As part of its IPO last month, manufacturer Gardner Denver granted RSUs worth $100 million to its 6,000 employees, including hourly workers, customer service, and sales staff. According to Bloomberg, “As its executives rang the bell at the New York Stock Exchange, workers learned they would each get shares equal to about 40 percent of their annual salaries” (“KKR Gives Industrial Workers a Piece of the Action“).
There are three things that I find interesting/encouraging about this announcement.
Manufacturing
Broad-based stock awards are common in the high-tech space. According to the NASPP/Deloitte Consulting 2016 Domestic Stock Plan Design Survey, 66% of high tech companies grant RSUs to exempt workers below middle management and 35% grant RSUs to nonexempt employees. In Silicon Valley, the numbers are even higher—77% grant RSUs to non-management exempt employees and 57% grant RSUs to nonexempt employees.
But outside of high-tech, grants of RSUs below middle management are a lot less common. Garner Denver makes gas compressors and vacuum systems and is headquartered in Wisconsin, putting it squarely outside of high-tech and about 2,000 miles from Silicon Valley. This makes their announcement blog-worthy in my book.
Private Equity
Even more surprising is that Gardner Denver is 75% owned by private equity firm KKR. After the grant, employees will own about 10% of the company. Private equity firms are not known for their generosity when it comes to stock compensation programs.
More Than a Token
What I find most interesting about this story, however, is the amount of stock delivered to employees. $100 million worth of stock to 6,000 employees works out to be an average of over $16,000 in stock delivered to each employee. At Gardner’s IPO price of $20, this is an average of over 800 shares per employee. As noted in the Bloomberg article, grants are 40% of employees’ annual salaries, making this more than just a ham sandwich. Each grant is likely to be meaningful to the employee who receives it.
This kind of investment positions an equity plan for success. If (and this is a big “if”) Gardner Denver can execute on the education necessary to help employees value the awards and understand how their efforts can improve the company’s stock price, this plan could be a win-win: improved results for the company and wealth creation for employees. The impetus for the plan came from the head of KKR’s industrials team, Pete Stavros, who is also the chairman of Gardner Denver. Bloomberg notes:
To Stavros, who wrote a paper while a student at Harvard Business School about employee share-ownership plans, manufacturers can make good prospects for employee ownership. In tech, for example, success often comes from betting on the right trend or on a single founder or chief executive officer, he says. By contrast, most manufacturers operate in a low-growth environment where they must do “a million things a little better” to excel, such as reduce scrap rates and improve plant productivity. Front-line workers know best where operational inefficiencies exist and how to fix them, and equity ownership lets them share in the fruits of their efforts.
Contrast Gardner Denver’s plan to Apple’s announcement of broad-based RSUs back in October 2015 (“Apple to Offer Broad Based RSUs“). Apple awarded grants of only $1,000 to $2,000 to employees, which, given Apple’s stock price at the time, likely worked out to be less than 10 to 20 shares per employee. Of course, Apple is subject to constraints that Gardner Denver isn’t: a lot more employees, proxy advisors, institutional investors, not 75%-owned by the investment firm that holds the chairman position on their board (who believes in employee ownership), over $100 million granted to their execs alone in 2016 and a history of mega-grants to execs. All of these things limit the number of shares available for grants to employees. But I still have to wonder how those RSUs are working out for them.
It’s a slow news day here at the NASPP. I don’t have anything pressing to blog about so I thought it would be a good time for a poll. Below are a few questions that were recently posted to the NASPP Q&A Discussion Forum that are largely unanswered at the moment. If they apply to you, please take a moment to indicate your answers so we can help these folks out. Thanks for indulging me!
If you can’t see the poll below, click here to participate in it. As always, if you are a contractor that works with multiple clients, please answer for just one of your clients (preferably one that won’t otherwise complete this poll).
For today’s blog entry, I cover yet another challenge in the ongoing saga of awards that provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement.
A recent Chief Counsel Advice memorandum casts doubt on the treatment of dividend equivalents paid on vested but unpaid RSUs. This comes up when dividend equivalents are paid on RSUs that allow for deferred payout on either a mandatory basis or at the election of the award holder. This arrangement is relatively rare, however, and probably only impacts a few of my readers. More commonly, however, this is also an issue where dividend equivalents are paid on awards that provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement and the award holder is eligible to retire.
