The conference committee charged with aligning the Senate and House versions of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act announced late last week that they have come to an agreement. The final bill is expected to be approved in both the House and Senate this week and then signed into law by the president.
Here’s where the bill ended up with respect to the provisions that impact stock compensation.
Individual Tax Rates: The final version of the bill released by the conference committee largely matches what was in the Senate version, except that the maximum individual tax rate is reduced to 37%. So we end up with seven individual tax rates: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 37%. The highest rate kicks in at $500,000 of income for single taxpayers but at only $600,000 for joint filers (instead of the $1 million threshold that was originally proposed). The individual tax rates sunset after 2025 and will revert back to the current rates at that time.
Supplemental Withholding Rate: For employees who have received supplemental payments of $1 million or less during the year, the supplemental rate is tied to the third lowest individual tax rate, which will be 22% under the aligned bill. For employees who have received supplemental payments of more than $1 million during the year, the rate is tied to the maximum individual tax rate, which will be 37%.
AMT (for Individuals): This is probably the closest we’ve come to a repeal of the AMT (at least in my memory) but still no cigar. The bill does increase the exemption amounts and phaseout thresholds, so fewer taxpayers will be subject to the AMT. These changes sunset after 2025.
Corporate Tax Rate: Reduced to 21% with no sunset.
Estate Tax: Increases the estate tax threshold to about $11 million; no repeal and no sunset.
Section 162(m):
The CFO is once again subject to 162(m).
Anyone serving as CEO or CFO during the year is also subject to 162(m) (instead of just the individuals serving in those roles at the end of the year).
Once a covered employee for a company, always a covered employee for that company.
Stock options and performance awards will no longer be exempt from the deduction limitation.
Includes an exemption for compensation paid pursuant to a written, binding contract (such as a stock option or award agreement) in effect as of November 2, 2017, if not modified after that date.
Qualified Equity Grants: The final bill includes a provision that would allow employees in privately held companies to elect to defer tax on stock options and RSUs until five years after the arrangements vest, provided certain conditions are met.
Stock Options and RSUs: No change to the current tax treatment of stock options, SARs, or RSUs. The provision that would have taxed these arrangements at vest was removed from both versions of the bill before it was passed by House and Senate.
Determination of Cost Basis: No change from current law. The Senate version of the bill would have required identification of securities sold to be on a FIFO basis but this is not included in the final bill.
The Senate passed its version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act late Friday night (well, technically, it was very early Saturday morning in DC). Here’s a comparison of where the final Senate and House bills stand with respect to the provisions that directly or indirectly impact stock compensation:
Individual Tax Rates
The House version of the bill has four individual tax rates: 12%, 25%, 35%, and 39.6%
The Senate version of the bill has seven individual tax rates: 10%, 12%, 22%, 24%, 32%, 35%, and 38.5%. The rates sunset after 2025, at which time they revert back to the current rates.
In both bills, the highest rate kicks in at $500,000 of income for single taxpayers ($1 million for joint filers)
Supplemental Withholding Rate
For employees who have received supplemental payments of $1 million or less during the year: 35% under the House bill; 22% under the Senate bill.
For employees who have received supplemental payments of more than $1 million during the year: 39.6% under the House bill, 38.5% under the Senate bill.
AMT (for Individuals)
Repealed under the House bill.
The Senate bill doesn’t repeal the AMT, but it does increase the exemption amounts and phaseout thresholds.
Corporate Tax Rate
Both bills reduce the corporate tax rate to 20%. The reduction doesn’t take effect until 2019 in the Senate bill.
Estate Tax
Both bills increase the estate tax threshold to about $11 million.
The House bill repeals the estate tax altogether after 2024.
The Senate bill sunsets the increased threshold after 2025.
Section 162(m)
Both bills expand the employees subject to 162(m) to once again include the CFO and to include anyone serving as CEO during the year (rather than only the CEO at the end of the year).
Under both bills, once individuals are covered employees, they remain covered employees for as long as they receive compensation from the company.
Both bills also eliminate the exception for stock options and performance-based pay.
