On this page
Section 280G: The Golden Parachute Excise Tax
The Section 280G golden parachute tax penalizes oversized executive payouts tied to a change in company control, often called golden parachutes. It pairs with Section 4999 to deny the company a deduction and hit the executive with a 20 percent excise tax when the payment crosses a defined line.
Key Takeaways
- The Section 280G golden parachute tax applies when change-in-control payments reach 3 times an executive's base amount.
- The company loses its deduction on the excess and the executive pays a 20 percent excise tax under Section 4999.
- The base amount is the executive's average annual taxable pay over the prior 5 years.
- A common error is ignoring the cliff, since crossing the threshold taxes a large chunk, not just the overage.
Key Takeaways
- The Section 280G golden parachute tax applies when change-in-control payments reach 3 times an executive's base amount.
- The company loses its deduction on the excess and the executive pays a 20 percent excise tax under Section 4999.
- The base amount is the executive's average annual taxable pay over the prior 5 years.
- A common error is ignoring the cliff, since crossing the threshold taxes a large chunk, not just the overage.
What the Section 280G Golden Parachute Tax Is
Section 280G of the Internal Revenue Code targets parachute payments, which are payments to certain insiders that are contingent on a change in ownership or control of a corporation. The Section 280G golden parachute tax is the penalty that applies when those payments grow too large. When those payments are large enough, the law disallows the company's deduction for the excess and a companion rule, Section 4999, imposes an excise tax on the recipient.
The rule applies to disqualified individuals: officers, more than 1 percent shareholders who provide services, and highly compensated individuals. It is a deal-time issue that surfaces in mergers and acquisitions.
The Intuition
In the 1980s takeover wave, executives negotiated huge payouts that triggered automatically when their company was acquired. Critics argued these deals enriched insiders at shareholders' expense and discouraged value-increasing takeovers. Congress responded with a tax penalty rather than an outright ban.
The design works as a deterrent. By denying the deduction and adding an excise tax, the cost of an excessive parachute rises sharply, pushing boards and executives to keep payouts within reasonable bounds relative to past pay.
How It Works
The first step is the base amount, the executive's average annual taxable compensation over the 5 years before the change in control. Section 280G triggers when total parachute payments equal or exceed 3 times that base amount.
Trigger: total parachute payments >= 3 x base amount
Excess parachute = parachute payments - (1 x base amount)
Excise tax: 20 percent of the excess parachute (Section 4999)
Deduction: company loses the deduction on the excess parachute
The threshold is a cliff. Once payments hit 3 times the base amount, the penalty applies to everything above 1 times the base amount, not just the small slice over the trigger. So a payment just past the line can be far more costly than one just under it. Some plans include a cutback that reduces the payout to just under the threshold to avoid the penalty entirely.
Worked Example
Suppose an executive has a base amount of 500,000 dollars, the average of taxable pay over the prior 5 years, and receives 1,600,000 dollars in change-in-control payments.
3 x base amount = 1,500,000 (trigger)
Payment 1,600,000 >= 1,500,000 -> Section 280G applies
Excess parachute = 1,600,000 - (1 x 500,000) = 1,100,000
Excise tax = 20 percent x 1,100,000 = 220,000
Company deduction lost on 1,100,000
Because the payment crossed the 1.5 million dollar trigger, the executive owes a 220,000 dollar excise tax on top of regular income tax, and the company cannot deduct the 1.1 million dollar excess. Had the payout been capped just under 1.5 million dollars, neither penalty would apply.
Common Mistakes
-
Missing the cliff effect. The penalty does not apply only to the amount over the trigger. Crossing 3 times the base amount taxes everything above 1 times the base amount.
-
Mismeasuring the base amount. It is the 5-year average of W-2 compensation, not current salary. Using the wrong figure throws off the entire calculation.
-
Overlooking accelerated equity. Vesting that speeds up because of the deal counts toward parachute payments. Plans that ignore it understate the exposure.
-
Forgetting the deduction loss. The company permanently loses its deduction on the excess. Boards that focus only on the executive's excise tax miss half the cost.
-
Skipping the private company shareholder vote. Privately held companies can sometimes cleanse parachute payments with a qualifying shareholder vote. Failing to run that process forfeits relief that public companies cannot use.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the Section 280G golden parachute tax in simple terms? The Section 280G golden parachute tax is a penalty on big payments executives get when their company is taken over. If the payout is large enough, the company loses a tax deduction and the executive owes an extra 20 percent tax.
How does Section 280G affect investment and deal decisions? It shapes how merger payouts and severance are structured, because crossing the threshold creates a large tax cost for both the company and the executive. Acquirers and boards model 280G exposure during deal negotiations.
What is a real-world example of Section 280G? An executive with a 500,000 dollar base amount receives 1,600,000 dollars in a takeover. Because that exceeds 3 times the base amount, the excise tax is 20 percent of the 1,100,000 dollar excess, or 220,000 dollars.
How can companies and executives avoid the Section 280G penalty? They can cap payments just below the 3 times threshold, structure pay to lower the parachute total, or, for private companies, use a qualifying shareholder vote to cleanse the payments. Modeling the base amount early is key.
How is Section 280G different from Section 409A? Section 280G penalizes large change-in-control payouts with an excise tax, while Section 409A governs the general timing of nonqualified deferred compensation. They can overlap in a merger but address different concerns.
Sources
- Cornell Legal Information Institute. "26 CFR 1.280G-1 - Golden parachute payments." https://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/26/1.280G-1
- IRS. "Revenue Ruling 2005-39, Section 280G - Golden Parachute Payments." https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/rr-05-39.pdf
- Grant Thornton. "Golden parachute payment rules: FAQs." https://www.grantthornton.com/insights/articles/tax/2024/golden-parachute-payment-rules-faqs
- Moss Adams. "Section 280G Golden Parachute Payment FAQ." https://www.mossadams.com/articles/2023/01/section-280g-golden-parachute-payment-faq
Disclaimer
This article is educational content only and is not financial advice. Nothing here is a recommendation to buy, sell, or hold any security. Consult a licensed advisor before making investment decisions.