The Big Surprise Gotcha in the Million Dollar Pay Cap

Even those of us who have been hiding under rocks know that late last year, the President signed into law the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. And, as part of that Act, there was language that amended Code Section 162(m) also known as the million dollar pay cap. After Treasury gave us guidance on those changes in Notice 2018-68, some observers were surprised by a few of the interpretations that the regulators took. One in particular, however, that they didn't quite spell out, meets my criteria for a big surprise gotcha.

I'll come back to that and consider how an employer might get around it, but first some background. Under the old 162(m), deductions for reasonable compensation under Section 162 were limited to $1,000,000 per year for the CEO and the four other highest compensated employees of, generally speaking, publicly traded companies. However, most performance-based compensation was exempt from that calculation and was deductible as it would have been before the cap came into being.

Under the new 162(m), the definition of covered employee has been changed to be the CEO, CFO, and the three other highest paid employees. But, once you become a covered employee, you remain a covered employee. So, by 2030, for example, a company could easily have 25 covered employees. [Hats off to the cynics who know this is a silly example because no law stays in place unchanged for 13 years anymore.] Further, performance-based compensation is no longer exempt.

Like most law changes that affect compensation and benefits, this one, too, has a grandfather provision. Here, the new rules are not to apply to remuneration paid pursuant to a binding contract that was in effect on November 2, 2017, and which has not been materially modified after that date. The keys then relate to what is compensation for these purposes, what sort of modifications might be material, and what constitutes a binding contract.

Compensation is essentially any compensation that would be deductible were it not for the million dollar pay cap. Whether a modification is material remains a bit subjective, but the guidance does specify that cost-of-living increases in compensation are not material, but that those that meaningfully exceed cost-of-living are.

The binding contract issue is the really sneaky one. Your read and your counsel's read may be different, but my read is that if the employer has the ability to unilaterally change the contract, it's not binding. That is problematic.

Consider a nonqualified retirement plan be it a defined benefit (DB) SERP or a traditional nonqualified deferred compensation (NQDC) plan. In my experience, it's fairly common (completely undefined term) to see language that gives an employer the unilateral right to amend said plan, subject to any employment agreements that may overrule. Well, if the company can amend the plan, there would seem to be no binding agreement. And, that means that when that nonqualified plan is paid out to the employee, perhaps none of a large payout will be deductible for the employer. I'm aware of some payouts well into nine figures.

When it's a nine-figure payout, there really aren't great solutions. But, for the typical nonqualified plan, whether it's DB or DC, qualifying some of the benefits changes the treatment. If the benefits can be qualified in a DB plan using a QSERP device, employer funding will be deductible if it is deductible under Section 404. That's far more forgiving and, in fact, it is not at all unlikely that the deductions will already have been taken before the covered employee retires.

Yes, it's still a big surprise gotcha, but don't you prefer a surprise gotcha when it has a surprise solution.

Compensating Executives Under the New 162(m)

Except for those who are either executives or people involved in determining the ways that executives are compensated, one of the changes to the Internal Revenue Code last fall seemed like a little throw-in designed to appease a small constituency, but that few would really care about. That small group that does understand the change, however, knows it is a pretty big deal.

Let's recap so that we can all be on the same page. Prior to the Tax Cut and Jobs Act (TCJA), and oversimplifying somewhat, public companies were entitled to deductions for executive compensation so long as such compensation did not exceed $1 million per year for a covered employee. Performance-based compensation was not to be counted against that limit and covered employees were the CEO plus the four other highest compensated employees.

Since the passage of the TCJA, there have been several key changes to Section 162(m):

• Once you become a covered employee of a company (beginning in 2017), you remain a covered employee of that company, essentially forever;
• The CEO plus four other highest paid has been changed to CEO plus CFO plus three other highest paid;
• Companies no longer get an exemption for performance-based compensation; and
• Some grandfathering exists for certain agreements that existed in writing.

That does not leave a whole lot of wiggle room for companies. And, for companies that have provided large amounts of performance-based compensation to their executive group, meaningful deductions may be gone.