The Senate bill includes a transitional provision that would exempt compensation paid via a written binding contract that was in effect as of November 2, 2017. This is broader than the transitional provision that was originally proposed, which would have only exempted arrangements vested as of December 31, 2016. There is no transitional provision in the House bill, so all prior awards would be subject to the new rules under that bill.
Qualified Equity Grants
Both bills include a provision that would allow employees in privately held companies to elect to defer tax on stock options and RSUs until five years after the arrangements vest, provided certain conditions are met.
Stock Options and RSUs Taxed at Vest
This provision has been removed from both bills, so there is no change to the tax treatment of stock options, SARs, or RSUs.
Determination of Cost Basis
The Senate bill still includes the provision I blogged about last week that requires taxpayers to sell securities of the same type on a FIFO basis (when held in the same account). This provision is not in the House bill.
What’s Next?
As you can see, there are lots of areas where these two bills don’t agree (and this is just the tip of the iceberg—there is even more disagreement in areas of the bills the don’t relate to stock compensation). All of these differences have to be reconciled before the bill can become law, so the bill now goes to a conference committee comprised of members of both the Senate and House that will resolve the differences between the two bills.
Late Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee released modifications to the Senate’s version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.
Nonqualified Deferred Compensation, Stock Options, and Restricted Stock Units
The provision that would have required all forms of NQDC, NQSOs, and RSUs to be taxed at vest has been struck from the bill. That means that 409A still stands (I bet you never thought you’d be glad to read those words) and the tax treatment of stock compensation is unchanged. Hopefully this is the last time I’ll have to blog about stock options being taxed at vest, at least until the next time Congress decides to take on deferred compensation.
Section 162(m)
The provision that would expand the employees covered under Section 162(m) and repeal the exemption for stock options and performance-based pay is still included in the bill (see “Tax Reform Targets 162(m)“). This provision was amended however, to grandfather awards granted before November 2, 2017 that were vested as of December 31, 2016, so long as they aren’t materially modified after November 2, 2017.
Is that language confusing to you? It is to me. I’m not sure how an award could be vested before it is granted. Maybe there are other types of compensation where this is possible but, in the context of stock compensation, what I think it boils down to is that options and awards granted and vested prior to December 31, 2016 will be exempt from the new requirements but anything granted or vesting after that date will be subject to it. So it’s too late to accelerate vesting on stock options to exempt them from the new requirements.
Qualified Equity Grants
The “Qualified Equity Grants” provision that was added to the House bill (see “Another Tax Reform Update“) has also been added to the Senate bill. This provision creates a new type of qualified equity award that would allow employees in private companies to defer taxation of stock options and RSUs for up to five years.
Now that it’s in both bills, I spent a little more quality time with the summary of it and, frankly, I think there are a lot of problems with it. The five-year deferral is measured from the vesting date, even for stock options; the deferral election has to be made within 30 days of the vest date, even for stock options; taxable income is based on the value of the stock at vesting, even if the stock is worth so little at the end of the deferral period that it is no longer sufficient to cover the taxes due; and taxes have to be withheld at the highest marginal income tax rate. I just don’t see this being helpful to private companies.
The Scorecard
For those of you keeping score, here’s the wrap-up of where the two bills stand with respect to the provisions relating specifically to stock compensation:
NQDC and Stock Compensation Taxed at Vest: House 0, Senate 0 (out of both bills)
Changes to 162(m): House 1, Senate 1 (in both bills)
Deferral of Tax on Stock Options and RSUs for Employees of Private Companies: House 1, Senate 1 (in both bills)
A summary of the Senate version of the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act was released late yesterday and guess what? Yep, it includes the same provision changing the taxation of NQDC and stock compensation that the House bill had. It’s beginning to feel a little like the movie Groundhog Day. But hey, at least we aren’t talking about the CEO pay ratio anymore.
(Because it’s Friday and my fourth, no fifth, blog this week, I have a picture of a groundhog for you.)
Senate Version
The summary from the Senate version bill looks a lot like the same text that was in the JCT report of the House bill, so I did a document compare just for fun, because that is the sort of thing that is fun for me.
