Executive Compensation Planning: A Practical Guide to Designing and Protecting Executive Pay, Part 4: Section 280G – The Change-in-Control Tax Trap
In earlier installments, we covered equity compensation, the 83(b) election, deferred compensation, and Section 409A compliance. Now we turn to Section 280G, a provision that can impose severe penalties when executives receive significant payments in connection with a corporate acquisition or change in control. For any executive with equity awards, change-in-control bonuses, or accelerated vesting provisions, understanding these rules is critical to preserving after-tax value in a transaction.
Section 280G and its companion provision, Section 4999, impose significant penalties when an executive receives excess parachute payments in connection with a change in ownership or control. They operate with mathematical precision that can blindside companies and executives who have not planned ahead.
The calculation begins with the executive's “base amount,” which is the average annual W-2 compensation for the five calendar years preceding the year of the change in control. If the total payments contingent on the change in control equal or exceed three times the base amount, the arrangement triggers the golden parachute rules. The “excess parachute payment” is the amount by which total parachute payments exceed one times the base amount, and is subject to a 20% excise tax paid by the executive. The employer simultaneously loses its compensation deduction on the same amount.
Consider an executive with a $1 million base amount. Total change-in-control payments of $4 million exceed the 3x threshold. The excess parachute payment is $3 million, and the executive faces a $600,000 excise tax before any regular income tax is applied. The employer loses its deduction on the same $3 million.
Employment agreements historically addressed this risk through gross-up provisions, under which the employer agreed to make the executive whole for the excise tax. Gross-ups fell out of favor because they are expensive and self-defeating; the gross-up payment is itself a parachute payment, compounding the problem. Best-net or cutback provisions are now standard: if reducing payments to just below the 3x threshold produces a better after-tax outcome for the executive, the payments are automatically reduced.
For privately held corporations, a shareholder approval exception allows the parties to avoid the excise tax entirely if more than 75% of the disinterested voting power approves the payments and the relevant executives waive their right to the excess. This exception is not available to public companies.
The most effective 280G planning tool is time. A thorough analysis conducted before a letter of intent is signed creates meaningful options: accelerating certain payments outside the measurement window, allocating reasonable compensation to noncompete or consulting arrangements (excluded from parachute calculations to the extent they represent fair value for actual services), and structuring transaction payments to minimize the amount treated as contingent on the change in control.
What Counts as a Parachute Payment
The definition of “parachute payment” is broad. It includes any payment contingent on a change in control, whether in the form of cash, accelerated equity vesting, continued benefits, or assumption of unvested awards by the acquirer. Even payments that an executive would have received absent the change in control may be treated as contingent if their timing or amount is accelerated by the transaction. Careful analysis of each payment component is required to determine which amounts are included in the calculation.
Allocation and Reasonable Compensation
Reasonable compensation for services rendered before or after the change in control is excluded from the parachute payment calculation. This creates planning opportunities: allocating a portion of transaction payments to noncompete agreements, consulting arrangements, or retention bonuses tied to post-closing service can reduce the amount treated as a parachute payment. The allocation must be supportable, as the IRS will scrutinize whether the amounts represent fair value for actual services, but a well-documented analysis can meaningfully reduce 280G exposure.
Next in Part 5: Employment agreements, severance design, and Dodd-Frank clawback requirements, the contractual architecture that governs the executive relationship from hiring through departure.
DISCLAIMER: This summary is not legal advice and does not create any attorney-client relationship. This summary does not provide a definitive legal opinion for any factual situation. Before the firm can provide legal advice or opinion to any person or entity, the specific facts at issue must be reviewed by the firm. Before an attorney-client relationship is formed, the firm must have a signed engagement letter with a client setting forth the Firm’s scope and terms of representation. The information contained herein is based upon the law at the time of publication.