Wagner Logo

Follow us on Twitter View our profile on LinkedIn Like us on Facebook 

 

 

 

 

J. Mark Poerio

 

 

 Mark Poerio specializes in executive compensation, employee benefits, and fiduciary matters, especially from a business, governance, tax, securities, and litigation perspective. He currently serves as President of the prestigious American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, and on the executive board of the American Benefits Council.

 

To find more of Mark's Law Alerts and Newsletters, please click here.

  

 

 

 

The Wagner Law Group

The Wagner Law Group is a nationally recognized practice in the areas of ERISA and employee benefits, estate planning, employment, labor and human resources and investment management.

 

Established in 1996, The Wagner Law Group is dedicated to the highest standards of integrity, excellence and thought leadership and is considered to be amongst the nation's premier ERISA and employee benefits law firms. The firm has eight offices across the country, providing unparalleled legal advice to its clients, including large, small and nonprofit corporations as well as individuals and government entities worldwide. The Wagner Law Group's 34 attorneys, senior benefits consultant and seven paralegals combine many years of experience in their fields of practice with a variety of backgrounds. Nine of the attorneys are AV-rated by Martindale-Hubbell and six are Fellows of the American College of Employee Benefits Counsel, an invitation-only organization of nationally recognized employee benefits lawyers.  Five of the firm's attorneys have been named to the prestigious Super Lawyers list for 2017, which highlights outstanding lawyers based on a rigorous selection process. The Wagner Law Group is certified as a woman-owned and operated business by the Women's Business Enterprise National Council.

 

 

 

 

 

  

 

 

 

Contact Info

The Wagner Law Group

 

  Integrity | Excellence

  

Boston 

Tel: (617) 357-5200 

Fax: (617) 357-5250 

99 Summer Street 

13th Floor

Boston, MA 02110

 

Washington, D.C.

Tel: (202) 969-2800

 

Fax: (202) 969-2568

 800 Connecticut Avenue, N.W.

Suite 810

Washington, D.C. 20006

 

Chicago

Tel: (847) 990-9034

Fax: (847) 557-1312

190 South LaSalle Street

Suite 2100

Chicago, IL 60603

 

  

Palm Beach Gardens 

Tel: (561) 293-3590
Fax: (561) 293-3591
7108 Fairway Drive
Suite 125
Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33418

   

Tampa

Tel: (813) 603-2959

Fax: (813) 603-2961

101 East Kennedy Boulevard

Suite 2140
Tampa, FL  33602 

  

San Francisco

Tel: (415) 625-0002

Fax: (415) 358-8300

300 Montgomery Street

Suite 600

San Francisco, CA 94104

  

St. Louis

Tel: (314) 236-0065

Fax: (314) 236-5743
25 W. Moody Avenue
St. Louis, MO  63119

 

Lincoln, MA

Tel: (617) 532-8080

Fax: (617) 532-8090

 55 Old Bedford Road

Suite 303

Lincoln, MA  01773

 

 

 

www.wagnerlawgroup.com

 

 

 

April 24, 2018

 

Law Alert

 

2018 Update for Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) Changes

 

 

 

 

The Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017 made fundamental changes to Section 162(m) of the Internal Revenue Code. The general nature of those changes is noted below, along with thoughts about their impact on public companies - and next steps that compensation committees should consider. Forward-minded action is warranted in order to preserve corporate deductions, especially for severance and other post-employment compensation that were previously safe from 162(m).

Grandfathering Rules

 

  • 2017 Tax Law Change: An exemption from 162(m) remains broadly available for taxable income that is paid pursuant to a written binding contract that was in effect on 11/02/2017 and is not thereafter materially modified.* Compensation Committees - In order to preserve grandfathering, be careful to preserve grandfathering not only through caution before amending any compensatory plans or agreements in effect before 11/02/2017, but also by assuring that material modifications do not occur for performance-based awards (such as, arguably, by failing to maintain committee independence or to provide proper certifications of performance results, when needed).
  • Contract Renewals - These are deemed material modifications, so consider 162(m) implications before renewing employment agreements for senior executives.
  • "Negative discretion" - It is unclear, though reasonably arguable, that a material modification does not occur if a company exercises negative discretion after 11/02/17 provided that right existed beforehand. Companies should seek updated information from legal counsel before exercising such discretion.

 

No Future Exemption for Performance-based Compensation

 

  • 2017 Tax Law Change: gone is the 162(m) exemption for income from for stock options, SARs, or other performance-based compensation (unless attributable to a grandfathered contract).

 

    1. For new or amended equity award and incentive plans: consider eliminating 162(m) provisions, such as those that require --award timing in first 90 days of the year;
    2. decisions by "non-employee directors";
    3. purely objective formulae and metrics (because subjective measures and increased discretion are allowable now that 162(m) does not foreclose);
    4. Certification of results by non-employee directors before payouts; and
    5. shareholder approval of the plan or awards.