Turns out there are a few minor differences. Most significantly, the Senate version still exempts ISOs and ESPPs, but it sounds like the exemption might only apply if the shares acquired under these awards are sold in a qualifying disposition. This probably doesn’t impact ESPPs, since I think the purchase date would be considered the vest date in most cases, but it could impact how income on a disqualifying disposition of an ISO is determined.
The Senate version also includes the provision that modifies Section 162(m) to update the definition of covered employee and eliminate the exception for performance based compensation.
What’s the Score?
So, if you are keeping score, here’s where the two bills stand with respect to the provisions relating specifically to stock compensation:
NQDC and Stock Compensation Taxed at Vest: House 0, Senate 1 (out of the House bill, in the Senate bill)
Changes to 162(m): House 1, Senate 1 (in both bills)
Deferral of Tax on Stock Options and RSUs for Employees of Private Companies: House 1, Senate 0 (in the House bill, not in the Senate bill)
What’s Next?
Well, for sure, what’s next is the weekend, during which I don’t expect anything to happen on either of these bills. I’m guessing we all could use a little break. Go enjoy yourselves.
The Ways and Means Committee has approved the House bill; next stop for it is floor of the House for debate and a vote. This is expected to happen next week. The Senate bill starts committee markup next week and still has to be voted on by the Senate Finance committee before it can go to the full Senate for a vote.
Once passed by both the House and Senate, both bills will have to be reconciled so that they agree. There are major differences in the bills right now in areas that don’t directly impact stock compensation; the topics I have been writing about are just tiny parts of very broad legislation. But if the differences I’ve noted above aren’t reconciled during committee markup in the Senate or in the floor debates, they will have to be addressed during the reconciliation process.
Just this morning, the House Ways and Means Committee Chairman issued a press release announcing additional changes to the House’s tax reform bill. The changes include removing the section of the bill that would change the tax treatment of NQDC, including stock options and RSUs.
So here’s where things stand with the areas of the bill that I have covered in my blogs this week:
Section 3801: Nonqualified Deferred Compensation
Based on the summary of the Chairman’s most recent mark-up of the bill, this section is removed in its entirety. Thus, the bill would not change the tax treatment of stock options, RSUs, or other nonqualified deferred compensation.
Section 3802: Modification of Limitation on Excessive Employee Remuneration
This section is still in the bill. It redefines who is a covered employee for purposes of Section 162(m) and makes stock options and performance awards subject to the $1 million deduction limitation. See my blog on Tuesday (“Tax Reform Targets 162(m)“) for more information.
Section 3804: Treatment of Qualified Equity Grants
The section is still in the bill. It creates a new type qualified equity award referred to as “Qualified Equity Grants” that would allow employees in private companies to defer taxation of stock options and RSUs for up to five years. See my blog from this morning (“Tax Reform Update“) for more info. The Chairman’s mark includes some technical amendments to the language of this section, but the intent of it does not appear to have been changed.
What’s Next?
At this time, we are still awaiting the Senate version of the bill. There’s some preliminary information available about it but we’re going to have to wait for the full bill to know if it makes any changes to stock compensation. I will keep you updated.
Remember when I said you should be aware of the new Section 162(m) rules that apply to certain health insurance providers because they indicate the direction Section 162(m) is heading (“CHIPs: More Than a Cheesy TV Show“)? Well, it’s happening. The tax reform package proposed by the House would make some of the same changes to Section 162(m) that already apply to CHIPs.
What Is 162(m) Again?
For those of you who don’t live and breath corporate tax deductions, Section 162(m) limits the tax deduction that companies can take for compensation paid to covered employees (currently the CEO and the top three highest paid executives, not including the CFO—but this is something the proposed legislation would change) to $1 million. A number of types of compensation are exempted from the limit, however, including performance-based pay—this would also be changed by the proposed legislation.
Update to Covered Employee Definition
The proposed tax reform legislation would update the definition of who is a covered employee under Section 162(m) to once again include the CFO. This change has been coming ever since the SEC revised the definition of who is a named executive officer for purposes of the proxy executive compensation disclosures back in 2006. The only thing that is surprising is that it’s taken over ten years for the tax code to catch up (and, actually, it still hasn’t caught up, but it seems pretty likely that this is going to finally happen).
