The leading association for the stock and executive compensation profession
Join a professional community 6,000+ members strong
Continue your investment in your professional development and community
Our member care center is here to assist you
Country-specific guidance for stock plan design and administration
Connect with a chapter in your area
Learn more about and engage your peers
Attend an NASPP event for unbeatable professional development and networking
Ask, find and provide answers to burning industry questions
Professional development to keep you at the top of your game
Expert industry perspectives and guidance for your daily work
Enrich you career and discover new opportunities
Be there for the 27th annual event Sept. 16-19, 2019 in New Orleans!
When listening to a webcast, it pays to stick around until the very end. The last question asked during the NASPP’s webcast “Navigating Equity Plan and Award Changes After the TCJA and IRS Notice 2018-68” turned out to be interesting.
The question relates to material modifications of equity grants. This is an important issue right now because equity grants that are exempt from Section 162(m) under the grandfather provision in the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act lose their exempt status if they are materially modified after November 2, 2017. (If you have no idea what I’m talking about, crawl out from the rock you are living under and read my October 16 blog entry “Getting Ready to Comply with the New Section 162(m).”)
The webcast listener asked whether acceleration of vesting of an equity grant is considered a material modification.
IRS Notice 2018-68 provides some initial guidance on application of the grandfather provision. The only thing the notice says on this is that an acceleration of payment of compensation is considered a material modification unless the payment is reduced to reflect the time value of money. I had assumed this would apply to acceleration of vesting of equity awards. As it turns out, however, the answer to the question during the webcast, which was given by Ilya Enkishev, who also happens to be the primary author of Notice 2018-68, was a little more nuanced.
Enkishev addressed the question in the context of stock options specifically. He noted that acceleration of vesting allows the employee to exercise the option earlier and that this is clearly a benefit to the option holder, but it isn’t clear that this benefit is material. He said that the IRS hopes to address this question in future guidance.
Catherine Creech of EY, who was also a panelist on the webcast, pointed out that there is guidance in the existing regulations on Section 162(m), in the context of the now eliminated performance-based compensation exemption, that acceleration of vesting isn’t a modification.
It is helpful to know that the IRS is thinking that acceleration of vesting might not be material for stock options, but I wouldn’t take it to the bank until actual guidance is issued. Whenever IRS representatives present, they are always careful to point out that the opinions they are expressing are their own and not necessarily that of the organization. Moreover, it’s not clear how this would apply to other types of equity compensation, e.g., RSUs, where the vesting event typically triggers a payout, so that accelerating vesting likely also has the effect of accelerating the payout.
If you want to listen to the question and response, it starts at about 1:26:08 in the recording. The transcript will be posted in the next couple of weeks.
Six Reasons Why Section 83(i) Is a Trap
One of the many challenges private companies face when offering stock compensation to their employees is that, whether in the form of stock options or awards, the grants may be subject to tax be...Read More
IRS Notice 2018-97 Provides Guidance on Section 83(i)
On December 7, the IRS issued Notice 201...Read More
Ten Things to Know About Qualified Equity Grants
On December 7, the IRS issued Notice 2018-97<...Read More
Section 162(m) and Negative Discretion, Part 2
Back in September, I blogged that one unresolved question on the new Se...Read More
New Section 162(m): Who’s Covered?
For today’s blog entry, I look at how the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act changes who is subject to Section 162(m).
Prior to the TCJA, a maximum of four executives w...Read More