Background
In either of the above situations, the RSU is subject to FICA when no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. For traditional deferral arrangements, risk of forfeiture lapses when the award vests. In the case of awards that provide for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement, the risk of forfeiture substantively lapses when the award holder is eligible to retire.
Any dividend equivalents accrued on the award prior to when the award is subject to FICA will be subject to FICA at the time paid (if they are paid out to award holders at the same time they are paid to shareholders) or when the award is subject to FICA (if they will be paid out with the underlying award). But what about the dividend equivalents paid after the award has been subject to FICA? Does the company need to collect FICA on those equivalents when they are accrued/paid?
The Non-Duplication Rule
Under, Treas. Reg. §31.3121(v)(2)-1(a)(2)(iii), referred to as the “non-duplication rule,” once an RSU has been taken into income for FICA purposes, any future earnings on the underlying stock are not subject to FICA. So the answer to FICA treatment of the dividends depends on whether the dividends paid after this point are considered a form of earnings, akin to appreciation in value in the underlying stock (in which case, they would not be subject to FICA), or additional compensation (in which case, they would still be subject to FICA).
I’ve spoken with a number of practitioners about this. Most believe that an argument can be made that the dividend equivalent payments are a form of earnings and, thus, are not subject to FICA.
The CCA
In Chief Counsel Advice 201414018, issued earlier this year, the IRS argued that dividends paid after the award is subject to FICA are still subject to FICA. The situation the memorandum addresses, however, involved a number of facts not typically characteristic of RSUs that receive dividend equivalents:
The RSUs were granted by a private company
The awards were paid out only in cash
The dividend equivalents were paid out to award holders at the same time dividends were paid to shareholders, rather than with the underlying award
While concerning, the memorandum doesn’t necessary dictate a change in practice with respect to the FICA treatment of dividend equivalents, especially if your company is public, your RSUs are paid out in stock, and your dividend equivalents are paid out with the underlying award. It may, however, be worth reviewing the ruling with your tax advisors to ensure they are comfortable with your procedures (especially if any of the conditions in the memorandum also apply to your RSUs and dividend equivalents).
At the same time that the IRS released regulations designed to clarify which restrictions constitute a substantial risk of forfeiture under Section 83 (see my blog entry “IRS Issues Final Regs Under Section 83,” March 4), a recent tax court decision casts doubt on the definition in the context of employees that are eligible to retire.
Background
As my readers know, where an employee is eligible to retire and holds restricted stock that provides for accelerated or continued vesting upon retirement, the awards are considered to no longer be subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture, and, consequently, are subject to tax under Section 83. This also applies to RSUs, because for FICA purposes, RSUs are subject to tax when no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture and the regs in this area look to Section 83 to determine what constitutes a substantial risk of forfeiture.
Although there’s usually some limited risk of forfeiture in the event that the retirement-eligible employee is terminated for cause, that risk isn’t considered to be substantial. As a practical matter, at many companies just about any termination after achieving retirement age is treated as a retirement.
Austin v. Commissioner
In Austin v. Commissioner however, the court held that an employee’s awards were still subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture even though the only circumstance in which the awards could be forfeited was termination due to cause. In this case, in addition to the typical definition of commission of a crime, “cause” included failure on the part of the employee to perform his job or to comply with company policies, standards, etc.
Implications
Up until now, most practitioners have assumed that providing for forfeiture solely in the event of termination due to cause is not sufficient to establish a substantial risk of forfeiture, regardless of how broad the definition of “cause” is. Austin seems to suggest, however, that, in some circumstances, defining “cause” more broadly (e.g., as more than just the commission of a crime) could implicate a substantial risk of forfeiture, thereby delaying taxation (for both income and FICA purposes in the case of restricted stock, for FICA purposes in the case of RSUs) until the award vests.
