Internal Revenue Service Updates Golden Parachute Payments Audit Technique Guide, Signaling Key Items IRS May Review on Audit

In early 2017, the IRS updated its Golden Parachute Payments Audit Technique Guide for the first time since its 2005 issuance. While intended as an internal reference for IRS agents conducting golden parachute examinations, the Audit Technique Guide offers valuable insight for both public and private companies, and recipients of golden parachute payments, into how IRS agents are likely to approach golden parachutes when conducting an audit.

In Depth

In January 2017, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) published its first updated Golden Parachute Payments Audit Technique Guide (Updated Guidelines) since 2005. While intended as an internal reference for IRS agents to consult during the audit process, the Updated Guidelines highlight likely areas for audit. Corporations providing golden parachute payments to their executives and independent contractors—as well as individuals eligible to receive golden parachute payments—can find current, practical compliance tips and insight into IRS thinking in the Updated Guidelines.

Background

The concept of a golden parachute arises from Sections 280G and 4999 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended, (Code) and regulations promulgated thereunder (together, the Golden Parachute Rules). The Golden Parachute Rules apply the following tax penalties if certain employees and independent contractors (including directors) of a corporation undergoing a “change in control” receive “parachute payments” in connection with the change in control: (1) the payor of the parachute payments loses the ability to deduct the parachute payments that constitute “excess parachute payments”; and (2) the employee or independent contractor who receives the parachute payments incurs a 20 percent excise tax, in addition to ordinary income tax liability, on the parachute payments that constitute excess parachute payments (collectively, the Golden Parachute Penalties).

What’s New in the Updated Guidelines

The Updated Guidelines include: (1) a review of the golden parachute rules and a discussion of potential audit adjustments; (2) a list of documents to review in connection with a golden parachute examination; and (3) a list of nine steps to perform in a parachute payment examination. New matters covered by the Updated Guidelines include the following:

  • Adds the annual proxy statements and information statements filed on Schedules 14A and 14C containing disclosure of potential change in control payments to Named Executive Officers (NEOs) as document containing relevant background information on change in control payments (for public companies, these forms are not applicable to private companies);
  • Adds Forms S-4 and F-4 disclosures in registration statements related to mergers, acquisitions or in cases when securities are exchanged between companies as documents containing relevant background information on change in control payments (for public companies, these forms are not applicable to private companies). The Forms S-4 and F-4 contain disclosures of NEO golden parachute payments in a disclosed transaction as required the Dodd-Frank Act; and
  • Discusses the technical interplay between Sections 162(m) and 280G. Under Section 162(m) of the Code, the $1 million limitation must be reduced by any amount of excess parachute payment paid. For example, if a NEO receives an excess parachute payment of $300,000 under the Golden Parachute Rules, the company is not only denied a deduction under the Golden Parachute Rules for the $300,000 excess parachute payment, but the company is also limited to a $700,000 deduction under Section 162(m) of the Code.

The Updated Guidelines confirm our experience that the IRS is increasingly looking to securities filings when evaluating tax positions under Section 280G. These filings often include disclosures that could be inconsistent with desired tax positions, such as disclosing payments in a manner that makes them appear to be parachute payments. For example, a company might disclose estimated tax gross-up payments that need not be made or payments that are not linked to a non-compete even though post-termination payments are being treated as reasonable compensation for post-merger service. We have also found that the IRS will evaluate whether tax deductions for executives continuing employment have been properly reduced due to both parachute payment treatment and the $1 million tax deduction limitation.

Regardless of whether a company is public or private, the Updated Guidelines are a good resource to consult when preparing 280G calculations and determining how best to position the company in the event of an audit.

Source: Amy Gordon

The following two tabs change content below.
Amy Gordon focuses her practice on welfare benefits compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and related federal and state laws and regulations. She regularly advises clients on their self-funded and insured health plans, wellness programs and on-site clinics. She also handles fiduciary issues, including prohibited transactions and other ERISA Title I matters and represents clients before the US Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. Amy assists clients in designing and maintaining compliant flexible benefit, life, medical, dental, pharmacy, employee assistance programs (EAP), educational assistance, disability, supplemental health, severance, Health Savings Accounts, Health Reimbursement Accounts and other types of welfare plans. She also consults with clients regarding the design and compliance of wellness programs and initiatives. She has extensive experience with assisting clients who transition their employees and/or retirees to the public and private Marketplace Exchanges. Amy also provides guidance on retiree benefit plans, including Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) liability issues and funding options. Previously, Amy served as in-house counsel to Prudential Financial, formerly Prudential Insurance Company of America. She advised Prudential on its current and new products, including long-term and short-term disability, health insurance, life insurance, guaranteed products, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and pension plan investments. She also represented the company in various fiduciary and prohibited transaction matters. Before that, she worked in the New York Regional Office of the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). During her EBSA tenure, she prepared a number of high-profile civil and criminal litigation actions brought by the Department of Labor and the US Attorney’s office.

Amy Gordon

Amy Gordon focuses her practice on welfare benefits compliance with the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), the Public Health Service Act, the Internal Revenue Code, the Affordable Care Act (ACA), and related federal and state laws and regulations. She regularly advises clients on their self-funded and insured health plans, wellness programs and on-site clinics. She also handles fiduciary issues, including prohibited transactions and other ERISA Title I matters and represents clients before the US Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration. Amy assists clients in designing and maintaining compliant flexible benefit, life, medical, dental, pharmacy, employee assistance programs (EAP), educational assistance, disability, supplemental health, severance, Health Savings Accounts, Health Reimbursement Accounts and other types of welfare plans. She also consults with clients regarding the design and compliance of wellness programs and initiatives. She has extensive experience with assisting clients who transition their employees and/or retirees to the public and private Marketplace Exchanges. Amy also provides guidance on retiree benefit plans, including Financial Accounting Standards Board (FASB) liability issues and funding options. Previously, Amy served as in-house counsel to Prudential Financial, formerly Prudential Insurance Company of America. She advised Prudential on its current and new products, including long-term and short-term disability, health insurance, life insurance, guaranteed products, individual retirement accounts (IRAs) and pension plan investments. She also represented the company in various fiduciary and prohibited transaction matters. Before that, she worked in the New York Regional Office of the Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration (EBSA), formerly the Pension and Welfare Benefits Administration (PWBA). During her EBSA tenure, she prepared a number of high-profile civil and criminal litigation actions brought by the Department of Labor and the US Attorney’s office.

amy-gordon has 14 posts and counting.See all posts by amy-gordon

Leave a Reply