February 26, 2021

Volume XI, Number 57


February 25, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 24, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

February 23, 2021

Subscribe to Latest Legal News and Analysis

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.


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.

© 2020 McDermott Will & EmeryNational Law Review, Volume VII, Number 235



About this Author

Andrew C. Liazos Executive Compensation Attorney McDermott Will Boston

Andrew C. Liazos is a partner in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP based in the Firm’s Boston office. Andrew heads the Firm's Executive Compensation Group and the Boston Employee Benefits Practice.

Andrew regularly represents Fortune 500 companies, public companies, large closely held businesses and compensation committees on all aspects of executive compensation, ERISA fiduciary matters, employee benefits in business transactions and bankruptcy, and employee stock ownership plans. He also counsels executives in employment agreement and joint...

617 535 4038
Joseph K. Urwitz, Employee Benefits Lawyer, McDermott Will Emery Law Firm

Joseph K. Urwitz is an associate in the law firm of McDermott Will & Emery LLP and is based in the Firm’s Boston office.  He focuses his practice on employee benefits, executive compensation and ERISA matters.  Joe’s experience includes ERISA fiduciary issues, benefits issues faced by non-profit entities, executive compensation and deferred compensation arrangements, equity award plan design, employment and severance arrangements, qualified plan work and employee benefits matters arising in mergers and acquisitions.

Joe received his J.D. from the University of Chicago Law School...