On the other hand, there are several aspects to this case that I think make the application of the court’s decision to other situations somewhat unclear. First, and most important, the termination provisions of the award in question were remarkably convoluted. So much so that resignation on the part of the employee would have constituted “cause” under the award agreement. There were not any special provisions relating to retirement; all voluntary terminations by the employee were treated the same under the agreement. In addition, the employee was subject to an employment agreement and the forfeiture provisions of the award were intended to ensure that the employee fulfilled the terms of this agreement.
Finally, the decision notes that, for a substantial risk of forfeiture to exist, it must be likely that the forfeiture provision would be enforced. I think that, for retirees, this often isn’t the case–the only time a forfeiture provision would be enforced would be in the event of some sort of crime or other egregious behavior. Termination for cause is likely to be met with resistance from the otherwise retirement-eligible employee; many companies feel that, with the exception of circumstances involving clearly egregious acts, it is preferable to simply pay out retirement benefits than to incur the cost of a lawsuit.
Never-the-less, it is worth noting that 26% of respondents to the NASPP’s recent quick survey on retirement provisions believe that awards held by retirees are subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture.
Today I discuss recent litigation over mishandled FICA taxes on a nonqualified deferred compensation plan that could also have implications for RSUs.
The Lawsuit
The case involved a company that failed to collect FICA taxes on benefits paid under a nonqualified deferred compensation when the taxes were due. Because of this, and because the applicable statute of limitations during which the company could go back and amend the return for the year in which FICA should have been paid had elapsed, the company was obligated under IRS regulations to collect FICA when the benefits under the plan were paid out. The payouts occurred after the employees had retired.
The plan provided for payouts to occur in increments over a period of years, and, because the retirees were no longer actively employed, they had no other wages subject to FICA. As a result, the payouts were subject to Social Security. If the company had collected FICA when it should have, the payouts might not have been subject to Social Security because 1) the retirees would have still been employed and would have possibly met the wage cap for Social Security in those years; 2) the wage cap would have been lower; and 3) the entire amount would have been subject to Social Security in the same year, rather than in small increments over many years. A retiree brought suit against the company essentially claiming that because this was the company’s error and the error increased the amount of FICA tax that he has to pay, the company should have to pay his FICA tax for him.
This situation could also come up in the context of RSUs. Certainly it could apply where RSUs are subject to deferred payout, but more commonly it is likely to be a concern where RSUs provide for accelerated/continued vesting upon retirement and are granted to or held by employees that are eligible to retire. In that circumstance, the RSUs are substantially vested and are subject to FICA before they are paid out.
I learned a couple of important things from this that are applicable to RSUs.
There Is a Statute of Limitations
Who knew? If you screw up on FICA withholding for RSUs, you have a limited period of time in which to go back and fix this. That time is approximately three years (although the actual calculation of the statute of limitations is a little more complicated so if this applies to you, talk to your tax advisors).
FICA Taxes Revert Back to Payout
Even more interesting, if you don’t find the error and correct it before the statute of limitations runs out, your only choice is to collect FICA when the awards are paid out. Again, I say, who knew?
No Need to Panic, Yet
All this is interesting, but, of course, our primary interest is whether companies could be liable to participants for mishandled FICA taxes on RSUs. At this point, it’s hard to tell. Although there has been one decision in favor of the retiree, this case is far from over (that decision just allows the case to proceed), so who knows if the retire will prevail. And even if he does, the situation in this case isn’t fully analogous to RSUs. For one thing, the retiree is claiming a violation of ERISA, which typically doesn’t apply to RSUs.
Moreover, RSUs typically pay out at the time of retirement, not over a period of years after retirement. Thus, in the case of RSUs, there wouldn’t be a question of the payments being subject to Social Security when they otherwise wouldn’t have if FICA had been collected on time. The error would only increase FICA taxes through an increase in the stock price (which would mostly apply only to Medicare since Social Security is capped), an increase in the Social Security wage cap, and maybe differences in compensation levels (but only for employees that don’t otherwise normally earn enough to max out on Social Security). Even where employees are subject to tax at the higher 2.35% Medicare rate, it seems unlikely that any of those things would be worth suing over.