Once a Covered Employee, Always a Covered Employee
The proposed legislation would also amend Section 162(m) to provide that anyone serving as CEO or CFO during the year will be a covered employee (not just whoever is serving in this capacity at the end of the year). Plus, starting in 2017, once employees are covered by the rule, they remain covered employees in any subsequent years that they receive compensation from the company, regardless of their role or amount of compensation they receive. This will prevent companies from being able to take a tax deduction for compensation paid to covered employees simply by delaying the payout until the individuals retire.
This change has been coming for even longer, ever since the SEC updated their definition of named executive officer to include former officers, which happened so long ago I can’t remember when it was (10 points to anyone who can tell me).
Performance-Based Compensation No Longer Exempt
Finally, the proposed legislation would repeal the current exemption for performance-based compensation. This exemption currently applies to both stock options, even if subject to only time-based vesting, and performance awards. Thus, both types of grants would no longer be exempt from the limitation on the company’s tax deduction.
At one time, this might have spelled the curtailment of performance-based awards. But these days, there is so much pressure on companies to tie pay to performance for executives that I don’t see this having much of an impact of pay practices. It does mean that a fairly sizable portion of executive pay will no longer be deductible for many public companies.
Not Final Yet
As I noted in yesterday’s blog, this legislation has a ways to go before it is final. You can rely on the NASPP to keep you in the know, even if it means I have to write blogs on Sunday night. Check out our alert for law firm memos providing more analysis.
A recent IRS Chief Counsel Memorandum indicates that smaller reporting companies must treat their CFO as a covered employee under Section 162(m) if he/she is one of the top two highest paid executives other than the CEO.
Wait a Minute! The CFO Isn’t Subject to 162(m)?
Yep, that’s right. For larger reporting companies, it may seem crazy, but the CFO isn’t ever a covered employee under Section 162(m). This is because the definition of a named executive officer under Item 402 of Reg S-K for purposes of the executive compensation disclosures in the proxy has evolved and the definition of a covered employee under Section 162(m) hasn’t kept pace.
Section 162(m) applies to the following executives:
The CEO
The top four highest paid executives other than the CEO, as determined for proxy disclosure purposes.
Back when 162(m) was adopted, this was the same group of people that were considered NEOs for purposes of the proxy disclosures. But in 2006, the SEC changed Item 402 to carve out a separate requirement for CFOs. So now, the NEOs in the proxy are:
Anyone serving as CEO during the year
Anyone serving as CFO during the year
The top three highest paid executives other than the CEO and the CFO.
Up to two additional executives that would have been in the top three except that they terminated before the end of the year.
Unfortunately, only Congress can change the statutory language under Section 162(m), so the IRS can’t modify the definition of a covered employee to match the SEC’s new definition of an NEO. (When Congress drafted Section 162(m), they probably should have just said that it applies to all NEOs as determined under Item 402 of Reg S-K.)
All the IRS can do is interpret the requirement under 162(m) in light of the SEC’s definition. Their interpretation is that the SEC’s change exempts CFOs from Section 162(m) (see the NASPP alert “IRS Issues Guidance on ‘Covered Employees’ Under Section 162(m),” June 9, 2007). (If you are wondering, former employees are also not subject to Section 162(m); this is another evolution in the SEC definition that hasn’t been implemented in the tax code.)
What Gives With Smaller Reporting Companies?
Smaller reporting companies are subject to abbreviated reporting requirements, including fewer NEOs for proxy reporting purposes. Thus, the SEC’s new definition in 2006 never applied to smaller reporting companies. Instead, NEOs in smaller reporting companies are defined as:
The CEO
The top two highest paid executives other than the CEO.
Per Chief Counsel Memorandum 201543003, because the CFO isn’t separately required to be included in the proxy disclosures for smaller reporting companies, he/she is still a covered employee for Section 162(m) if he/she is one of the top two highest paid executives other than the CEO.