I'm not about to suggest that I can fix this new problem. But, you should note that amounts that have been deductible under Section 404 are unaffected by these changes. Section 404 of the Internal Revenue Code relates to qualified pension plans. What this means is that to the extent that parts of an executive's compensation which would be subject to Section 162(m) are somehow moved into a qualified pension plan, the funding of that plan will, subject to the rules of Section 404, generally qualify for a corporate tax deduction.

Of course, there are a myriad of rules around what it takes to keep such a pension qualified including the nondiscrimination rules of Section 401(a)(4). But, for most companies that still maintain ongoing pensions, the ability to transfer some otherwise nondeductible compensation to such a pension plan may still exist. It's one of the tools in the tool box that companies should look into.

Getting Around Code Section 162(m)(6)

This is an article that I wrote that was published by Bloomberg/BNA. They have the exclusive copyright. You may print an article for your own use. You may not distribute it physically or electronically without the express written consent of Bloomberg/BNA.


I am working to remember how to embed it in this blog, but in the meantime, you can go to it by clicking on this link.

New Pay Limit for Covered Health Insurance Providers and Maybe a Way Around It

Perhaps you like the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (PPACA, ACA, or ObamaCare). Perhaps you don't. You are entitled to your opinion. I think we can all agree that it has its good provisions and it has those that perhaps could have been better thought through. One that falls into the latter category is the [relatively] new Code Section 162(m)(6) dealing with the limit on compensation for Covered Health Insurance Providers (I'll refer to them as CHIPs because it's much easier for me to type). In a nutshell, the section and its new proposed regulations limit the deduction for compensation that can be taken by a CHIP to $500,000 annually with respect to any person.

If you want to read the regulation like I did, you can find it here. If you want a good technical overview with the requisite cynicism, I direct you to Mike Melbinger's blog.

If you would like a solution, read on.

In a nutshell, you are a CHIP if 2% of the gross revenues received by your controlled group are from health insurance premiums. Yes, that means that if you happen to be part of a controlled group that contains a health insurer, you are likely a CHIP. Congratulations!

Most of Code Section 162(m) deals with deduction of compensation (as a reasonable business expense). The parts that limit it generally limit it to $1 million, except for CHIPs. And, for CHIPs, and only for CHIPs, the determination of whether an individual's compensation exceeds $500,000 includes deferred compensation earned, nonqualified plan benefits earned, equity compensation awarded, and severance benefits paid. The calculation is not easy, but this post is not about that. If you'd like to know more about the calculation, contact me and I'll be happy to charm you with its details.

I said I have a solution, and for many companies, I think I do. What was left out? Did you notice that qualified plan contributions and accruals were left out? And, for qualified plans, we have an objective set of nondiscrimination rules.

The solution involves a technique often referred to as a QSERP. What this technique does is to take nonqualified deferred compensation amounts and moves them from a nonqualified plan to a qualified plan. In this case, it has lots of advantages:

• Frequently immediate tax deductibility
• Tax-favored buildup
• More security
• Pooling with significant other obligations in a large trust

Most often, QSERPs are utilized in a defined benefit context. But, realizing that many companies no longer have defined benefit plans providing for current accruals, QSERPs can be utilized in a defined contribution context as well. 

Again, the explanation is long and has been covered elsewhere, so I'm not going to bore my readers here, but if you'd like a detailed explanation, contact me directly.

I know the cynics among you will say that this deduction limitation is the right thing to do. For you, I will say that you should have asked Congress to craft the law in a way that doesn't leave creative minds the opportunity to find loopholes.

If you're reading this today (it's a Friday) or even if you're not, have a great weekend whenever that may come for you.

Survey Says Employer-Provided Benefits Declining, But Why?

Today's information is gleaned largely from "Prudential's Fifth Annual Study of Employee Benefits: Today & Beyond." For me, the key takeaway from an employee's standpoint is that 43% of employees said that the level of benefits that their company offers was down from a year earlier. This continues a trend that we have seen for the last few years. Pay increases, generally, are meager. What employees have to pay for equivalent benefits is increasing faster than pay. The end result is that an employee's income that is used to other than the necessities of life is shrinking.