Whether you’re new to the industry or have been involved in stock compensation for a while, chances are you’ve run into some retirement provisions as part of managing equity programs. What makes these provisions a bit different and often more tricky to administer compared to other situations, such as termination, is that some plans treat the mere act of becoming eligible for retirement as an event, regardless of whether or not retirement actually occurs. In today’s blog I examine some of the more challenging aspects of managing retirement provisions.
Timing is Everything
Ah, it would be so easy if people became eligible for retirement and then retired on the same day. Somehow I think the forces of the universe would think that’s letting us off the hook way too easy. So, instead, many companies increase or guarantee benefits once someone becomes eligible to retire, even if it’s months or years before the actual retirement will occur. Stock compensation is certainly one of those “benefits” that can be affected upon retirement eligibility.
Restricted Stock and Restricted Stock Units are two award types that are often affected by retirement eligibility provisions. Two common scenarios include acceleration of vesting upon retirement eligibility, or simply removal of the “substantial risk of forfeiture” conditions on the award. An example of the latter would be a provision that says that although no acceleration of vesting will occur upon retirement eligibility, the employee will be guaranteed to continue to vest in their shares until retirement.
One tricky aspect of administering the above provisions is tax withholding. Both RSAs and RSUs are subject to FICA taxes once the risk of forfeiture no longer exists. If the shares are not released to the employee at that time (let’s say that vesting will occur in the future, after the retirement eligible date, even though the risk of forfeiture no longer exists), then selling or withholding shares to pay for the FICA withholding is not an option. Many companies do rely on the IRS’s “rule of administrative convenience”, which allows FICA withholding to occur by 12/31 of the year of the triggering event. This means that companies can delay the mechanics of actually withholding until the end of the year, when many employees may have already met their annual FICA limit. In this case, no additional FICA withholding would be necessary and the company is off the hook in terms of having to figure out how to collect FICA on the shares. However, if the employee hasn’t met their FICA limit as year end approaches, then an appropriate amount of FICA will still need to be withheld. As such, the stock plan administrator needs to work with Payroll to ensure close coordination and monitoring of FICA status.
We’ve talked about FICA, but other taxes cannot be forgotten as well. Depending on award type (RSA or RSU) and the type of retirement eligibility event (accelerated vesting? guaranteed vesting in the future?), the timing of withholding for federal, state and medicare taxes may be different than the timing of FICA withholding.
Don’t Forget 409A
For companies with RSUs that vest upon retirement eligibility, the RSU will be considered “deferred compensation” under 409A if the shares will be released within a year of the retirement eligible (vest) date. In that event, 409A payout rules and deadlines need to be followed.
Evaluate Your Practices
I’ve highlighted a few of the considerations around retirement eligibility provisions and have just scratched the surface. Our newest Compliance-O-Meter on Retirement Practices gives you an opportunity to rate your retirement practices and see how other companies are handling these situations.
Important Reminder This is the last week to participate in the NASPP-PwC Global Equity Incentives Survey. Issuers must participate to access the full survey results; you’re going to be sorry if you miss out. You must complete the survey by May 25; I would not count on this date being extended.
My $.02 on Facebook Facebook’s IPO is all over my Google alerts these days, so it feels like I ought to say something about it. Earlier this year, Jenn covered the painting contractor that was paid in Facebook stock and stands to make a bundle in the IPO (see “Tax Cuts and IPOs: Part II,” February 16, 2012). And he’s not the only one. Based on what I’ve been reading, many Facebook employees are going to do quite well–but not for another six months, when the lock-up ends.
Here are a few interesting tidbits about Facebook that I’ve read:
Facebook has a broad-based RSU plan. While RSUs have been commonly used at public companies for years now, they are relatively new for Silicon Valley start-ups, which have traditionally offered only stock options. Facebook is definitely a groundbreaker here–other start-ups have followed suit (e.g., Twitter).
Even more unusual, the RSUs won’t pay out until six months after the IPO (typically RSUs pay out upon vesting). From an administrative standpoint, the delayed payout makes a lot of sense. You wouldn’t want the RSUs to pay out while the company was still private because then employees would have a taxable event before the shares were liquid–I could write a whole blog entry on why this is something to avoid. Plus, in the pre-JOBS era, the employees would have counted as shareholders, which could have forced Facebook into registration with the SEC earlier than they wanted.