It’s no April Fool’s joke—on March 31, the IRS and Treasury issued final regulations under Section 162(m). The final regs are largely the same as the proposed regs that were issued back in 2011 (don’t believe me—check out the redline I created); so much so that I considered just copying my blog entry on the proposed regs and changing the word “proposed” to “final” throughout. But I’m not the sort of person that takes short-cuts like that, so I’ve written a whole new blog for you.
For more information on the final regs, check on the NASPP alert, which includes several law-firm memos.
The IRS Says “We Told You So”
The final regulations implement the clarification in the proposed regs that, for options and SARs to be exempt from the deduction limit under Section 162(m), the plan must specify a limit on the maximum number of shares that can be granted to an individual employee over a specified time period. It is not sufficient for the plan to merely limit the aggregate number of shares that can be granted, even though this creates a de facto per-person limit; the plan must separately state a per person limit (although the separately stated per-person limit could be equal to the aggregate number of shares that can be issued under the plan). One small change in the final regs was to clarify that the limit doesn’t have to be specific to options/SARs; a limit on all types of awards to individual employees is sufficient.
When the proposed regs came out, I was surprised that the IRS felt the need to issue regs clarifying this. This had always been my understanding of Section 162(m) and, as far as I know, the understanding of most, if not all, tax practitioners. In his sessions over the years at the NASPP Conference, IRS representative Stephen Tackney has said that everyone always agrees on the rules until some company gets dinged on audit for not complying with them—then all of a sudden the rules aren’t so clear. I expect that a situation like this drove the need for the clarification.
In the preamble to the final regs, the IRS is very clear that this is merely a “clarification” and that companies should have been doing this all along, even going so far as to quote from the preamble to the 1993 regs. Given that the IRS feels like this was clear all the way back in 1993, the effective date for this portion of the final regs is retroactive to June 24, 2011, when the proposed regs were issued (and I guess maybe we are lucky they didn’t make it effective as of 1993). Hopefully, you took the proposed regs to heart and made sure all your option/SAR plans include a per-person limit. If you didn’t, it looks like any options/SARs you’ve granted since then may not be fully deductible under Section 162(m).
Why Doesn’t the IRS Like RSUs?
Newly public companies enjoy the benefit of a transitional period before they have to fully comply with Section 162(m). The definition of this period is one of the most ridiculously complex things I’ve ever read and it’s not the point of the new regs, so I’m not going to try to explain it here. Suffice it to say that it works out to be more or less three years for most companies.
During the transitional period, awards granted under plans that were implemented prior to the IPO are not subject to the deduction limit. Even better, the deduction limit doesn’t apply to options, SARs, and restricted stock granted under those plans during this period, even if the awards are settled after the period has elapsed. It’s essentially a free pass for options, SARs, and restricted stock granted during the transition period. The proposed regs and the final regs clarify that this free pass doesn’t apply to RSUs. For RSUs to be exempt from the deduction limit, they must be settled during the transition period. This provides a fairly strong incentive for newly public companies to grant restricted stock, rather than RSUs, to executives that are likely to be covered by Section 162(m).
I am surprised by this. I thought that some very reasonable arguments had been made for treating RSUs the same as options, SARs, and restricted stock and that the IRS might be willing to reverse the position taken in the proposed regs. (In fact, private letter rulings had sometimes taken the reverse position). I think the IRS felt that because RSUs are essentially a form of non-qualified deferred comp, providing a broad exemption for them might lead to abuse and practices that are beyond the intent of the exemption.
This portion of the regs is effective for RSUs granted after April 1, 2015.
Today I have a grab bag of short topics for you, each worth mentioning but none are really long enough for their own blog.
The Most Ridiculous Section 162(m) Lawsuit Ever Last year, a Delaware federal court ruled in favor of a company that was the subject of lawsuit alleging that their incentive plan had not been properly approved by shareholders for Section 162(m) purposes. The plaintiff argued that because Section 162(m) requires the plan to be approved by the company’s shareholders, all shareholders–even those holding non-voting shares–should have been allowed to vote on it. Shareholder votes are governed by state law but the plaintiff attorney argued that the tax code preempted state law on this matter. Luckily the judge did not agree.