 

    • Be careful to examine shareholder-approval issues before amending a plan that previously received such approval.
  • To preserve corporate deductions, consider increased use of deferred compensation and restricted stock (with longer vesting schedules), and less use of stock options.
  • Likewise, draft new severance plans and employment agreements to provide for installment payouts, as well as to allow severance bonus payouts at target - 162(m) formerly did not allow. 
    • Beware of Code 409A implications before changing the time of payment for the severance due under existing employment agreements.
  • Be aware of 8-K and proxy statement disclosure requirements for any actions taken.
  • See "New Year, New Stock Plan" for further alternatives to consider.

 

Expanded "Covered Employee" Definition

 

  • 2017 Law Changes: (1) CFOs join CEOs and the top three highest paid employees listed in proxy statements, and (2) once a covered employee after 2016, always a covered employee, in contrast to prior law which applied only to those employed at year-end.
  • Consider deferred compensation, installment payouts, and other changes that preserve the company's ability to deduct compensation, and severance, paid after a covered employee's termination of employment. 
    • Be careful to make changes for corporate purposes, and in accordance with Code 409A.
    • Avoid material modifications to compensatory plans and awards that were in place on 11/02/2017 and that provide post-employment compensation (e.g. SERPs).

 

New Companies Brought within 162(m)'s Scope

 

  • 2017 Law Change: expands 162(m) to cover companies with publicly-traded debt, and foreign companies with publicly-traded ADRs.

 

Anticipated Reaction from Shareholder Advisory Groups

 

  • Take into account the likely reaction of investors and shareholder advisory groups before updating executive compensation plans and practices in response to the foregoing 162(m) changes. Reproduced in the Appendix below are comments that ISS published early in 2018, in order to provide its perspective.

 

Conclusion

 

  • It has long been generally accepted that, although 162(m)'s $1 million deduction limit is a factor to consider in executive compensation planning, it is more important to structure executive compensation in a manner that achieves corporate goals. Interestingly, the tax law changes that occurred in 2017 should make it easier to align these considerations, mainly because public companies are now freed from jumping through the 162(m) hoops that were required before 2018 in order to secure performance-based exemptions.

 


* * *************

 

APPENDIX

 

 

ISS Warnings (from David Kokell, head of ISS U.S. Compensation Research, posted 1/25/2018 on Harvard Governance Blog):

 

  • GENERAL ADVICE: "For companies, think carefully about significant departures from your existing compensation framework and, to the extent possible, test those changes with your shareholder base to get early feedback whether they view the changes as beneficial." 
  • FORMULA AWARDS: "As in previous years, changes that generally reduce the transparent and objective pay-and-performance alignment between shareholders and executives will be viewed negatively when we evaluate compensation pay-for-performance. Negative changes could include material shifts away from performance-based compensation, less transparent disclosure of performance metrics and goals, selecting metrics and setting performance goals later in the performance cycle, and issuing in-the-money stock options."
  • SHIFT TO SALARY? "We've seen at least one high profile company, citing the new tax regime, replace variable bonus opportunities with large guaranteed base salaries. Such a decision effectively eliminates the at-risk nature of pay and severs the linkage between pay and performance. I have no doubt that any board that eliminates or reduces performance-conditioned incentives in favor of guaranteed or highly discretionary pay is going to face investor backlash. ISS will continue to closely scrutinize any decision that diminishes performance pay, and wholesale shifts to fixed pay components will likely result in adverse vote recommendations."
  • PLAN CHANGES: "I would caution companies that may be considering removing these shareholder-friendly features (such as limits on discretion or award caps) from their incentive programs simply because they are no longer required under 162(m). ISS, and many investors, will view such actions as detrimental to shareholders' interests."
  • DISCRETION AND AWARD LIMITS: "The requirement that awards be contingent on the attainment of pre-established performance goals remains paramount. Investors also tend to prefer an objective payout formula with performance goals established early in the performance measurement period. I would also stress that setting individual award caps and limiting the ability for upwards discretion on payouts will also be viewed as important safeguards. That said, we've heard from some investors that they have comfort with some level of discretion embedded in programs, as long as that discretion is applied judiciously and is well-explained."

 

 

 

This Newsletter is protected by copyright. Material appearing herein may be reproduced with appropriate credit.

 

This Newsletter is provided for information purposes by The Wagner Law Group to clients and others who may be interested in the subject matter, and may not be relied upon as specific legal advice.  This material is not to be construed as legal advice or legal opinions on specific facts. Under the Rules of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, this material may be considered advertising.