Here in the US, Facebook is looking at a pretty hefty tax deposit–Facebook estimates the deposit liability at over $4 billion–that will most likely have to be made within one business day after the awards pay out. Facebook is planning to use share withholding to cover employee tax liabilities, making cash flow an important consideration. Facebook’s S-1 states that they intend to sell shares to raise the capital to make this deposit, but may use some of the IPO proceeds or may draw on a credit arrangement that they have in place. If Facebook sells stock to raise the capital, the stock that is sold would have to be registered and could, of course, impact their stock price.
Facebook estimates the tax withholding rate to be 45%. I’m not completely sure how they are arriving at this rate. It’s possible they are going to withhold using W-4 rates or, perhaps, the payouts will be so large that most employees will be receiving more than $1,000,000 in supplemental payments for the year and they are going to have to withhold Federal income tax at 35%. Where a payment, such as payout of an RSU, straddles the $1 million threshold, the company can choose to apply the 35% rate to the entire payment (35% + the applicable CA tax rate = about 45%).
All of these employees making lots of money creates problems beyond the tax considerations. As other highly successful high-tech IPOs have experienced, employees may decide they don’t need to work anymore and end up leaving. Those that do stick around, may not be so motivated anymore–maybe I’m wrong but it seems like a millionaire employee is an attitude problem waiting to happen. And there will be the pay disparity to deal with as well; employees that were hired more recently may not do so well in the IPO (and those that are hired after the IPO will really be at a disadvantage).
More at the NASPP Conference
Facebook is presenting on a panel at the 20th Annual NASPP Conference (“Liking Global Equity: Learning from Facebook’s Successful Communication and Compliance Strategies”); while none of the problems I’ve described here are new, Facebook is a company known for innovation and I’m excited to hear their approaches, as well as new ideas they have to offer in other areas of stock plan administration. Register for the Conference by May 31 for the early-bird rate.
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 we keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in our blog.
Register for the 20th Annual NASPP Conference in New Orleans. Don’t wait, the early-bird rate is only available until May 31.
It seems like just yesterday I was blogging about the SEC exempting stock options from the 500-holder limit for private companies, but it turns out that I never blogged about that because it happened back in 2007, before we had The NASPP Blog. Time flies and here we are almost five years later and the SEC has provided broad no-action relief from the same limit for RSUs.
What the Heck?
For those of you that aren’t sure what I’m talking about, let’s take a step back. Under U.S. securities laws, private companies that have more than $10 million in assets and more than 500 holders in any company security are required to register with the SEC under the 1934 Act. Most private companies are loath to exceed this threshold because registration causes them to be subject to pretty much all the same public reporting requirements as public companies–Forms 10-Q and 10-K., Form 8-K, Section 16, the whole shebang. It’s all the onerous parts of being a public company but without the upside of raising a bunch of money in an IPO and having publicly traded securities.
Stock options are a type of security, as are RSUs. Now the rule is that the company can’t have more than 500 holders in a single class of securities, so a company could have 499 shareholders and 499 option holders and 499 RSU holders without triggering the registration requirement (so long as none of the optionees exercised their options and none of the RSUs were paid out). But if a company had, say, 501 option holders, the company could be required to register with the SEC. This is a problem for private companies with, say, more than 500 employees that want to grant stock options to all their employees.
So, in 2007, after issuing numerous no-action letters on the matter, the SEC carved out an exception providing that compensatory employee stock options don’t count for purposes of the 500-holder limit, provided the options meet certain requirements. (See the NASPP alert, “SEC Exempts Stock Options from Registration for Private Companies,” December 15, 2007).
Now RSUs, Too
The 2007 exemption, however, didn’t extend to RSUs. So, where a private company wanted to grant RSUs to more than 500 employees, the company had to either register with the SEC or request relief from the registration requirement via a no-action letter–even if the RSUs, by their terms, could not possibly ever be paid out before the IPO.
Earlier this month, however, the SEC granted no-action relief for RSUs to the law firm Fenwick & West. By granting relief to a law firm, rather than a specific company, this no-action letter serves as broad relief for all private companies that wish to offer RSUs to their employees.