The plaintiff also argued that the company’s board violated their fiduciary duties because they used discretion to reduce the payments made pursuant to awards allowed under the plan. The plaintiff stipulated that this violates the Section 162(m) requirement that payments be based solely on objective factors. In a suit like this, the plaintiff attorney represents a shareholder of the company; it seems surprising that a shareholder would be upset about award payments being reduced–go figure. In any event, it’s fairly well established that negative discretion is permissible under Section 162(m) and the judge dismissed this claim.
Glass Lewis Policy Update Glass Lewis has posted their updated policy for 2014. For US companies, the policy was updated to discuss hedging by execs (spoiler alert: Glass Lewis doesn’t like it) and pledging (they could go either way on this). With respect to pledging, Glass Lewis identifies 12–count ’em, that’s 12–different factors they will consider when evaluating pledging by execs.
The policy was also updated to discuss the SEC’s new rules related to director independence and how the new rules impact Glass Lewis’s analysis in this area. Although we now have three perfectly good standards for director independence (Section 16, Section 162(m), and the NYSE/NASDAQ listing standards), Glass Lewis has developed their own standards and they’re sticking to ’em. I’m sure I’ve asked this before, but really, how many different standards for independence do we need? I’m not sure director independence is the problem here.
Should Your Plan Limit Awards to Directors? As you are getting this year’s stock plan proposal ready for a shareholder vote, one thing to consider is whether to include a limit on awards to directors. In 2012, a court refused to dismiss one of the plaintiff’s claims in Seinfeld v. Slager because the plan did not place sufficient limits on the grants directors could make to themselves and, thus, were not disinterested in administration of the plan, at least with respect to their own grants.
Today’s blog entry is about CHIPs. Not the Erik Estrada and John Wilcox variety, but Certain Health Insurance Providers. The IRS has proposed regulations implementing the $500,000 deduction limit that applies to CHIPs under the President Obama’s health care package.
Why Do You Care?
If you aren’t a health insurance provider, you probably are wondering why you should care about this. And, right now, you probably don’t. But the placing further restrictions on the limit on corporate tax deductions under Section 162(m) for all companies is something that is currently on the table in DC. I think it’s likely that any additional restrictions would mimic, at least in part, the restrictions that apply to health insurance providers. Thus, even if you aren’t CHIP, I think it’s worth five minutes of your time to read today’s blog entry so you have an idea of what might be coming down the pike.
What’s Different?
The following table provides a quick illustration of how the limit for CHIPs differs from the standard limitation we are all familiar with under Section 162(m). As you can see, it’s about more than just $500,000.
Limit for CHIPs
Standard 162(m) Limit
Applies to:
Public and private companies
Public companies only
Max Deduction:
$500,000
$1,000,000
Covered Employees:
All employees + directors + most consultants
NEOs only
Performance Compensation:
Not exempted
Exempted
Timing:
When earned
When paid
Why You Should be Worried
The new limit that applies to CHIPs has some significant implications for stock compensation. First, because performance compensation isn’t exempted, stock options and performance awards are subject to the limit (which does have a silver lining in that CHIPs don’t have to worry about meeting 162(m) requirements when implementing these plans–say hello to our long-lost friend, discretionary payouts).
Second, because the limit applies when compensation is earned, not when it is paid, to figure out whether the company can claim its deduction for stock awards, the deduction has to be allocated on a daily pro rata basis over the period the awards was earned. You would expect this to be the vesting period, but it isn’t. For options, the period is measured from grant to exercise; for restricted stock, it’s grant to vest; and for RSUs, it’s grant to payout. So let’s say an option is exercised just prior to the end of its ten-year contractual term–that’s 11 tax years that the deduction would be allocated over.
That’s complicated enough, but things get really complicated when you think about the impact on your DTA accruals for tax accounting purposes and the tax benefit assumed for diluted EPS purposes. Makes you glad your company isn’t a CHIP (unless you are a CHIP, in which case, good luck with all that).
