an alert on the proposed regs that includes the memos we are receiving from law firms and compensation consultants; look for even more memos to be posted in the next few days. Check out the excellent summaries by Maslon Edelman Borman & Brand and Morrison & Foerster (co-authored by CompensationStandards.com’s David Lynn).
Conference Audio Available Are you ready for Say-on-Pay? Make sure with the many sessions on Say-on-Pay offered at this year’s NASPP Conference. All of the sessions have been recorded and can be downloaded in MP3 format. Purchase just the session(s) you want or save by purchasing a package of sessions.
Free Conference Session Audio If You Renew by Dec 31 All NASPP memberships expire on a calendar-year basis. Renew your membership by Dec 31 and you’ll qualify to receive the audio for one NASPP Conference session for free!
Join Now and Get Three Months Free and Free Conference Session Audio! If you aren’t currently an NASPP member, now is the time to become one! Join the NASPP for 2011 and you’ll get the rest of 2010 for free. If that’s not enough, you’ll also get the audio for one NASPP Conference session for free. Tell all your friends!
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.