National insurance contributions
Subscribe to National insurance contributions's Posts

Protecting Employees’ Tax Position After a Spin-Off

Spin-offs have become increasingly popular with innovative companies as a method of unlocking shareholder value, but the transaction is not always tax-free, particularly for international employees holding equity awards or shares.

The ability to obtain tax-free treatment in the United States for both the company and shareholders in a spin-off is often attractive. However, the transaction is not always tax-free for shareholders located outside the US. When local country criteria are not met, the distribution of spin-co shares is taxable for shareholders.

Significantly, employees holding equity awards and company shares can be negatively affected by a spin-off, which can have a significant impact on morale at a very sensitive time in a spin-co’s evolution.

Companies generally take one of two approaches when adjusting equity awards in a spin-off: either a basket approach, where employees hold equity awards from both companies; or a concentration approach, where employees only retain equity awards from their post-spin employer. The basket approach raises more local tax and securities compliance issues than the concentration approach as the employee is holding awards from a company that is not their employer.

“Long” shares held by employees in an employer’s plan raise additional issues. The applicable tax analysis mirrors the analysis applicable to shareholders generally, which may or may not be taxable upon distribution, depending on the country. However, the tax result may differ when the shares are held in a trust or where the employee does not yet have full ownership of the shares. In certain cases, a local tax ruling should be submitted, potentially providing the employees with more favorable tax treatment than regular shareholders.

Tax-qualified equity awards also require consideration as the tax-advantaged treatment may be lost for the employees in many countries. For example, in the United Kingdom, Share Incentive Plans (SIPs) and Company Share Option Plans (CSOPs) are common equity awards and a spin-off impacts them differently.

When an employee holds shares in a SIP for five years, the employee may sell the shares without paying income tax or national insurance contributions. However, when a spin-off transaction does not meet the UK “demerger” rules for a tax-free spin-off, the SIP participants will be subject to taxation on the value of the distributed spin-co shares when they are distributed.

If an employee exercises CSOP options three or more years after grant, that employee doesn’t pay income tax at exercise for the difference between the exercise price and the current fair market value of the shares. Any adjustment of the CSOP awards results in the loss of tax-qualified treatment, subjecting the employee to income taxation when the options are exercised. Employees who have already met the three year requirement may therefore prefer to exercise the awards prior to the spin-off.

In most cases, particularly if the communication occurs shortly before the spin-off, employees do not fully understand the ramifications until it is too late to mitigate the tax impact. To avoid this, companies should communicate the tax implications to employees well before the spin-off, taking into [...]

Continue Reading




read more

UK Tax Changes Shift Worker Classification Burden to Clients

The UK Government has confirmed that it will extend to the private sector tax rules designed to target tax avoidance by contractors who operate through an intermediary personal service company (PSC).

The UK Government has announced that new “off-payroll working” tax rules (commonly known as IR35) will apply to the private sector from April 2020. The move will shift responsibility for determining the tax status of individuals who personally provide services through an intermediary personal service company from that PSC to the end user client.

(more…)




read more

UK Employment Alert: Changes To The Taxation Of Termination Payments

The government has published its response to feedback received on its proposals to simplify the taxation of termination payments, expected to come into force in April 2018.

The following table sets out the main proposals and the effect these will have on employers. Importantly, there is no change to the current £30,000 tax free allowance.

 

Proposal Change Effect 1. Termination payments above £30,000 to be subject to employer National Insurance contributions (NICs). Currently, termination payments above £30,000 only attract income tax, not NICs.
While employer NICs will be payable under the proposal, employee NICs won’t. At 13.8%, the addition of employer NICs could add a not inconsiderable cost to paying a termination payment exceeding £30,000. 2. All payments in lieu of notice (PILONs) (contractual and non-contractual) to be taxed as income.

Currently, contractual and non-contractual PILONs are taxed differently.

Contractual PILONs (that are provided for in the employment contract) are treated as earnings and subject to income tax and both employer and employee NICs.  Non-contractual PILONs, which are paid in the absence of the contractual right to do so, are subject to income tax, but not NICs.

It isn’t always straightforward to determine whether a PILON is contractual or not given that HMRC can also have regard to the regularity with which the employer pays PILONs.

This clarification is actually welcome given the differences in opinion which can arise when negotiating a settlement agreement. 3. Injury to feelings awards (such as for harassment or discrimination) will not qualify for general injury tax exemptions.

There is an exemption to income tax on termination payments, in addition to the £30,000 threshold, when a payment is made because of death, disability or injury of the employee.

It is currently unclear whether injury to feelings awards qualify for the exemption as there have been contradictory decisions on the point. This proposal would provide additional welcome clarity, but in common with all 3 proposals, means increased cost to employers.

These changes are likely to come into force in April 2018. Given that items 2 and 3 in the table clarify points that are currently argued either way, a prudent employer might want to veer on the side of caution when considering those issues before April 2018.

Lauren Goda (Trainee) contributed to this article.




read more

BLOG EDITORS

STAY CONNECTED

TOPICS

ARCHIVES

Top ranked chambers 2022
US leading firm 2022