Here I diverge from the theme of the survey. We've been down this road before. Employer-provided retirement benefits are decreasing. Defined benefit pensions, once nearly as prevalent as mom and apple pie, are now barely more common than the dinosaur. Cost-sharing in what are considered by most to be core benefits, such as health care, has increased on the employee side. And, all this has occurred while the level of benefits being provided is declining.

Once upon a time in a far-away land (oops, not so far away, but actually right here in the US), companies used to talk about the "deal" between an employer and an employee. The employee would work hard, but frankly, perhaps not as many hours as employees seemed to be working through the period from about 1985 to the early 2000s. In return, the employee would get fair pay with fair pay increases and certain core benefits (retirement and health care primary among them).

What ended this? From this lens, it appears that the beginning of the end was the bursting of the tech bubble. The recession of the early 2000s brought with it a rash of cuts in employee benefit programs. Companies looked for new ways to save money and such benefits were among the primary targets. Initially, we were told that such cuts would be temporary, but temporary is long since gone. That train has left the station.

Frequently, I rail on against those who choose to over-regulate things like executive compensation. But, if we look carefully, it is really only the executives whose total reward package has value that has kept up with or exceeded increases in the cost of living.

I think there is one reason for this that has not been discussed much. It's one of the OBRA brothers, in this case OBRA 93. It added Section 162(m), the foolish million dollar pay cap to the Internal Revenue Code. But, it exempted performance-based pay. And, while this was designed to rein in executive compensation, what it did is it allowed companies and their compensation consultants to design programs with obscene amounts of performance-based pay for top executives. So, executive pay went up, and it went up with the incentive attached to it that if the executives could increase corporate profitability by cutting employee benefits, part of that savings from cutting benefits would go right into the checkbooks of the executives.

So, for all the people in the early 90s who tried to rein in executive compensation, they really found a back door way to cut broad-based employee compensation and benefits. The Prudential survey doesn't say it, but I do.

And so it goes ...

IRS Still Auditing Executive Compensation

Over a year ago, the IRS announced that it was stepping up its audit program with respect to executive compensation. Frankly, any activity at all would have been a step up. For the majority of the time since we have had an income tax (and therefore an Internal Revenue Code) in the US, audits of executive compensation have been virtually nonexistent. Why? The biggest reason is that there have not been a whole lot of rules. Number two on the list is that the IRS has not chosen to place its resources there.

For many who are fortunate enough to be the beneficiaries of executive [levels] of compensation, the good news is that most are still not getting audited. However, with the interplay of Code Sections 83 (constructive receipt and the economic benefit doctrine plus some other related stuff), 162(m) (the million dollar pay cap), 409A (taxing people to death when they mess up their deferred compensation programs), and 3121(v) (FICA tax on deferred compensation), the IRS has plenty of things to audit. Surprisingly, at least to this writer, we're finding that they are catching people on some fairly tricky applications of the law.

Notably, I've seen or heard of multiple people getting dinged on these infractions:

• Stock awards that vest at a retirement date, causing constructive receipt under Section 83
• Linked retirement plans where the offset from the qualified plan is not well enough specified, causing a 409A violation
• Failure to pay FICA tax on deferred compensation that employers didn't realize technically was deferred compensation
• Improperly constructed performance pay plans that run afoul of 162(m) by not qualifying as performance pay
• Severance pay plans that did not have a 6-month payment delay for specified employees because they looked like broad-based plans. The fact that the compensation considered exceeded the pay cap (401(a)(17)) caused the problem.
• A 409A plan having a plan document that specifies for one set of administrative procedures, but the plan being administered the way it always was before someone wrote a document without bothering to check to see how it was being administered.

There are more, plenty more. There are a few ways that you can handle this.

• Do nothing and play audit roulette.
• Have your documents reviewed by someone other than the person who wrote them (the person who wrote them will read what they intended even if nobody else reads it that way).
• Have your administrative processes reviewed by someone who is not your administrator, but has experience with the administration of nonqualified deferred compensation plans.
• If you find problems, take corrective action. The IRS has been nice enough to give us corrective methods that lessen or eliminate the additional tax burden, but only if you fix them before the IRS catches you.