The RSUs must meet certain conditions to be eligible for relief–the awards must be granted by a private company, granted to individuals providing service to the company as defined under Rule 701, and transferable under only limited circumstances. In addition, the company must disclose information relating to its financials and risk factors to employees.
But Not Stock Acquired Under RSUs and Options
The relief described above extends only to options and RSUs themselves; it doesn’t cover stock employees acquire under options or RSUs. That stock still counts towards the 500-holder limit.
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 we keep an ongoing “to do” list for you here in our blog.
Indecent Disclosures: Polishing and Perfecting Disclosures under ASC 718 By Elizabeth Dodge, Stock & Option Solutions
Disclosures under ASC 718 are a dreaded topic for nearly all my clients. The standard is unclear in some areas and flouts common sense in others, so what is a company to do? The answer? Do your best and try not to sweat the small stuff, unless your auditors force you to do so. In this entry, I’ll review one confusing part of the standard relating to disclosures and suggest ‘the right’ approach to take.
What Are “Shares of Nonvested Stock”?
In FAS 123(R), pre-codification, paragraph 240(b)(2) required the disclosure of:
The number and weighted-average grant date fair value…of equity instruments not specified in paragraph A240(b)(1) (for example, shares of nonvested stock), for each of the following groups of equity instruments: (a) those nonvested at the beginning of the year, (b) those nonvested at the end of the year, and those (c) granted, (d) vested, or (e) forfeited during the year. [emphasis added]
Paragraph 240(b)(1) asked for the number and weighted-average exercise price of options (or share units) outstanding. So what the standard seemed to require in the paragragh I quote above is the number and grant-date fair value for instruments other than options and share units, such as “shares of nonvested stock.” Clear as mud, so far? What is a share of nonvested stock, you ask? See footnote 11 on page 7 of the standard which reads:
Nonvested shares granted to employees usually are referred to as restricted shares, but this Statement reserves that term for fully vested and outstanding shares whose sale is contractually or governmentally prohibited for a specified period of time.
As if the standard wasn’t complicated enough, the FASB needed to define their own terms and use terms we thought we understood to refer to something else. Great idea. So a share of nonvested stock is therefore a restricted stock award (not a unit, but the kind of award on which you can file a Section 83(b) election). Here the FASB is lumping options and units (RSUs) together and separating out RSAs into a separate category. Perfectly logical, because RSUs are much more like options than RSAs, wouldn’t you agree? (And if you’re not getting the depth of my sarcasm, try re-reading the text above.)
Okay. So what do we use for weighted average exercise price for an RSU? Most RSUs that I’ve encountered don’t have an exercise price (and in fact, aren’t even exercised!). So obviously you should report zero here?
And most audit partners are unfamiliar with this issue all together. The good news is that most of them seem to ignore the actual language of the standard and, instead, require the same disclosures for RSUs and RSAs, which honestly does make a lot more sense, but isn’t what the standard calls for.
Unfortunately many systems/software providers were reading the standard carefully when they designed their disclosure reports, so often the RSU disclosures have “exercise price” but lack grant date fair value, so you’re often forced to calculate some of these numbers manually.
So now you’re thinking, but the Codification cleared all this confusion right up, didn’t it? Well, no… it did change the language just slightly. It removed “(for example, shares of nonvested stock).” It also added a link to the definition of “Share Units,” which reads: “A contract under which the holder has the right to convert each unit into a specified number of shares of the issuing entity.” Sounds like an RSU to me.
So where does all this leave us? My conclusion: Listen to your auditor, follow their guidance, which may not follow the standard to the letter, but makes more sense. Other folks are unlikely to notice the issue in the first place, but your auditors will.
Don’t Miss the 19th Annual NASPP Conference The 19th Annual NASPP Conference will be held from November 1-4 in San Francisco. With Dodd-Frank and Say-on-Pay dramatically impacting pay practices, you cannot afford to fall behind in this rapidly changing environment; it is critical that you–and your staff–have the best possible guidance. The NASPP Conference brings together top industry luminaries to provide the latest essential–and practical–implementation guidance that you need. This is the one Conference you can’t afford to miss. Don’t wait–the hotel is filling up fast; register today to make sure you’ll be able to attend.
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!