In a June 25, 2012 revenue ruling, the IRS issued guidance as to whether dividends and dividend equivalents related to restricted stock and restricted stock units (RSUs) that qualify as performance-based compensation for purposes of Internal Revenue Code Section 162(m) must separately qualify as performance-based.
Section 162(m) generally provides a deduction limit of $1 million per year for compensation paid by a publicly held corporation to a “covered employee” (i.e. the CEO and the three highest compensated officers other than the CEO and CFO). The limitation does not apply to “qualified performance-based compensation,” which must be paid solely on account of the attainment of one or more pre-established, objective performance goals and satisfy other requirements set forth in regulations under Section 162(m).
Revenue Ruling 2012-19 provides two examples to address whether dividends and dividend equivalents payable with respect to performance-based restricted stock or RSUs also qualify as performance-based compensation. In both examples, publicly held corporations maintain plans by which covered employees may be granted restricted stock or RSUs that vest upon the attainment of certain pre-established, objective performance goals and which qualify as performance-based compensation.
In the first example, the plan provides that dividends and dividend equivalents otherwise payable to the employee during the period from grant through vesting are accumulated and become payable to the employee only if the performance goals related to the restricted stock and RSUs are satisfied. In the second example, the plan provides that the dividends and dividend equivalents are paid regardless of whether performance goals with respect to the restricted stock and RSUs are satisfied.
The IRS held that the dividends and dividend equivalents are grants of compensation separate and apart from the related restricted stock and RSUs and must separately qualify as performance-based compensation to be excluded from the Section 162(m) limitation. Accordingly, the dividends and dividend equivalents in the first example were held to qualify as performance-based compensation, while those in the second example were held not to qualify.
Public companies should consider a review of their Section 162(m) plan documents to determine whether any amendments are necessary in light of this revenue ruling.
- Partner
Mark Sims practices in the Business Representation & Transactions Group and works primarily in the federal income tax, business planning and healthcare areas. Mark's federal tax practice involves individual, corporate, S ...
Topics/Tags
Select- Securities Law
- SEC
- Nasdaq
- Corporate Transparency Act
- Cybersecurity and Privacy Law
- Securities Regulation
- Cybersecurity Regulation
- IRS
- Corporate Law
- Tax Planning
- Coronavirus
- Clawback Rules
- SEC Enforcement
- Taxation
- Dodd-Frank
- Mergers & Acquisitions
- Paycheck Protection Program
- JOBS Act
- Corporate Tax
- Economic Sanctions
- Ohio LLC Act
- FAST Act
- Corporate Governance
- Consumer Protection Act
- Proxy Access Rules
- Securities Litigation
- Crowdfunding
- Conflict Minerals
- Cryptocurrency
- Hedging
- Real Estate Law
- Emerging Growth Companies
- Investors
- Pay Ratio Disclosure
- Whistleblower
- Private Offerings
- Intellectual Property
- Technology
- Opportunity Zone
- LIBOR
- Executive Compensation
- Health Care Act
- Accredited Investors
- Sales Tax
- United States Supreme Court
- Online Trading Platforms
- Wall Street Reform
- IPO
- Registration Statement
- Annual Reports
- Family-Controlled Entities
- Gift and Estate Transfers
- Ohio Foreclosure Reform
- Director Compensation
- Board of Directors
- Director Independence
- Cyber Insurance
- Data Breach
- Lenders
- Receivership Statute
- Regulation A
- Regulation D
- Total Shareholder Return
- Compensation Committee Certification
- CDEs
- CDFI Fund
- Community Development Entities
- Community Development Financial Institutions Fund
- Government Shutdown
- New Markets Tax Credit
- NMTC
- NMTC Financing
- Regulation Fair Disclosure
- Social Media
- Benefits
- Healthcare Reform
- Litigation
- Marketing
- Public Company Transition Rules
- Employment Incentives
- HIRE Act
- Social Security Tax
- Tax Credit
Recent Posts
- Fifth Circuit Nixes Nasdaq Board Diversity Rules
- Corporate Transparency Act Update: Texas Federal Court Issues Nationwide Injunction
- SEC Fines Four Companies $7M for Violating Cyber Disclosure Rules
- FinCEN Issues Additional Guidance for Reporting Companies on Dissolved Entities
- Division of Corporation Finance Director Statement: The State of Disclosure Review
- FinCEN Issues Additional Guidance for HOAs and Trusts under the Corporate Transparency Act
- SEC Wins ‘Shadow Insider Trading’ Trial
- SEC Voluntarily Stays Climate Rules
- New SEC Climate Disclosure Rules – Temporarily Stayed
- Corporate Transparency Act Ruled Unconstitutional